GR 175720; (September 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175720; September 11, 2007
CRESENCIANA TUBO RODRIGUEZ (substituted by SUSANA A. LLAGAS), Petitioner, vs. EVANGELINE RODRIGUEZ, BELEN RODRIGUEZ and BUENAVENTURA RODRIGUEZ, Respondents.
FACTS
Juanito Rodriguez owned a five-door apartment. In 1983, he executed a “Huling Habilin at Testamento” (last will and testament) distributing specific apartment units to his live-in partner, petitioner Cresenciana Tubo Rodriguez, and his children, the respondents. However, in 1984, Juanito executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the entire property in favor of the petitioner, resulting in the issuance of a new Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in her name. In 2001, petitioner filed an unlawful detainer complaint against respondents, alleging she allowed them to occupy units out of tolerance, but they had leased the units to third parties without her consent.
Respondents contested the ejectment, claiming ownership by succession. They argued the 1984 deed of sale was simulated and void, having been executed for a grossly inadequate price while Juanito was seriously ill. They also cited a 1990 Partition Agreement, which they entered into with the petitioner, recognizing co-ownership and partitioning the property according to the unprobated will.
ISSUE
Whether the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in dismissing the ejectment complaint by resolving the issue of ownership based on the unprobated will and the partition agreement.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the CA and reinstated the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) decision ordering respondents to vacate. The Court held that in an ejectment case, the issue of possession is paramount. While title or ownership may be provisionally examined to determine who has a better right of possession, the court cannot make a definitive adjudication on ownership. Here, the petitioner’s Torrens title is conclusive evidence of her ownership until annulled in a proper action. The MTC and CA erred in giving weight to the unprobated “Huling Habilin,” which produced no legal effect, and the subsequent Partition Agreement, which could not confer rights superior to a registered title. The pending action for annulment of the deed of sale did not preclude the ejectment suit. The petitioner, as the registered owner, possessed a clear and superior right to possession, which is an attribute of ownership. The ruling on ownership for purposes of possession is merely provisional and does not prejudice the resolution of the annulment case.