GR 205283; (June, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 205283 , June 7, 2017
ABIGAIL L. MENDIOLA, Petitioner, vs. VENERANDO P. SANGALANG, Respondent.
FACTS
The property in dispute, originally registered in the name of Honorata G. Sangalang, became the subject of an accion publiciana filed by petitioner Abigail Mendiola and her co-plaintiff Vilma Aquino against respondent Venerando Sangalang. Honorata died intestate in 1994, with no direct descendants, leaving the petitioner and respondent as her heirs from different sibling lines. In 2003, the respondent discovered that the property had been transferred to the petitioner and Vilma under a new title (TCT No. N-148021) by virtue of a Deed of Sale dated January 29, 1996, purportedly executed by Honorata. The respondent then forcibly occupied a unit in the residential house on the property. The petitioner demanded he vacate and, upon his refusal, filed a suit to recover possession.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner has a better right of possession over the subject property to successfully maintain an accion publiciana for the eviction of the respondent.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the dismissal of the accion publiciana. The Court held that the petitioner failed to prove a better right of possession. While an accion publiciana primarily concerns possession, the court may provisionally resolve the issue of ownership to determine possession, as allowed under Section 16, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. Here, the foundational document for the petitioner’s claim of ownership—the Deed of Sale—was void, as it was executed in 1996, two years after Honorata’s death in 1994, rendering Honorata’s signature a forgery.
A void deed produces no legal effect. Consequently, the transfer of title to the petitioner and Vilma was invalid. They did not acquire any rights under the forged instrument, and the original ownership remained with Honorata. By intestate succession, both the petitioner and the respondent, as Honorata’s heirs, became co-owners of the property. As co-owners, they possess equal rights to its possession. Therefore, the petitioner, being merely a co-owner, could not exclude another co-owner (the respondent) from possession through a possessory action like accion publiciana. The award of attorney’s fees to the respondent was likewise affirmed.