G.R. No. 262034, May 22, 2024
MERCURIA B. MAGSI, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF IGNACIO A. LOPEZ, JR., NAMELY: DELIA DE GUZMAN LOPEZ AND LORRAINE DE GUZMAN LOPEZ, AND RODOLFO BARNACHEA, SR., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Mercuria B. Magsi, a retired DPWH employee and member of the Engineers Hill Lotless Homeseekers Association, Inc., applied to purchase a government cottage and lot under R.A. No. 1361, as amended by R.A. No. 5941. She was awarded Lot No. 50, which she had occupied since 1981, building a bodega that was later rebuilt into a residential house after a 1991 earthquake. She declared the house and lot for tax purposes in 1993 and 1990, respectively. In 2016, respondent Rodolfo Barnachea, Sr., acting for the Heirs of Ignacio Lopez, Jr., threatened Magsi’s children with demolition. In October 2016, while Magsi’s children were on vacation, respondents enclosed the property with fences, posted a “NO TRESPASSING” sign, nailed the main door, and stationed dogs, blocking Magsi’s access. Magsi filed a Complaint for Forcible Entry and Damages. Respondents claimed the lot occupied by Magsi was inside Lot No. 49, which was already titled in the name of Ignacio Lopez, Jr., having been purchased from the government, and that Magsi’s structure was illegal. During the preliminary conference, the parties stipulated that: (1) the property was previously owned by the National Government under R.A. No. 1361; (2) the lot applied for by Magsi is Lot No. 50; (3) Lot No. 49 is titled in the name of Ignacio Lopez, Jr.; and (4) the property Magsi seeks to recover is inside the titled property of the Heirs of Lopez as per the metes and bounds in the title. The MTCC ruled in favor of Magsi, ordering respondents to surrender possession. The RTC affirmed the MTCC. The Court of Appeals reversed, dismissing the complaint, holding that as holders of a Torrens title over Lot No. 49, respondents have a better right to possession as an attribute of ownership, and that Ignacio became the constructive possessor of the entire lot upon registration of the title.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondents, as registered owners of Lot No. 49, have a better right to possession over the subject property than petitioner, who claims prior physical possession under a pending award from the government.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The core issue in an ejectment case is possession de facto, not ownership. However, where the parties raise the issue of ownership and their respective claims of possession are rooted in ownership, the court may provisionally rule on ownership to determine who has a better right to possess. The parties’ stipulation that the subject property is inside the metes and bounds of titled Lot No. 49 is binding. Between Magsi’s claim of prior physical possession based on a pending government award and the Heirs of Lopez’s claim of constructive possession flowing from a registered Torrens title, the latter has a better right. The registration of the deed of sale and issuance of the title in favor of Ignacio Lopez, Jr. constituted a juridical act of possession over the entire Lot No. 49. Magsi’s physical possession, even if prior, cannot prevail over the registered owner’s constructive possession. The Torrens system confers upon the registered owner the right to possess the property covered by the title. Therefore, respondents, as heirs of the registered owner, have a superior right to possession of the disputed portion within Lot No. 49. The complaint for forcible entry was correctly dismissed for lack of merit.