Quijano v. Amante
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The petitioner and her siblings inherited a parcel of land from their father. Prior to the partition of the estate, one of the siblings, Eliseo, sold portions of his share to the respondent, Atty. Daryll A. Amante, in 1990 and 1991. These sales were documented by deeds of absolute sale, with the latter deed stating it was with the approval of Eliseo's siblings. Subsequently, the heirs executed a deed of extrajudicial partition, which resulted in the portions previously sold to the respondent being adjudicated to the petitioner. When the petitioner demanded the respondent vacate the property, he refused, leading to the filing of an ejectment case. Procedural History: The petitioner initiated an ejectment and damages case against the respondent before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Cebu City, alleging unlawful detainer. The MTCC ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering the respondent to vacate and pay damages. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTCC's decision, dismissing the complaint and holding that an ejectment suit was improper due to the serious question of ownership involved. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, dismissing the ejectment case but on the ground that the respondent was either a co-owner or an assignee with the right of possession. The Petition: The petitioner seeks review by certiorari of the CA's decision, arguing that the CA erred in holding that the respondent was a co-owner or assignee with the right of possession. The petitioner contends that the respondent, being a lawyer, was aware of the defect in Eliseo's title as he could not validly transfer ownership of a portion of an undivided estate. She asserts that the respondent's acquisition was in bad faith, and her ignorance of the sale led her to believe his occupancy was by mere tolerance. The core issue presented to the Supreme Court is who between the petitioner and the respondent has the better right to the possession of the disputed property.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA erred in holding that the respondent was either a co-owner or an assignee with the right of possession over the disputed property; specifically, whether the respondent's rights as an assignee/co-owner were properly considered given the partition agreement. Whether an action for unlawful detainer is the proper remedy given the dispute over ownership and possession, considering the petitioner's claim of possession by tolerance.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision, dismissing the unlawful detainer action for being an improper remedy. The Court held that the petitioner failed to prove that the respondent's possession was by mere tolerance, and thus, unlawful detainer was not the appropriate action. The Court also affirmed that the respondent, as an assignee of a co-owner's share, had the right to participate in the partition and was not bound by a partition made without his concurrence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the respondent's right as assignee/co-owner and the effect of the partition: The Court explained that prior to partition, the estate was owned in common by the heirs. Under Article 493 of the Civil Code, an heir can exercise acts of ownership over his share, but the effect of alienation is limited to the portion allotted to him upon partition. Eliseo, as a co-owner, could only sell his pro indiviso share, making the respondent a co-owner of the disputed property until partition. As an assignee, the respondent had the right under Article 497 of the Civil Code to participate in the partition and object to its execution without his concurrence. The respondent's knowledge of Eliseo's co-ownership and the oral partition agreement, coupled with his failure to exercise his right to participate or object to the subsequent extrajudicial partition, bound him to the partition as agreed upon by the co-heirs. However, this did not automatically divest him of his right to possess the portion he acquired, especially since the partition did not allot him any share and the portion he bought was adjudicated to the petitioner. On the propriety of unlawful detainer: The Court reiterated that an ejectment case, whether forcible entry or unlawful detainer, is a summary proceeding to protect actual possession. Unlawful detainer requires that possession was initially lawful and became unlawful only upon the termination of the right to hold possession. The petitioner's claim of possession by mere tolerance was not substantiated by evidence. The respondent consistently asserted possession in concept of owner, supported by deeds of sale. Since the petitioner failed to prove tolerance, the possession could be deemed illegal from the beginning, making unlawful detainer an improper remedy. The Court clarified that it would not treat the case as forcible entry due to the lack of allegations of entry by force, intimidation, threats, strategy, or stealth.
Main Doctrine
An action for unlawful detainer requires proof of prior lawful possession that subsequently became unlawful due to the expiration of the right to possess. If possession is alleged to be by mere tolerance, such tolerance must be proven. Failure to prove tolerance means possession is illegal from the beginning, rendering unlawful detainer an improper remedy. The court may pass upon ownership in ejectment cases solely to determine the better right to possess, but such adjudication is provisional.