SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 210504. January 24, 2018.]

HEIRS OF ALFONSO YUSINGCO, represented by their Attorney-in-

Fact, TEODORO K. YUSINGCO , petitioners, vs. AMELITA BUSILAK,
COSCA NAVARRO, FLAVIA CURAYAG and LIXBERTO 1 CASTRO ,
respondents.

DECISION

PERALTA , J : p

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court assailing the Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cagayan de Oro City, dated
July 31, 2013 in CA-G.R. SP No. 04500. The questioned CA Decision set aside the Joint
Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 30, Surigao City, dated August 17,
2011, which a rmed with modi cation the February 25, 2011 Omnibus Judgment 4 of
the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Surigao City, in ve (5)
consolidated cases for accion publiciana and/or recovery of possession.
The pertinent factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as follows:
On August 11, 2005, herein petitioners led ve separate (5) Complaints 5 for
accion publiciana and/or recovery of possession against herein respondents and a
certain Reynaldo Peralta. The suits, which were subsequently consolidated, were led
with the MTCC of Surigao City, which were later ra ed to Branch 1 thereof. Petitioners
uniformly alleged in the said Complaints that: they are owners of three (3) parcels of
land, denominated as Lot Nos. 519, 520 and 1015, which are all located at Barangay
Taft, Surigao City; they inherited the lots from their predecessor-in-interest, Alfonso
Yusingco; they were in possession of the said properties prior to and at the start of the
Second World War, but lost possession thereof during the war; after the war,
petitioners discovered that the subject properties were occupied by several persons,
which prompted petitioners to le separate cases for accion reivindicatoria and
recovery of possession against these persons; during the pendency of these cases,
herein respondents entered different portions of the same properties and occupied
them without the knowledge and consent of petitioners; petitioners were forced to
tolerate the illegal occupation of respondents as they did not have su cient resources
to protect their property at that time and also because their ownership was still being
disputed in the earlier cases led; subsequently, the cases which they earlier led were
decided in their favor and they were declared the owners of the subject properties;
thereafter, petitioners demanded that respondents vacate the said properties, but the
latter refused.
In their Answer, respondents raised essentially similar defenses, contending, in
essence, that: they have been in possession of the subject properties for more than
thirty (30) years; petitioners never actually possessed the said parcels of land and that
they never had title over the same; thus, petitioners' claim would be in con ict with and
inferior to respondents' claim of possession.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 After the issues were joined, trial ensued.
On February 25, 2011, the MTCC, Branch 1, Surigao City issued an Omnibus
Judgment in favor of herein petitioners and disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE , premises considered judgment is hereby rendered in favor
of the plaintiffs, Heirs of Alfonso Yusingco, represented by their attorney-in-fact
Teodoro E. Yusingco, against defendants Flavia Curayag, Cosca Navarro,
Amelita Busilak, Lexberto Castro, Reynaldo Peralta and Adriano Solamo
ordering:
1. Defendants Flavia Curayag, Cosca Navarro, Amelita Busilak, Lexberto
Castro, Reynaldo Peralta and Adriano Solamo and all those claiming rights
under them to vacate the premises of the lots respectively occupied by them
and to remove their improvements from the premises and restore possession to
the plaintiffs;
2. Defendant Amelita Busilak to pay the plaintiffs a monthly compensation
of P1,200.00 for the use of the property occupied by her at 2763 P. Reyes cor.
Narciso Sts., Surigao City, computed from the time of the ling of the complaint
on August 11, 2005 until she vacates the subject property;
3. Defendant Cosca Navarro to pay the plaintiffs a monthly compensation
of P2,120.00 for the use of the property occupied by her located at 03240
Borromeo St., Surigao City, computed from the time of the ling of the
complaint on August 11, 2005 until she vacates the subject property;
4. Defendant Flavia Curayag to pay the plaintiffs a monthly compensation
of P1,760.00 for the use of the property occupied by her located at 03818,
Narciso St., Surigao City, computed from the time of the ling of the complaint
on August 11, 2005 until she vacates the subject property;
5. Defendant Lexberto Castro to pay the plaintiffs a monthly compensation
of P1,500.00 for the use of the property occupied by her located at SLB Pension
House, Borromeo St., Surigao City, computed from the time of the ling of the
complaint on November 27, 2007 until he vacates the subject property;
6. Defendants Reynaldo Peralta and Adriano Solamo to pay the plaintiffs a
monthly compensation of P2,000.00 for the use of the property occupied by
them located at 04286, Navarro St., Surigao City, computed from the time of the
ling of the complaint on November 27, 2007 until they vacate the subject
property;
7. All the defendants to pay the cost of the suit.
SO ORDERED . 6
The MTCC held that: in an earlier case for accion reivindicatoria (Civil Case No.
1645) decided by the Court of First Instance of Surigao Del Norte on June 8, 1979 and
a rmed by the CA in its Decision dated August 30, 1982 (CA-G.R. No. 66508-R), which
became nal and executory on December 18, 1986, herein petitioners were declared
the true and lawful co-owners of the subject properties; on the other hand, evidence
showed that respondents were mere intruders on the lots in question; thus, as
