G.R. No. 185627 March 15, 2017
SPOUSES BERNARDITO AND ARSENIA GAELA (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS NAMELY: BERNARDITO GAELA AND JOSELINE E. PAGUIRIGAN, Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES TAN TIAN HEANG AND SALLY TAN, Respondents.

FACTS

This is an ejectment case over two parcels of land in Pasig. The respondents, Spouses Tan, acquired the properties from Alexander Tam Wong, who had previously obtained title after a real estate mortgage executed by the petitioners’ daughter, allegedly through forgery of the petitioners’ signatures. The petitioners, Spouses Gaela, claimed ownership and filed a separate action for annulment of sale and cancellation of the respondents’ titles, annotating a notice of lis pendens thereon. The respondents demanded that the petitioners vacate the properties, but the latter refused.
The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) dismissed the ejectment complaint, finding the respondents had no cause of action. It reasoned that the petitioners’ possession could not be deemed unlawful from the point of demand because the petitioners had already filed an action asserting ownership before the demand was made, and the respondents were never in prior physical possession. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MeTC, ordering the petitioners to vacate and pay rentals, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Who between the parties has a better right to possess the subject properties?

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings, holding that the respondents have a better right of possession. The Court clarified that the pending action for annulment of title does not preclude the resolution of the ejectment case, which deals solely with the issue of possession de facto, not ownership.
The legal logic rests on the nature of ejectment suits and the rights conferred by registration. In an action for unlawful detainer, the plaintiff must prove that the initial possession was lawful but later became unlawful upon the defendant’s refusal to vacate after an explicit demand. The Court found these elements present. The respondents, as registered owners under Transfer Certificates of Title, have a presumptively better right of possession that flows from their ownership. The petitioners’ claim of a forged mortgage and their pending action for annulment, while potentially affecting ownership, do not automatically legitimize their continued physical possession against the registered owners. The annotation of lis pendens serves merely as a notice of a pending suit but does not invalidate the title or suspend the registered owner’s right to seek possession. Therefore, prior physical possession by the plaintiff is not a requisite in unlawful detainer when the action is based on the defendant’s withholding of possession from the owner by virtue of a contract or other legal provision. The respondents’ better right is derived from their Torrens title, which entitles them to the possession of the property.