SPS. GAELA v SPS. TAN

SPOUSES BERNARDITO AND ARSENIA GAELA (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS NAMELY: BERNARDITO GAELA AND JOSELINE E. PAGUIRIGAN, petitioners vs. SPOUSES TAN TIAN HEANG AND SALLY TAN, respondents

G.R. NO. 185627

March 15, 2017

FACTS:

A petition of complaint for ejectment over two parcels of the land which both are situated in the Municipality of Pasig. The petitioners claimed that they are the lawful owners of the subject properties. They said that sometime in 2002, their daughter Bernardita Gaela took the certificate of title registered in their names and forged their signatures in the Real Estate Mortgage and their daughter Bernardita executed in favor of Alexander Tam Wong. The latter sold the subject properties to the respondents on December 20, 2004. According to the respondents that before the transfer of title from Wong to the respondents they were able to cause the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on the respondents’ titles. However, the respondents stated that they are the lawful owners of the subject properties which they acquired in good faith from its former owner Wong. Meanwhile, the petitioners narrated that the said properties were mortgaged by them to Wong for P2, 000,000.00. Unfortunately, the petitioners ceased to pay the real property tax due on the subject properties. Consequently, new titles were issued in favor of Wong. Moreover, on Dec. 18, 2004, the respondents bought the subject properties and paid the taxes due thereon as early as January 13, 2005. However, while the respondents were waiting for the transfer and release of new titles, the petitioners filed a civil case against Wong with annotation on the latter’s title which was then carried over and appeared in their titles. After that incident, the respondents made demands to the petitioners to vacate the subject properties but they refuse to do so.

The MeTC rendered its decision in favor of the petitioners on the ground of lack of cause of action. The respondents filed an appeal to the RTC and granted which the ruling of the MeTC was set aside. In addition, the petitioners appealed to CA but it was denied, stating that the allegation in the respondents complaint make out a case for unlawful detainer and it was filed well within the one year reglementary period. Hence, the petitioner submitted for review on certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondents has a better right to possess the subject properties.

HELD:

Yes. Because the respondents were able to prove by preponderance of evidence that they are now the owners and the rightful possessors and have Torrens title to the subject properties. The TCT of the respondents are an evidence of indefeasible title over the subject properties and as its holder, they are entitled to its possession as a matter of right.

On the contrary, the petitioners presented nothing to support their claim. They failed to submit any piece of evidence showing their right to possess the subject properties.

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents, as the title holder of the subject properties, are the recognized owners of the same and have the better right to its possession.