judicially-declared owners of the said lots, petitioners are entitled to possession
thereof as against respondents whose entries into the said properties are illegal.
Herein respondents filed an appeal with the RTC of Surigao City.
On August 17, 2011, the RTC, Branch 30, Surigao City, rendered a Joint Decision,
which a rmed, with modi cation, the Omnibus Judgment of the MTCC. The dispositive
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 portion of the RTC Joint Decision reads, thus:
WHEREFORE , the assailed Omnibus Judgment dated February 25, 2011
of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Surigao City is AFFIRMED
WITH MODIFICATION as to the judgment against defendants Reynaldo
Peralta and Adriano Solamo who did not file an appeal therefrom. x x x
SO ORDERED . 7
Herein respondents then led with the CA a petition for review under Rule 42 of
the Rules of Court assailing the abovementioned Joint Decision of the RTC.
On July 31, 2013, the CA promulgated its Decision granting the petition of herein
respondents. The CA disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Joint Decision dated August
17, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, 10th Judicial Region, Branch 30, Surigao
City is SET ASIDE and a new one rendered: (1) SETTING ASIDE the Omnibus
Judgment dated February 25, 2011 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch
1, Surigao City, in consolidated civil cases for Accion Publiciana and/or
Recovery of Possession, and (2) DISMISSING the consolidated cases for lack of
merit.
SO ORDERED. 8
The CA ruled that the RTC and CA Decisions used by the MTCC in holding that
herein petitioners are owners of the subject properties and are, thus, entitled to legal
possession thereof, are based on a previous accion reivindicatoria, which is a suit in
personam. The CA held that, being an action in personam, the judgments in the said
case binds only the parties properly impleaded therein. Since respondents were not
parties to the said action, the CA concluded that they could not be bound by the
judgments declaring petitioners as owners of the disputed properties. Hence,
petitioners' present actions to recover possession of the said properties from
respondents, on the basis of the said judgments, must fail.
Aggrieved by the CA Decision, herein petitioners are now before this Court via the
instant petition for review on certiorari contending that the assailed CA Decision is
replete with legal infirmities, to wit:
1. When Honorable Court of Appeals held that the prior judgments
declaring herein petitioners as the true and lawful co-owners of the property did
not bind herein respondents, as they were not parties to the actions, saying that
these were an accion reivindicatoria and an action for recovery of possession,
hence in personam, and as such, they bound only the parties properly impleaded
and duly heard or given an opportunity to be heard; even if such principle is
inapplicable in the instant case.
2. When Honorable Court of Appeals impliedly ruled that herein
respondents would have a better right of possession over the subject matter
property over herein petitioners, despite the rulings in the prior judgments
showing the contrary. 9
The petition is meritorious.
The issues raised in the instant petition boil down to the basic question of
whether or not the nal and executory decisions rendered in a previous accion
reivindicatoria, nding petitioners to be the lawful owners of the subject properties, are
binding upon respondents.
This Court rules in the affirmative.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 At the outset, the Court nds it proper to look into the nature of the actions led
by petitioners against respondents. A perusal of the complaints led by petitioners
shows that the actions were captioned as "Accion Publiciana and/or Recovery of
Possession." However, the Court agrees with the ruling of the lower courts that the
complaints filed were actually accion reivindicatoria.
In a number of cases, 1 0 this Court had occasion to discuss the three (3) kinds of
actions available to recover possession of real property, to wit:
x x x (a) accion interdictal; (b) accion publiciana; and (a) accion
reivindicatoria
Accion interdictal comprises two distinct causes of action, namely,
forcible entry (detentacion) and unlawful detainer (desahuico) [sic]. In forcible
entry, one is deprived of physical possession of real property by means of force,
intimidation, strategy, threats, or stealth whereas in unlawful detainer, one
illegally withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right to
hold possession under any contract, express or implied. The two are
distinguished from each other in that in forcible entry, the possession of the
defendant is illegal from the beginning, and that the issue is which party has
pri or de facto possession while in unlawful detainer, possession of the
defendant is originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or
termination of the right to possess.
The jurisdiction of these two actions, which are summary in nature, lies in
the proper municipal trial court or metropolitan trial court. Both actions must be
brought within one year from the date of actual entry on the land, in case of
forcible entry, and from the date of last demand, in case of unlawful detainer.
The issue in said cases is the right to physical possession.
Accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the right of possession
which should be brought in the proper regional trial court when dispossession
has lasted for more than one year. It is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine
the better right of possession of realty independently of title. In other words, if at
the time of the ling of the complaint more than one year had elapsed since
defendant had turned plaintiff out of possession or defendant's possession had
