Rodriguez v. Rodriguez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the ownership and possession of a five-door apartment building. Juanito Rodriguez, the original owner, executed a last will and testament bequeathing specific units to his live-in partner, Cresenciana Tubo Rodriguez (petitioner), and his children, the respondents. However, Juanito later executed a Deed of Absolute Sale for the entire property in favor of Cresenciana. Following Juanito's death, Cresenciana filed an unlawful detainer case against the respondents, alleging they were occupying units by her tolerance and had unlawfully leased them out without her consent. Procedural History: The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) dismissed Cresenciana's unlawful detainer complaint, finding the deed of sale to be simulated and giving effect to a Partition Agreement executed by the parties based on the unprobated will. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTC's decision, holding that Cresenciana's certificate of title was conclusive evidence of ownership and that the unprobated will and partition agreement had no legal effect. The Court of Appeals subsequently reversed the RTC's decision, reinstating the MTC's dismissal of the complaint and finding that the MTC had correctly considered ownership in resolving the issue of possession. The Petition: This petition for review on certiorari assails the Court of Appeals' decision. The petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC's decision and reinstating the MTC's dismissal. She contends that as the registered owner, she has the right to possession and that the issue of ownership cannot be resolved in an ejectment case unless intertwined with possession. She further argues that the Court of Appeals erred in giving effect to the unprobated will and the partition agreement, especially since the testator allegedly revoked the will by selling the property to her prior to his death. The petitioner seeks to have the Court of Appeals' decision reversed and the RTC's decision reinstated.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error of law and grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Regional Trial Court and reinstating the Metropolitan Trial Court's decision dismissing the petitioner's complaint for unlawful detainer. Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error of law and grave abuse of discretion in declaring that the property was subject to Juanito Rodriguez's "Huling Habilin at Testamento" wherein the property was distributed to his heirs, including the petitioner.
Ruling
The Court reversed and set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, ordering the defendants and all persons claiming rights under them to vacate the premises and surrender possession to the plaintiff, and to pay monthly rentals.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error of law and grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Regional Trial Court and reinstating the Metropolitan Trial Court's decision dismissing the petitioner's complaint for unlawful detainer: The Court held that an action for unlawful detainer primarily concerns possession de facto, not ownership. However, when the defendant raises the defense of ownership, the court may resolve the issue of ownership provisionally to determine possession, as provided in Section 16 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. In this case, the petitioner's cause of action was based on her alleged ownership evidenced by a certificate of title. The respondents assailed this title by claiming the deed of sale was simulated and void, presenting an unprobated "Huling Habilin at Testamento" and a Partition Agreement. The Court found that the "Huling Habilin at Testamento" and the Partition Agreement had no legal effect because the will was not probated, which is a mandatory requirement for a will to have force or validity. Article 838 of the Civil Code mandates that no will shall pass property unless proved and allowed. Consequently, the Partition Agreement, executed pursuant to the unprobated will, could not be given effect, making petitioner's participation in it immaterial for possession determination. The Court emphasized that a certificate of title is conclusive evidence of ownership and cannot be subjected to collateral attack, especially in a summary ejectment case. The validity of the deed of sale and the title can only be assailed in a direct proceeding, such as Civil Case No. 01-1641, which was pending between the parties. Therefore, based on the deed of sale and the certificate of title, the petitioner, as the registered owner, had a better right to possession. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error of law and grave abuse of discretion in declaring that the property was subject to Juanito Rodriguez's "Huling Habilin at Testamento" wherein the property was distributed to his heirs, including the petitioner: The Court ruled that the "Huling Habilin at Testamento" and the Partition Agreement executed pursuant thereto had no legal effect because the will was not probated. The Court reiterated the settled rule that before any will can have force or validity, it must be probated, and this cannot be dispensed with as it is a matter of public policy. Article 838 of the Civil Code explicitly states that no will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court. Since the will was not probated, the Partition Agreement, which was allegedly entered into pursuant to the will, could not be given effect. Thus, the fact that the petitioner was a party to the Partition Agreement became immaterial in the determination of the issue of possession. The Court further noted that at the time the deed of sale was executed in favor of the petitioner, Juanito Rodriguez was still the owner of the property, and ownership would only pass to his heirs upon his death. Therefore, he had the absolute right to dispose of the property during his lifetime. The validity of this disposition was a matter to be resolved in the separate civil action filed for that purpose, not in the ejectment case.
Main Doctrine
In an unlawful detainer case, while the issue of ownership may be provisionally ruled upon to determine possession de facto, the resolution is not conclusive and does not bar a direct action to determine title. A certificate of title is conclusive evidence of ownership and cannot be subject to collateral attack in an ejectment suit.