SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 432 8/18/20, 2:25 PM

VOL. 432, JUNE 17, 2004 351

Apostol vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R. No. 125375. June 17, 2004.

SPOUSES ELPIDIO APOSTOL and AMELIA APOSTOL,

petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES
EMMANUEL CHUA and EDNA L. CHUA, respondents.

Remedial Law; Ejectment; A person who has a torrens title over

the property is entitled to the possession thereof; The fact that the
respondents were never in prior physical possession of the subject
land is of no moment, as prior physical possession is necessary only
in forcible entry cases.·In Pangilinan v. Aguilar, we held that it is
an accepted rule that a person who has a torrens title over the
property, such as the respondents, is entitled to the possession
thereof. We reiterated our ruling in the Pangilinan Case in Javelosa
v. Court of Appeals, and declared that the registered owners are
entitled to the possession of the property covered by the said title
from the time such title was issued in their favor. Moreover, the fact
that the respondents were never in prior physical possession of the
subject land is of no moment, as prior physical possession is
necessary only in forcible entry cases.
Same; Same; The issue of the validity of the title of the
respondents can only be assailed in an action expressly instituted for
the purpose; Whether or not the petitioners have the right to claim
ownership over the property is beyond the power of the court a quo to
determine in an action for unlawful detainer.·The petitioners claim
that, as alleged in their answer to the complaint for unlawful
detainer, the respondentsÊ title over the property is a nullity; hence,
the complaint for unlawful detainer against the petitioners should
be dismissed for lack of merit. Such allegation does not help their
present recourse. Under Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529,
a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It
cannot be altered, modified or cancelled, except in a direct
proceeding for that purpose in accordance with law. The issue of the
validity of the title of

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

352

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174003cb877c0cafd32003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ836/?username=Guest Page 1 of 10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 432 8/18/20, 2:25 PM

352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Apostol vs. Court of Appeals

the respondents can only be assailed in an action expressly instituted

for that purpose. Whether or not the petitioners have the right to
claim ownership over the property is beyond the power of the court
a quo to determine in an action for unlawful detainer.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Renato T. Nuguid for petitioners.
Formoso & Quimbo Law Office for respondent.

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

1
This is a petition for review of the Decision of the Court of2
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 38333 reversing the Decision,
on appeal, of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
Branch 215, in Civil Case No. Q-94-21698.

The Antecedents

On September 3, 1993, the respondents, Spouses

Emmanuel and Edna Chua, filed a complaint for unlawful
detainer against the petitioners, Spouses Elpidio and
Amelia Apostol, in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of
Metro Manila, docketed as Civil Case No. 7660. The
respondents alleged, inter alia, that they had contracted
with the Spouses Paulo and Georgina Pascua for the
purchase of a parcel of land. The petitioners, who were
present during the negotiations, verbally assured the
respondents that they would vacate the property within ten
(10) days from the execution of the sale. The petitioners
then acknowledged that their stay in the property was only
upon the tolerance of its former owners. On June 7, 1993,
the Spouses Pascua executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over
the property and the improvements thereon in favor of the
respondents for P1,000,000. On the basis of the said deed,
the respondents were issued Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. 87610 over the property on June 8, 1993. Despite
demands, however, the petitioners refused to vacate the
property.

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes, with

Associate Justices Ramon Mabutas, Jr. and Salvador J. Valdez, Jr.,
concurring.
2 Penned by Judge Marcelino F. Bautista, Jr.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174003cb877c0cafd32003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ836/?username=Guest Page 2 of 10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 432 8/18/20, 2:25 PM

353

VOL. 432, JUNE 17, 2004 353

Apostol vs. Court of Appeals

The respondents prayed that, after due proceedings,

judgment be rendered in their favor, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court that after a summary hearing, judgment be
rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, as
follows:

1. Ordering the defendants and all persons claiming under

them to immediately vacate the above-mentioned parcel of
land;
2. Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs the sum of
P5,000.00 per month from the filing of the complaint until
they finally vacate and turn over completely the above-
mentioned parcel of land representing the reasonable
compensation for the use and occupancy of the above-
mentioned parcel of land;
3. Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs the sum of
P10,000.00 for and as attorneyÊs fees, plus the sum of
P1,000.00 appearance fee for every court attendance of
plaintiffsÊ counsel; and
4. Ordering defendants to pay plaintiffs the costs of suit.