become illegal, the action will be, not one of the forcible entry or illegal detainer,
but an accion publiciana. On the other hand, accion reivindicatoria is an action
to recover ownership also brought in the proper regional trial court in an ordinary
civil proceeding.
Accion reivindicatoria or accion de reivindicacion is, thus, an action whereby the
plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full
possession. 1 1 It is a suit to recover possession of a parcel of land as an element of
ownership. 1 2 The judgment in such a case determines the ownership of the property
and awards the possession of the property to the lawful owner. 1 3 It is different from
accion interdictal or accion publiciana where plaintiff merely alleges proof of a better
right to possess without claim of title. 1 4
On the basis of the above discussions, it is clear that the lower courts did not err
in ruling that the suits led by petitioners are accion reivindicatoria, not accion
publiciana, as petitioners seek to recover possession of the subject lots on the basis of
their ownership thereof.
Proceeding to the main issue in the instant petition, there is no dispute that the
RTC Decision in Civil Case No. 1645 and the CA Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 66508-R
used by the MTCC in the present case as bases in holding that herein petitioners are
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 owners of the subject properties and are, thus, entitled to legal possession thereof, are
judgments on a previous case for accion reivindicatoria, which was led by petitioners
against persons other than herein respondents.
It is settled that a judgment directing a party to deliver possession of a property
to another is in personam. 1 5 It is conclusive, not against the whole world, but only
"between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the
commencement of the action." 1 6 An action to recover a parcel of land is a real action
but it is an action in personam, for it binds a particular individual only although it
concerns the right to a tangible thing. 1 7 Any judgment therein is binding only upon the
parties properly impleaded and duly heard or given an opportunity to be heard. 1 8
However, this rule admits of the exception that even a non-party may be bound by the
judgment in an ejectment suit 1 9 where he is any of the following: (a) trespasser,
squatter or agent of the defendant fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the
judgment; (b) guest or occupant of the premises with the permission of the defendant;
(c) transferee pendente lite; (d) sublessee; (e) co-lessee; or (f) member of the family,
relative or privy of the defendant. 2 0
In the instant case, the Court nds no cogent reason to depart from the ndings
and conclusions of the MTCC, as a rmed by the RTC, that respondents are mere
intruders or trespassers who do not have a right to possess the subject lots. Thus, the
Court adopts the discussion of the MTCC on the matter, to wit:
On the other hand, the evidence for the defendants showed that they are
mere intruders on the lots in question. They are occupying their respective
portions simply as places to stay with intention of acquiring the said properties
in the event that they are public lands and not owned by any private person.
It is noted that while the defendants had declared their houses and
improvements for tax purposes, not one of them had declared in his name the
lot in which his house or improvement is built on. They just waited for the
Yusingcos to show proof of their ownership of the lot.
It was indeed revealing that while professing that the lots are public land,
the defendants never bothered to apply under any of the legal modes of
acquiring land of the public domain for the portion occupied by them.
Obviously, their physical possession of the premises was not under claim of
ownership or in the concept of an owner. Hence, the defendants' possession
cannot ripen into ownership by prescription as claimed by them. They are
intruders, plain and simple, without any right of possession to be protected.
The plaintiff[s] [herein petitioners] prayed that their right of possession of
the lots is entitled to protection under the law. In the case at bar, the evidence
showed that the defendant's [herein respondents'] entry into and possession of
the disputed premises was illegal from the beginning and remain to be so until
the present. There is no question, therefore, that as between the plaintiffs [herein
petitioners] who had been judicially declared the owners of the land and the
defendants [herein respondents] who are mere squatters therein, the former are
entitled to such legal protection. 2 1
On the basis of the foregoing, the CA erred in ruling that the judgments of the
RTC (in Civil Case No. 1645) and the CA (in CA-G.R. CV No. 66508-R) on the suit for
accion reivindicatoria led by petitioners against persons other than herein
respondents are not binding upon the latter. Respondents, being trespassers on the
subject lots are bound by the said judgments, which nd petitioners to be entitled to
the possession of the subject lots as owners thereof.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 WHEREFORE , the instant petition is GRANTED . The July 31, 2013 Decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 04500 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE . The
Omnibus Judgment of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Surigao City, dated
February 25, 2011, is REINSTATED .
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. "Lexberto" in some parts of the records.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren, with the concurrence of Associate Justices
Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and Edward B. Contreras, Annex "A" to Petition, rollo,
pp. 21-28.
3. Penned by Presiding Judge Evangeline S. Yuipco Bayana; rollo, pp. 42-57.

