G.R. No. 204626, June 9, 2014.
PAUL P. GABRIEL, JR., IRENEO C. CALWAG, THOMAS L. TINGGA-AN, and the Heirs of JULIET B. PULKERA, Petitioners, vs. CARMELING CRISOLOGO, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Carmeling Crisologo, represented by her attorney-in-fact, filed a complaint for Recovery of Possession and/or Ownership with Damages against petitioners before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC). Crisologo alleged she was the registered owner of two parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. T-13935 and T-13936, having acquired them by sale in 1967, and had been paying realty taxes since 1969. She discovered in 2006 that petitioners had unlawfully entered, occupied, and constructed houses on her properties without her consent. After demands to vacate and an unfulfilled promise by petitioners to purchase the lots, Crisologo filed the suit. Petitioners countered that Crisologo’s titles were products of Civil Registration Case No. 1, Record 211, which were declared void by the Supreme Court in Republic v. Marcos and later nullified by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1271. They argued Crisologo failed to comply with the conditions in P.D. No. 1271 for title validation, rendering her titles void. Petitioners claimed they had been in open, actual, exclusive, notorious, uninterrupted, and continuous possession of the land in good faith, and that Crisologo was never in prior possession. The MTCC ruled in favor of Crisologo, ordering petitioners to vacate, pay rentals and attorney’s fees, holding that her titles could not be collaterally attacked. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTCC, finding the titles void due to the nullified proceedings and non-compliance with P.D. No. 1271. The Court of Appeals (CA) reinstated the MTCC decision, ruling Crisologo had a better right of possession.

ISSUE

Who between petitioners and respondent has a better right of possession over the subject parcels of land?

RULING

The Supreme Court held that respondent Carmeling Crisologo has a better right of possession. The Court explained that the action was an accion publiciana, an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession independently of title. While the validity of Crisologo’s titles was questionable due to their origin from the nullified Civil Reservation Case No. 1 and her apparent non-compliance with the validation conditions under P.D. No. 1271, the issue of ownership was not directly adjudicable in this possessory action. The Court found Crisologo had prior possession, established by her acquisition of the properties by sale in 1967, the subsequent issuance of certificates of title in her name, her payment of realty taxes since 1969, her appointment of an administrator for the properties, and her offer to sell the lots to petitioners. This prior possession entitled her to respect and protection under Article 539 of the Civil Code. Petitioners, who entered the properties by force or stealth in 2006, disturbed this prior possession. Therefore, regardless of the actual condition of her titles, Crisologo’s prior possession must be respected, and petitioners must restore possession to her. The petition was denied.