PLAINTIFFS further pray for such other reliefs and remedies as

3
may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.

In their answer with special and affirmative defenses and

compulsory counterclaim, the respondents alleged, inter
alia, that Luz B. Pascua was the owner of the parcel of land
located in Quezon City covered by TCT No. 198936 with an
area of 315 square meters. She sold a portion of the
property, an area of 285.32 square meters, to the
respondents on July 8, 1976 for P45,548 of which P15,548
was paid. On the same day, the parties executed a
memorandum agreement covering the property, in which
the respondents agreed that the balance of the purchase
price would be paid in installments. Thereafter, a deed of
absolute sale was executed in favor of the respondents over
an unsegregated portion of the property, with an area of
29.68 square meters, for P7,350 and, later, a deed of
confirmation of deed of absolute sale with waiver over the
said property. On June 20, 1979, the respondents executed
an Affidavit of Adverse Claim over the property, stating,
inter alia, that they could not cause the registration of the
said deeds because the ownerÊs duplicate of TCT No.
198936 was in the possession of Teresita B. Jimenez, a
former co-owner of the property. The respondents further

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174003cb877c0cafd32003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ836/?username=Guest Page 3 of 10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 432 8/18/20, 2:25 PM

alleged that Luz Pascua, in her letter to the

_______________

3 CA Rollo, pp. 27-28.

354

354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Apostol vs. Court of Appeals

Register of Deeds dated August 6, 1979, confirmed that she

failed to turn over the ownerÊs duplicate of TCT No. 198936
because the same was in the possession of Jimenez, who, in
turn, gave it to Jose J. Burgos. Thereafter, on May 15,
1980, Luz Pascua filed a Complaint against the petitioners
in the RTC of Quezon City for rescission and damages
docketed as Civil Case No. 29895 but the same was
dismissed on December 19, 1983 for lack of interest to
prosecute. Paulo Pascua filed a similar complaint against
the petitioners in the RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 88-
523, but the same was, likewise, dismissed. Finally, the
petitioners alleged that the Spouses PascuaÊs possession of
the property after the sale thereof to the respondents was
by mere tolerance.
In the meantime, the petitioners filed a complaint
against the respondents, the Spouses Chua, the Spouses
Pascua, and the Register of Deeds in the RTC of Quezon
City, for annulment of deed of sale and TCT No. 86338, and
for reconveyance with damages. The petitioners alleged,
inter alia, that they had been in possession of the property
since 1973; their adverse claim over the property was
annotated on June 20, 1979 as Entry No. PE 8812; Luz
Pascua died on December 2, 1984 but Paulo Pascua did not
inherit the property from her because the same had
already been sold to the respondents; Paulo Pascua
executed a falsified affidavit for self-adjudication over the
property on the basis of which he was able to secure, on
May 20, 1993, TCT No. 86338.
The petitioners prayed that, after due proceedings,
judgment be rendered in their favor, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that

judgment be rendered as follows:

1. Nullifying the deed of sale executed by Paulo Pascua in

favor of Edna Chua, marked as Annex „G‰ hereof and TCT
No. 87610 (Annex „H‰) in the name of Edna L. Chua;
including TCT No. 86338 RT-432 (Annex „F‰) in the name of
Paulo Pascua; and in the alternative to reconvey the
aforesaid property to herein plaintiffs;
2. Ordering the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174003cb877c0cafd32003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ836/?username=Guest Page 4 of 10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 432 8/18/20, 2:25 PM

TCT Nos. 87610 and 86338;

3. Sentencing defendants to pay plaintiffs:

a) P100,000 as actual and consequential damages;

b) P50,000 as moral damages;
c) Exemplary damages, P50,000;

355

VOL. 432, JUNE 17, 2004 355

Apostol vs. Court of Appeals

d) P15,000 as attorneyÊs fee;

e) Cost; and,
f) Praying for other reliefs and
4
remedies, equitable
and just under the premises.

On February 17, 1994, the MeTC issued an Order in Civil

Case No. 7660 defining the issues, thus:

1. Whether or not the complaint is for Forcible Entry

or Unlawful Detainer;
2. Who is entitled to the lawful possession of the
subject property;
3. Whether this case has to be suspended in view of
the filing of an action for Annulment of Title in the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City; and
4. Whether the plaintiffs can5 lawfully eject the
defendants from the premises.

