Carbonilla V Abiera (LTD-Right of Possession Arising From Title)

 

Carbonilla v Abiera (Right of Possession Arising from Title) Facts Petitioner led a complaint for ejectment against respondents alleging that he is the registered owner of a parcel of land in Maasin Cit! "e also alleged that he owns the b#ilding standing on said land b virt#e of a $eed of %&traj#dicial settlement of %state with 'aiver and #itclaim of wnership e&ec#ted b the *arcianos! "e maintained that the b#ilding was being occ#pied b respondents b mere tolerance of the previo#s owners! Petitioner asserted that he sent a demand letter to respondents as+ing them to leave the premises within ,- das from receipt of the letter. b#t the failed and ref#sed to do so so!! Th The e MT MTCC CC r# r#le led d tha thatt Ca Carb rbon onill illa a is th the e law lawf#l f#l owner owner of th the e s#b s#bje ject ct la land! nd! "owever it held that the defendants to have the better rights of (material) possession to the assailed b#ilding and deemed as possessors in good faith and are legall entitled to its possession and occ#panc! occ#panc! The RTC RTC a/rmed the decision of the MTCC with respect to the land. however it r#led that petitioner. petitioner. as owner of the land. wo#ld have ever ever  right to evict res respondent pondents s from the land! The CA reversed reversed the RTC RTC decisi decision on and ordered ordered the dismissal of petitioner0s complaint for fail#re of the plainti1 (herein respondent) to prove that the case at bar is for #nlawf#l detainer or forcible entr! entr! 2ss#e 'on petitio petitioner ner has s#/ci s#/cientl entl established established his ownership of the s#bject properties properties and has the right to recover possession thereof  "eld! 3o! 'hile petitioner ma have proven his ownership of the land. as there can be no other piece of evide evidence nce more worth of cre credence dence than a Torr orrens ens certicate of title. he failed to present an evidence to s#bstantiate his claim of ownership or right to the possession of the b#ilding! The $eed of %&traj#dicial 4ettlement of %state (Residential 5#ilding) with 'aiver and #itclaim of wnership e&ec#ted b the *arcianos as proof  that petitioner ac6#ired ownership of the b#ilding cannot be accepted b the co#rt!  There is no showing that the *arcianos were the owners of the b#ilding b#ild ing or that the had an proprietar right over it! Ranged against respondents0 proof of possession of the b#ilding since ,788. petitioner0s evidence pales in comparison and leaves the co#rt totall #nconvinced! 'itho#t a do#bt. the registered owner of real propert is entitled to its possession! "owever. the owner cannot simpl wrest possession thereof from whoever is in act#al occ#pation of the propert! To recover possession. he m#st resort to the proper j#dicial remed and. once he chooses what action to le. he is re6#ired to satisf the conditions necessar for s#ch action to prosper! 2n the present case. petitioner opted to le an ejectm eje ctment ent cas case e agai against nst re respon sponden dents! ts! %je %jectm ctment ent cas cases9 es9for forcibl cible e ent entr r and #nl #nlawf# awf#ll detainer9are s#mmar proceedings designed to provide e&peditio#s means to protect act#al possession or the right to possession of the propert involved!calaw The onl

 

6#estion that the co#rts resolve in ejectment proceedings is: who is entitled to the phsical possession of the premises. that is. to the possession de facto and not to the poss po sses essi sion on de j# j#rre! 2t do does es no nott ev even en ma matt tter er if a pa part rt0 0s s ti titl tle e to th the e pr prop oper ert t is 6#estionable!craw For this reason. an ejectment case will not necessaril be decided in favor fa vor of one wh who o has pr pres esen ente ted d pr proof oof of own owner ershi ship p of th the e s# s#bje bject ct pr prop oper ert t!! ;e  j#risdictional facts constit#tive of the partic#lar ejectment case led m#st be averred in the th e co comp mpla lain intt an and d s# s#/ /ci cien entl tl  pr prov oven en!! Th The e st stat atem emen ents ts in th the e co comp mpla lain intt th that at respondents0 possession of the b#ilding was b mere tolerance of petitioner clearl ma+ ma +e o#t a ca case se for #n #nlaw lawf#l f#l de deta taine inerr!" !"er ere. e. pe petit tition ioner ers s fai faile led d to pr prov ove e tha thatt th the e possession of respondents was b mere tolerance! Petitioners m#st le either an action reivindicatoria. a s#it to recover ownership to propert or le an accionp#bliciana. a plenar action to recover based on the better right to possess!