G.R. No. 128102 ; March 7, 2000
AZNAR BROTHERS REALTY COMPANY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, LUIS AYING, DEMETRIO SIDA, FELOMINO AUGUSTO, FEDERICO ABING, and ROMEO AUGUSTO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Aznar Brothers Realty Company (AZNAR) filed an unlawful detainer case against private respondents before the Municipal Trial Court (MTCC) of Lapu-Lapu City. AZNAR claimed ownership over Lot No. 4399 by virtue of an Extrajudicial Partition with Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the heirs of Crisanta Maloloy-on in 1964. It alleged that private respondents occupied portions of the lot by mere tolerance and refused to vacate despite demands, as AZNAR planned to develop the property. The MTCC ruled in favor of AZNAR, ordering the respondents to vacate. This decision was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which subsequently issued a writ of demolition, leading to the demolition of most of the respondents’ houses.
Private respondents, claiming to be descendants of the registered owners, contested AZNAR’s title. They argued the 1964 deed was void ab initio for being simulated and fraudulent, as not all heirs participated. They filed a separate action for its annulment before the RTC. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC’s decision in the ejectment case. It declared the respondents rightful possessors de facto, noting their long-standing possession, and permanently enjoined the demolition, holding the deed null for lack of participation by all heirs.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the Extrajudicial Partition with Deed of Absolute Sale null and void and in ruling on the issue of ownership in an ejectment suit, which primarily concerns possession.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the RTC decision. The Court held that the appellate court committed reversible error by definitively ruling on the validity of the deed of sale and, consequently, on ownership. In an unlawful detainer suit, the issue of ownership may be resolved only provisionally to determine the issue of possession. The MTCC and RTC correctly limited their examination to determining who had a better right of possession based on AZNAR’s title documents and the respondents’ claim of tolerance. The Torrens title and the duly registered deed constituted a prima facie right to possess, which was not sufficiently overturned by the respondents’ claims in the ejectment proceeding.
The Court emphasized that the respondents’ attack on the deed’s validity, alleging it was void for non-participation of all heirs, pertains to its voidable character, not void ab initio. Such a claim does not affect the deed’s efficacy for purposes of determining possession in an ejectment case. The final determination of the deed’s validity and the question of ownership must be adjudicated in the separate annulment case (Civil Case No. 2930-L) pending before the RTC. Therefore, the Court of Appeals overstepped its jurisdiction by making a definitive ruling on ownership, which is beyond the scope of a summary ejectment proceeding. Possession, based on AZNAR’s documentary title, was correctly awarded to the petitioner.