G.R. No. 123213; November 15, 2001
NEPOMUCENA BRUTAS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and JOSE RADONA, SR., joined by his wife, FELICIANA RADONA, respondents.

FACTS

Spouses Jose and Feliciana Radona, Sr. filed an ejectment complaint against Nepomucena Brutas before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC). They alleged ownership and possession of a parcel of land in Palauig, Zambales, and claimed that Brutas occupied a 650-square-meter portion on the southwestern part by mere tolerance since she separated from their son, Jose Radona, Jr., her former common-law husband. They demanded she vacate the premises.
In her defense, Brutas asserted that the land she occupied was part of Lot No. 1083, titled under Original Certificate of Title No. P-11962 in the name of Alfredo Apuyan. She claimed that since 1973, she had been the appointed caretaker of Apuyan, residing there with Jose Radona, Jr. until their separation. The MCTC ruled in favor of the Radonas, a decision affirmed by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals. The appellate court held that the issue in ejectment is possession de facto and found the Radonas had a better right, noting Apuyan’s title was issued only recently in 1993 and deeming Brutas’s possession one of mere tolerance.

ISSUE

May Nepomucena Brutas, as the designated caretaker of the titled landowner, Alfredo Apuyan, be lawfully ejected by the Radona spouses who claim the land?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and ruled in favor of Brutas. In an unlawful detainer case, the plaintiff must prove prior physical possession and that the current possession began by mere tolerance. The Court found the Radonas failed to substantiate their claim of prior physical possession. They did not reside on the specific 650-square-meter portion occupied by Brutas and her house; their claim of ownership over the larger parcel did not automatically confer a better right to possess the specific area in dispute.
Critically, the subject area was part of a lot covered by a free patent and title officially issued to Alfredo Apuyan. As the titled owner, Apuyan possessed the legal right to designate a caretaker. Brutas presented Apuyan’s affidavit appointing her as such. Therefore, her possession was derived from and tacked to the lawful possession of the titled owner, making it superior to the claim of the Radonas, who were deemed strangers to the title. The Court emphasized that until a competent court cancels Apuyan’s title in proper proceedings, his rights, and consequently those of his caretaker, prevail. Ejecting Brutas would unjustly deprive her of her home based on an unsubstantiated claim.