G.R. No. 196219 , July 30, 2014
SPOUSES MAURICIO M. TABINO and LEONILA DELA CRUZ-TABINO, Petitioners, vs. LAZARO M. TABINO, Respondent.

FACTS

In 1985, petitioner Mauricio M. Tabino (a military technical sergeant) and his brother, respondent Lazaro M. Tabino (a military colonel), occupied a 353-square meter lot in Pembo, Makati City. Mauricio established residence on the lot, while respondent resided in Novaliches, Quezon City. The lot was subdivided into Lot 2 (184 sq m) and Lot 3 (169 sq m). Mauricio applied for coverage of Lot 2 under Proclamation No. 518, which opened certain Fort Bonifacio areas for disposition to bona fide occupants/residents as of January 7, 1986, with a maximum area of 300 square meters per applicant. Respondent applied for Lot 3 and was issued a Revocable Permit to occupy only 150 square meters; a Certificate of Award for Lot 3 was later issued to him in 1988.
In 2004, respondent filed an ejectment case against petitioners before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), claiming he was the true owner of the entire lot, that Mauricio’s application was merely to circumvent the 300-sq-m limit, and that petitioners’ possession was by mere tolerance. Petitioners countered that they were caretakers of Lot 3 under an agreement for a monthly salary, which respondent failed to pay, and that a Protest regarding Lot 2 was pending with the DENR.
Both parties filed Protests with the DENR. In Case No. 2004-821, the DENR denied respondent’s Protest against petitioners regarding Lot 2, finding respondent disqualified under Proclamation No. 518 as he had already been awarded another home lot in Fort Bonifacio, and that Mauricio was the bona fide resident/occupant. In Case No. 2005-939, the DENR granted petitioners’ Protest against respondent regarding Lot 3, similarly finding respondent disqualified and not a bona fide resident, and cancelling the application of respondent’s son. The DENR found Mauricio in actual possession of both lots since 1985.
The MeTC dismissed the ejectment complaint, upholding petitioners’ possession based on the DENR findings. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MeTC. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed, granting the ejectment suit. The CA gave weight to a 1994 Affidavit executed by Mauricio acknowledging respondent as the true owner of Lot 2 and that he was merely allowed to occupy it, concluding that petitioners’ possession was by mere tolerance. The CA held that the sole issue in ejectment is physical possession, and respondent had shown prior actual possession.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the lower courts and ruling in favor of respondent Lazaro M. Tabino in the ejectment case.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the Petition, reversed the Court of Appeals Decision, and reinstated the MeTC and RTC Decisions dismissing the ejectment complaint.
The Supreme Court held that the sole issue in an ejectment case is physical or material possession, independent of ownership. However, the question of possession is intertwined with the issue of who between the parties had prior physical possession. The Court found that the DENR, in its twin Orders, conclusively established that petitioners, particularly Mauricio, were the bona fide occupants and actual possessors of the disputed lots since 1985. In contrast, respondent was found disqualified under Proclamation No. 518, was not a bona fide resident, and was permitted to occupy only 150 square meters. These administrative findings, which were not tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness, are accorded respect and finality. The 1994 Affidavit did not negate these findings, as it pertained only to Lot 2 and did not establish respondent’s prior physical possession. Since petitioners were in prior physical possession, respondent could not maintain an ejectment suit against them. The purpose of an ejectment suit is to prevent breaches of the peace and criminal disorder by providing a peaceful means for a person deprived of possession to be restored thereto. Respondent, not being in prior physical possession, could not use ejectment to recover possession from petitioners.