Cruz v. Catapang
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Leonor B. Cruz, Luz Cruz, and Norma Maligaya are co-owners of a 1,435 square meter parcel of land. In 1992, respondent Teofila M. Catapang, with the consent of co-owner Norma Maligaya, built a house on an adjacent lot, which intruded upon a portion of the co-owned property. Petitioner discovered this encroachment in September 1995 and demanded the demolition of the structure and vacation of the encroaching portion, but respondent refused. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a complaint for forcible entry against respondent before the 7th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Taal, Batangas. The MCTC ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering respondent to vacate and deliver possession of the encroached area. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 86, Taal, Batangas, affirmed the MCTC's decision. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC's ruling, dismissing the forcible entry complaint, holding that the consent of co-owner Norma Maligaya negated the element of strategy or stealth required for forcible entry. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the consent of only one co-owner is insufficient to authorize the construction of a house on co-owned property and does not defeat a forcible entry claim. The petition raises issues regarding whether knowledge and consent of one co-owner can serve as a valid license for a third party to build on co-owned property to the exclusion of other co-owners, and whether such entry constitutes forcible entry. Petitioner contends that her complaint was timely filed within the one-year period from her discovery of the encroachment.
Issue(s)
Whether the knowledge and consent of co-owner Norma Maligaya is a valid license for the respondent to erect a house on the co-owned premises without the consent of the petitioner and the other co-owner. Whether the respondent, by her acts, has acquired exclusive ownership over the portion of the lot subject of the premises pursuant to the consent granted by co-owner Norma Maligaya to the exclusion of the petitioner and the other co-owner. Whether the respondent obtained possession of the property in question by means of simple strategy.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 16, 2003, and the Resolution dated June 11, 2004, of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated October 22, 2001, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 86, Taal, Batangas, is REINSTATED. Costs against respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the consent of co-owner Norma Maligaya is a valid license for respondent to build a house on the co-owned premises: The Supreme Court held that a co-owner cannot devote common property to his or her exclusive use to the prejudice of the co-ownership. Consequently, a co-owner cannot give valid consent to another to build a house on co-owned property, as this is an act tantamount to devoting the property to exclusive use. This action is considered an alteration of the common property, which under Article 491 of the Civil Code, requires the consent of all co-owners. Therefore, the consent of Norma Maligaya alone was not sufficient to grant respondent the right to construct her house on the co-owned property. On the issue of whether respondent acquired exclusive ownership over the portion of the lot: The Court ruled that the consent of only one co-owner does not vest any right upon the respondent to enter the co-owned property, nor does it grant her exclusive ownership over any portion thereof. Ownership over a definite portion of land owned in common cannot be claimed by an individual co-owner until after partition. The act of constructing a house constitutes an act of dominion and an alteration of the common property, which cannot be validly done without the consent of all co-owners. On the issue of whether respondent obtained possession by means of simple strategy: The Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals' conclusion that there was no forcible entry because of the consent given by one co-owner. The Court found that the respondent's entry into the property without the permission of the petitioner could be considered a secret and clandestine act, done in connivance with co-owner Norma Maligaya. Furthermore, the act of securing consent from only one co-owner and allowing that co-owner to reside in the constructed house could be considered a strategy employed by the respondent to gain entry into the co-owned property. Thus, the respondent's acts constituted forcible entry, and the complaint was filed within the one-year prescriptive period from the time the petitioner learned of the encroachment.
Main Doctrine
Consent of only one co-owner to the construction of a house on co-owned property does not validate the entry of a third person and does not defeat a forcible entry case filed by another co-owner, as such an act constitutes an alteration of the common property requiring the consent of all co-owners.