G.R. No. 77418 . December 29, 1989.
RODERICK CASIS, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. RAFAEL T. MENDOZA, HON. BERNARDO B. NATANAWAN, and CIELITO T. SANTOS, respondents.

FACTS

The property, a house and lot, was originally owned by Nenita Suroza. She sold it twice: first to Cielito T. Santos on June 30, 1983, and second to Roderick Casis on July 19, 1983. Santos paid the mortgage redemption and received the owner’s duplicate certificate of title and the property key in February 1983, with the formal deed executed in June. He took possession and began renovations, allowing Suroza a period to vacate. Meanwhile, Suroza obtained a reconstituted title and sold the property to Casis, who registered the sale and secured a new title in his name. Casis filed an ejectment case (forcible entry) against Santos in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), which initially issued a restraining order but later dissolved it, finding Santos had prior possession. Casis elevated the matter via certiorari to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and then to the Court of Appeals, both dismissing his petitions. Concurrently, Casis filed a separate action for quieting title, where his plea for a preliminary injunction was also denied, a decision affirmed by this Court in G.R. No. 75248, which became final.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in the forcible entry case by not awarding possession to Casis, the registered owner, and instead upholding the MeTC’s order recognizing Santos’s prior possession.

RULING

The petition is denied. The Supreme Court held that certiorari is not the proper remedy to correct alleged errors in the evaluation of evidence, as no grave abuse of discretion was committed. In ejectment cases, the sole issue is physical or material possession (possession de facto), independent of ownership. The MeTC correctly limited itself to determining who had the better right to possession based on prior possession. Its finding that Santos had prior possession as of June 1983, evidenced by payment, receipt of the title and key, and commencement of renovations, is a factual conclusion binding upon review. The Court of Appeals properly deferred to this finding. Furthermore, the resolution in the final and executory quieting title case (G.R. No. 75248), which denied Casis’s plea for injunctive relief, operates as a bar to re-litigating the ancillary issue of interim possession. Since both the ejectment and quieting title cases involved the identical plea for possession pending ownership resolution, the prior final judgment is conclusive. Petitioner failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error or grave abuse warranting certiorari relief.