G.R. No. 163053 ; November 25, 2009
AGRIFINA PANGANIBAN, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES ROMEO ROLDAN and ELIZABETH ROLDAN, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Agrifina Panganiban, registered owner of a parcel of land under OCT No. P-12388, filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against respondents Spouses Roldan. She alleged that the spouses entered the land in 1984, built a hut, and requested temporary residence out of pity, agreeing to vacate upon demand. In 1997, they refused her demand to vacate. In defense, the spouses claimed they had been occupying the lot since 1973 as caretakers under a Kasunduan (agreement) with the heirs of Concepcion dela Paz-Lesaca, the registered owner under an earlier TCT No. T-14882. They asserted Panganiban had no right to eject them.
The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) ruled for Panganiban, excluding the Kasunduan and TCT as evidence because these defenses were not raised in the respondents’ Answer or Pre-trial Brief, creating a variance between allegation and proof. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed, admitting the documents and recognizing the respondents’ right to possess.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in admitting the Kasunduan and TCT as evidence and in ruling that respondents’ right of possession prevails over petitioner’s title.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. On procedural grounds, the Court held that issues not raised in the pleadings may be tried by express or implied consent of the parties under Section 5, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court. The MTC and RTC erred in excluding the Kasunduan and TCT. Petitioner, by cross-examining witnesses on these documents and not objecting to their formal offer, impliedly consented to the trial of the issue of respondents’ authority from the prior titleholder. Thus, the evidence was admissible.
On substantive grounds, the Court upheld respondents’ superior right of possession. Respondents’ possession, originating from a 1973 Kasunduan with the registered owner under a 1972 title, was prior and vested. Petitioner’s OCT, issued only in 1994, was later. Against the documentary evidence of respondents’ lawful authority as caretakers, petitioner’s mere allegation of tolerance held no weight. Since respondents’ possession was derived from a prior title, petitioner, claiming under a later title, could not eject them in a simple action for recovery of possession. A conflict over the superiority of titles must be resolved in a separate proceeding for quieting of title. Therefore, respondents’ possession could not be disturbed in this case.