4. Penned by Presiding Judge Cesar P. Bordalba; id. at 30-41.

5. CA rollo, pp. 61-80.
6. Rollo, pp. 40-41.
7. Id. at 57.
8. Id. at 27-28.

9. Id. at 12-13.
10. Spouses Valdez, Jr. v. Court of Appeals , 523 Phil. 39, 45-46 (2006); Encarnacion v. Amigo ,
533 Phil. 466, 472 (2006); Suarez v. Spouses Emboy, Jr., 729 Phil. 315, 329-330 (2014).
11. Amoroso v. Alegre, Jr. , 552 Phil. 22, 34 (2007); Serdoncillo v. Spouses Benolirao , 358 Phil.
83, 96 (1998).

12. Id.
13. Amoroso v. Alegre, Jr., supra, at 35.
14. Serdoncillo v. Spouses Benolirao, supra note 11.
15. Spouses Stilgrove v. Sabas, 538 Phil. 232, 244 (2006).

16. Id. at 244-245.

17. Id. at 245.
18. Id.
19. This Court has explained in Vencilao v. Camarenta and in Sering v. Plaza that the term
action in ejectment includes a suit for forcible entry (detentacion) or unlawful detainer
(desahucio). The Court also noted in Sering that the term action in ejectment includes
also, an accion publiciana (recovery of possession) or accion reivindicatoria (recovery of
ownership). Most recently in Estreller v. Ysmael , the Court applied Article 487 of the Civil
Code to an accion publiciana case; in Plasabas v. Court of Appeals the Court
categorically stated that Article 487 applies to reivindicatory actions. See discussions
and citations in Marmo, et al. v. Anacay , 621 Phil. 212, 222 (2009).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 20. Spouses Stilgrove v. Sabas, supra note 14, at 245.

21. Rollo, pp. 54-55.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com