G.R. No. 183822; January 18, 2012
RUBEN C. CORPUZ, represented by Attorney-in-Fact Wenifreda C. Agullana, Petitioner, vs. Sps. HILARION AGUSTIN and JUSTA AGUSTIN, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ruben C. Corpuz filed a complaint for ejectment (unlawful detainer) against respondent spouses Hilarion and Justa Agustin before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Laoag City. Petitioner alleged he is the registered owner of two parcels of land covered by TCT No. T-12980, issued on October 29, 1976. The properties, originally owned by Elias Duldulao (OCT No. O-1717), were sold to Francisco D. Corpuz (petitioner’s father) in 1951. Francisco allowed the respondent spouses, who are relatives, to occupy the properties. Despite demand, respondents refused to vacate. Petitioner claimed a better right to possession, having acquired the properties from his father via a Deed of Quitclaim dated March 15, 1971, which was annotated on OCT No. O-1717 and resulted in the issuance of TCT No. T-12980 in his name.
Respondents, in their Answer, claimed they are occupying the properties as owners, having bought them from Francisco Corpuz through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 5, 1971, for a consideration of ₱11,150.00. This Deed of Sale was notarized but was not annotated on the title and remained unregistered.
The MTC dismissed the complaint, finding that respondents entered and occupied the properties as buyers/owners, not by mere tolerance, and had been in continuous possession as owners for a long time. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTC dismissal on appeal. The Court of Appeals (CA) likewise dismissed petitioner’s appeal. The CA noted a double sale by Francisco Corpuz (Quitclaim to petitioner on March 15, 1971, and Deed of Sale to respondents on June 5, 1971). It ruled that petitioner had knowledge of the sale to respondents as early as 1973 but took no action to annul it. The CA held that respondents’ possession was in the exercise of ownership, not by mere tolerance, and that petitioner’s inaction despite knowledge was equivalent to registration of respondents’ unregistered deed. Thus, the ejectment complaint must fail.

ISSUE

Who between the parties has the better right to possession of the disputed properties — the petitioner, who is the registered owner under TCT No. T-12980, or the respondents, who have a notarized but unregistered Deed of Absolute Sale over the same properties?

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and affirmed the decisions of the lower courts, ruling that respondents have the better right to possession in this unlawful detainer case.
The Court explained that an ejectment case (accion interdictal) is a summary action to recover physical possession (possession de facto), where the issue is who has a better right to possess. While courts may provisionally rule on the issue of ownership to resolve possession, such determination is not a final adjudication of title.
In this case, the respondents’ possession was anchored on their claim of ownership by virtue of the 1971 Deed of Absolute Sale. Their possession was in the concept of an owner, not by mere tolerance of the petitioner or his father. The petitioner, despite being the registered owner, failed to prove that respondents’ possession was originally by his or his father’s permission, which is a requisite for unlawful detainer. The action for unlawful detainer presumes that the possession was initially lawful but became unlawful upon the owner’s demand to vacate. Here, respondents asserted ownership from the start, and their possession was adverse. Furthermore, the petitioner’s long inaction (from 1973 when he allegedly gained knowledge of the sale) militated against his claim for immediate possession through a summary ejectment proceeding. The Court emphasized that a Torrens title does not automatically confer a better right to possession in an ejectment suit where the issue of ownership is directly contested and the defendant’s possession is in the concept of an owner. The summary nature of ejectment proceedings is ill-suited to resolve the complex issue of ownership presented here.