MENDIOLA v. SANGALANG

ABIGAIL L. MENDIOLA, Petitioner vs. VENERANDO P. SANGALANG, Respondent

G.R. No. 205283

June 7, 2017

FACTS:

The property subject of the instant controversy is a parcel of land located at No. 104 Maginhawa Street, Brgy. Teachers Village East, Diliman, Quezon City, on which a residential house and a four-door, one-storey commercial building were built. Said property was originally registered in the name of Honorata G. Sangalang (Honorata). Honorata had two siblings, Sinforosa and Angel. Sinforosa had three children, petitioner Abigail Mendiola, Vilma Aquino (Vilma) and Azucena De Leon; while Angel begot four children, respondent Venerando, Ma. Lourdes, AngeFno and Fernando, all surnamed Sangalang. Sinforosa and Angel predeceased Honorata, and on May 31, 1994, Honorata herself died intestate without any issue. While Honorata was still alive, one-half of the residential houses of the subject property were being used by petitioner and the other half by Vilma's son. The commercial building, on the other hand, was being leased to third persons. This set-up continued until after Honorata's death. In 2003, respondent and his siblings discovered that the subject property was already registered in the names of petitioner and Vilma. Upon verification, they discovered that the title over the property had been transferred in favor of petitioner and Vilma by virtue of a Deed of Sale dated January 29, 1996 purportedly executed by Honorata in their favor. Consequently, a new title, TCT No. N-148021 , was issued in the names 1 of petitioner and Vilma. It was around this time, or in July 2003, after Vilma's son left the residential house, that respondent, allegedly without asking permission from the petitioner or Vilma and with the use of force and violence upon things, broke open the door of the unit and had since detained the same. On April 11, 2005, petitioner and Vilma demanded that respondent vacate the unit but the latter refused to do so. The dispute was referred to the barangay for conciliation but no settlement was reached. Consequently, on October 18, 2005, petitioner and Vilma commenced their complaint for accion publiciana against respondent for the latter to return the illegally occupied unit and to pay reasonable rental therefor. 

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner has the better right of possession over the subject property as to successfully evict respondent. 

RULING: 

No. The petition is devoid of merit. In arriving at its identical pronouncement that petitioner failed to prove her better right of possession, the RTC and the CA passed upon the parties' respective claim of ownership, a procedure that is sanctioned under Section 16, Rule 70. It is settled that the issue of ownership may be resolved only to determine the issue of possession. In this case, it is undisputed that the Deed of Sale, through which ownership over the property had been purportedly transferred to the petitioner and Vilma, was executed in 1996. However, it is perfectly obvious that Honorata could not have signed the same as she passed away as early as 1994. If any, Honorata's signature thereon could only be a product of forgery. This makes the Deed of Sale void and as such, produces no civil effect; and it does not create, modify, or extinguish a juridical relation: The petition is DENIED.

The Decision of the Court of dismissing petitioner's complaint for accion publiciana and awarding attorney's fees in respondent's favor are AFFIRMED in toto.