GR 118284; (July, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 118284 July 5, 1996
SPOUSES MAMERTO REFUGIA and FELIZA PAYAD-REFUGIA, et al., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES ARTURO REFUGIA and AURORA TIMBANG-REFUGIA, respondents.
FACTS
The private respondents, spouses Arturo and Aurora Refugia, are the registered owners of a lot and duplex in Valenzuela, evidenced by TCT No. 218979 issued pursuant to a 1975 Deed of Absolute Sale. Petitioners, led by Arturo’s father Mamerto, claim Mamerto advanced the P20,000 purchase price. After construction in 1976, petitioners occupied one unit and respondents the other. In 1993, respondents demanded petitioners vacate, alleging a child needed the unit. Petitioners refused, asserting co-ownership based on Mamerto’s payment.
The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) dismissed the ejectment complaint, finding petitioners’ possession was not by mere tolerance but based on an agreement for co-ownership, inferred from the duplex construction and the fund source. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), on appeal, affirmed but modified the judgment by declaring the parties co-owners of the property.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the lower courts and ordered petitioners’ ejectment.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. In an ejectment case, the sole issue is physical or material possession (possession de facto), independent of any claim of ownership. The lower courts exceeded their jurisdiction. The MeTC, as an ejectment court, and the RTC, exercising its limited appellate jurisdiction over ejectment, had no authority to resolve the issue of ownership or to declare the parties as co-owners. Their jurisdiction was confined to determining who had a better right of possession based on the allegations and evidence pertinent to possession.
The claim of co-ownership, while raised as a defense, did not divest the ejectment court of its jurisdiction over the possessory issue. Petitioners’ possession originated from respondents’ tolerance as family members. Upon respondents’ explicit demand to vacate, that tolerance was severed, and petitioners’ continued occupation became unlawful. A Torrens title, like that held by respondents, is conclusive evidence of ownership, and petitioners’ bare allegation of a resulting trust, unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, cannot prevail against it. The proper remedy for petitioners to assert their claimed co-ownership is a separate action for reconveyance or quieting of title, not a defense in an ejectment suit.