Guanga v. Dela Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Artemio dela Cruz filed an unlawful detainer suit against his sister, petitioner Carmelita Guanga, for the latter's refusal to vacate the second floor of a house owned by respondent. Respondent alleged he allowed petitioner to use the second floor only for the wake of her husband, which ended on December 18, 1996. Petitioner denied respondent's ownership and claimed prior possession, asserting she and her family had lived in the house for a long time. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering petitioner to vacate and pay attorney's fees, finding that petitioner's stay was merely tolerated. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 72, reversed the MTCC ruling, finding that petitioner was in continuous possession and that respondent's claim of tolerance was belied by pending criminal cases between them. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, reinstating the MTCC's decision, and held that respondent had the better right of possession, finding petitioner's possession to be merely tolerated. The Petition: Petitioner sought review of the CA's decision, arguing that the CA erred in holding that respondent merely tolerated her stay, that respondent had a better right of possession, that the CA erred in considering the Waiver and Transfer of Possessory Rights, that the CA erred in concluding the RTC's decision was speculative, and that the CA erred in its findings regarding the mortgage contracts.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ruling that respondent Artemio Dela Cruz has the better right of possession de facto over the subject property.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated 25 April 2001 and the Resolution dated 1 October 2001 of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the petition primarily raised factual issues, which are not cognizable under a Rule 45 petition. Applying Section 1 of Rule 45, the Court emphasized that its jurisdiction is limited to questions of law. The MTCC correctly identified that the only issue in an ejectment suit is physical or material possession (possession de facto). While courts may inquire into ownership, this is done solely to determine the character and extent of possession. Artemio successfully proved prior possession dating back to 1968 through his sales patent application and tax declarations filed in 1969. The Court clarified that possession does not require a person to have their feet on every square meter of the ground; it is sufficient that the property is subject to the action of one's will. Consequently, the CA did not err in finding that Carmelita's stay was by tolerance and that Artemio had the superior right to de facto possession based on established evidence.
Main Doctrine
In unlawful detainer cases, the primary issue is who has the better right of possession de facto. While ownership may be inquired into for the limited purpose of determining prior possession, the ultimate determination rests on who is entitled to physical possession.