Heirs of Lasam v. Umengan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the possession of a lot in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan. The petitioners, the Heirs of Rosendo Lasam, claim ownership based on a purported last will and testament of Isabel Cuntapay, who allegedly bequeathed the subject lot to their predecessor, Rosendo Lasam. They assert that the respondent, Vicenta Umengan, has been occupying the lot by mere tolerance since 1955 and should vacate upon demand. The respondent, Vicenta Umengan, contends that the lot was inherited by Isabel Cuntapay's six children through intestate succession, and that her father, Abdon Turingan, along with her uncles Rufo and Sado, and aunt Maria, sold or donated their respective shares to her. She asserts that Rosendo Lasam and his sister Trinidad only inherited a portion of the lot. Procedural History: The Heirs of Rosendo Lasam filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Vicenta Umengan with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC). The MTCC ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the ejectment of the respondent, primarily relying on the purported last will and testament of Isabel Cuntapay. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTCC's decision. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's ruling, dismissing the unlawful detainer complaint. The CA found that the purported will lacked the required legal formalities and raised doubts about its authenticity, while acknowledging the respondent's deeds of sale and donation and her long-standing possession. The CA's decision was subsequently affirmed by the CA upon denial of the petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The petitioners, the Heirs of Rosendo Lasam, seek a review on certiorari of the CA's decision and resolution. They argue that the CA erred in reversing the lower courts' decisions and dismissing their unlawful detainer complaint. Specifically, they contend that the CA improperly discussed the validity of Isabel Cuntapay's last will and testament in an unlawful detainer case, which should only concern physical possession. They also claim that the CA should not have considered the respondent's deeds of sale and donation, as the issue of ownership was allegedly settled in a prior partition case (Civil Case No. 4917), which they argue constituted res judicata. The petitioners maintain that they have a better right to possession, citing an affidavit from the respondent's brother attesting to her possession by mere tolerance.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court and dismissing the complaint for unlawful detainer. Whether the purported Last Will and Testament of Isabel Cuntapay, not having been probated, can serve as a basis for claiming ownership and possession. Whether the deeds of sale and donation in favor of Vicenta Umengan, coupled with her prior possession, establish a better right to possess the subject lot. Whether the dismissal of the partition case (Civil Case No. 4917) constituted res judicata on the issue of ownership or the validity of the conveyances. Whether the heirs of Isabel Cuntapay by her first marriage could validly convey their pro indiviso shares in the subject lot.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nature of unlawful detainer cases and provisional ruling on ownership: The Court reiterated that in ejectment suits, the primary issue is physical possession, independent of ownership. However, the issue of ownership may be provisionally ruled upon solely to determine who is entitled to possession de facto. The CA's ruling on the validity of the will was a provisional determination for the purpose of resolving the unlawful detainer case and did not constitute a binding adjudication on ownership. The parties remain free to file an appropriate action to directly contest ownership. On the validity and effect of an unprobated Last Will and Testament: The Court reiterated the well-settled principle that no will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court, citing Article 838 of the Civil Code. The Court emphasized that a will is essentially ambulatory and has no legal effect whatsoever until admitted to probate. Therefore, the purported Last Will and Testament of Isabel Cuntapay, which had not been probated, could not be the source of any right for the petitioners. The MTCC and RTC erroneously relied on this unprobated will to grant possession to the petitioners. Consequently, the petitioners could not claim any right thereunder, rendering their claim of ownership and better right to possession based on the will invalid. On the better right to possess based on deeds of conveyance and prior possession: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that Vicenta Umengan had a better right to possess the subject lot. This right was based on the deeds of sale and donation executed in her favor by the children of Isabel Cuntapay by her first marriage, who were co-owners of the property. Coupled with her continuous possession of the subject lot since 1955, these conveyances established a stronger claim to possession compared to the petitioners' claim, which was anchored on an unprobated will. The CA correctly noted that such prior possession gives the respondent the right to remain in the lot until a person with a better right lawfully ejects her. On the issue of res judicata: The Court agreed with the CA that the dismissal of respondent's action for partition in Civil Case No. 4917 did not constitute res judicata. For res judicata to apply, a judgment on the merits is required. The dismissal in Civil Case No. 4917 was based on the discovery of Isabel Cuntapay's alleged will, and the court merely ordered the filing of a petition for its probate to determine legitimes before partition. It did not constitute a judgment on the merits of the ownership claim. Therefore, the CA was not precluded from passing upon the validity of the conveyances and determining the right to possession in the unlawful detainer case. On the validity of conveyances of pro indiviso shares: The Court clarified that the children of Isabel Cuntapay by her first marriage could validly convey their respective pro indiviso shares in the subject lot to Vicenta Umengan. Even though the property was still covered by Original Certificates of Title in the names of Pedro and Leona Cuntapay and had not been formally partitioned, the heirs were deemed co-owners. The law recognizes the right of an heir to dispose of their ideal share in a co-ownership, even if the estate is under administration. The effect of such alienation is limited to the portion that may be allotted to the seller upon final partition. Thus, the deeds of sale and donation were valid concerning the undivided shares of the sellers.
Main Doctrine
A last will and testament, even if allegedly discovered, has no legal effect and cannot be the source of any right unless it has been probated in accordance with the Rules of Court. Possession based on an unprobated will cannot prevail over possession based on valid deeds of conveyance and prior physical possession.