G.R. No. 193887 March 29, 2017
Spouses Dennis Orsolino and Melody Orsolino, Petitioners vs. Violeta Frany, Respondent

FACTS

Respondent Violeta Frany filed an ejectment complaint against petitioners Spouses Orsolino over a house and lot in Quezon City. Frany claimed Carolina Orsolino, mother of petitioner Dennis, executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) authorizing her son Sander to sell the property. Sander subsequently sold it to Frany via a Deed of Sale. It was agreed the petitioners, as occupants, would vacate by November 2004, but they refused despite demands.
The petitioners defended their possession, asserting the property was government-owned and they derived rights from their mother Carolina, who allegedly purchased it from another. They denied knowledge of the sale, claimed Dennis had no brother named “Sander,” and alleged Carolina’s signature on the SPA and Deed of Sale was forged, rendering the documents spurious.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent, as buyer, has a better right of possession over the property, thereby warranting the petitioners’ ejectment.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ reinstatement of the MeTC decision ordering the petitioners to vacate. The legal logic centered on the validity of the SPA and Deed of Sale, which established the respondent’s superior possessory right for purposes of ejectment.
The petitioners’ defense of forgery failed due to insufficient evidence. Mere allegations and pointing to minor alterations in the documents’ place of execution do not constitute clear and convincing proof of forgery. The respondent presented corroborative evidence, including acknowledgment receipts signed by “Sander” and “Lysander” (whom petitioner Dennis admitted was his brother) for the purchase price, witnessed by a common individual also present on the SPA. This substantiated that Sander and Lysander were the same person and that the sale occurred. Forgery cannot be presumed; it must be proved by a preponderance of evidence, which the petitioners did not provide. They did not present exemplars of Carolina’s genuine signature for comparison, as required by the rules on evidence.
Since the SPA and Deed of Sale were deemed valid, the sale transferred ownership rights to the respondent. In an unlawful detainer suit, the only issue is physical or material possession; the respondent, as the recognized owner by virtue of the valid sale, holds the better right to possession. The petitioners, having no right to continue occupying the property after the owner demanded they vacate, are unlawfully withholding possession. Thus, ejectment is proper.