The MeTC rendered judgment in favor of the respondents

on August 11, 1994. The decretal portion of the decision
reads:

„WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders

judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants by ordering
as follows:

Â1) Defendants and all persons claiming rights under them to

vacate the premises denominated as No. 39, Visayas Ave.,
Project 6, Diliman, Quezon City, and to surrender the
peaceful possession thereof to plaintiffs;
Â2) Defendants to pay plaintiffs the sum of P5,000.00 per month
representing the reasonable compensation for the use and
occupancy of the premises from the time of formal demand
until the possession of the premises shall have been fully
restored to plaintiffs;
Â3) Defendants to pay plaintiffs the sum of P5,000.00 as
attorneyÊs fees; and
Â4) Defendants to pay the costs of this suit.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174003cb877c0cafd32003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ836/?username=Guest Page 5 of 10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 432 8/18/20, 2:25 PM

6
„SO ORDERED.‰

_______________

4 Id., at p. 76.
5 Id., at p. 62.
6 Id., at p. 114.

356

356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Apostol vs. Court of Appeals

The MeTC ruled that having acquired the property from

the Spouses Pascua, and being the registered owners of the
property, the respondents are entitled to the possession
thereof:

The Court holds that plaintiffs are the ones entitled to the material
or physical possession of the subject property. This is so because
they have sufficiently established their title over the premises in
question. They have shown that they are the registered owners of
the subject premises located at No. 39 Visayas Avenue, Project 6,
Diliman, Quezon City, as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title
No. 87610 issued in their name by the Registry of Deeds of Quezon
City, which property they acquired from its former registered
owners, the Sps. Paulo and Georgiana (sic) Pascua. Hence, as an
incident to their ownership over said property, plaintiffs are entitled
7
to its possession.

The court also ruled that the proceedings were not

suspended by the pendency of Civil Case No. Q-94-19352.
The respondents appealed the decision to the RTC,
which rendered judgment on April 15, 1996 in their favor,
reversing the decision of the MeTC and ordering the
dismissal of the complaint. The RTC anchored its decision
on the following findings:

It is the contention of the plaintiff that as registered owners of the

subject lot, they have the right to take possession thereof and eject
defendants from the premises. On the other hand, it is the
contention of the defendants that they are the rightful owners of the
land and have been in possession thereon from the time they
acquired the land from the real owner Luz B. Pascua.
In ejectment cases, the only issue to be determined by the Court
is the fact of prior physical and material possession over the subject
property. Under Article 538 of the New Civil Code (NCC), it is
provided that:

„Article 538. Possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same time

in two different personalities except in cases of copossession. Should a
question arise regarding the fact of possession, the present possessor
shall be preferred, if there are two possessors, the one longer in

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174003cb877c0cafd32003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ836/?username=Guest Page 6 of 10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 432 8/18/20, 2:25 PM

possession; if the dates of the possession are the same, the one who
presents a title; and if all these conditions are equal, the thing shall be
placed in judicial deposit pending determination of its possession or
ownership through proper proceedings.‰

In this case, defendants were able to establish the fact that they
have been in physical and material possession of the subject
premises from

_______________

7 Id., at p. 113.

357

VOL. 432, JUNE 17, 2004 357

Apostol vs. Court of Appeals

the time they purchased the same from Luz B. Pascua on July 8,
1976. Defendants, therefore, are in possession of the property in the
concept of an owner, and under the law, a possessor in the concept
of an owner has in his favor the legal presumption that he possesses
with a just title and he cannot be obliged to show or prove it (Art.
541, NCC).
Moreover, it is important to note that defendants purchased the
subject premises from Luz B. Pascua on July 8, 1976 while
plaintiffs purchased the same from Paulo Pascua only on June 4,
1993, a much later date. This is shown by the Deed of Absolute Sale
executed by Luz B. Pascua in favor of defendants on July 8, 1976
(Annex „1‰); Deed of Absolute Sale of Unsegregated Portion of Land
executed by Luz B. Pascua and Paulo Pascua in favor of the
defendants on July 14, 1977 (Annex „2‰) and a Deed of Confirmation
of Deed of Absolute Sale of a Parcel of Land with Waiver dated July
14, 1977 executed by Paulo Pascua (Annex „3‰). These documents
put in doubtful validity the subsequent sale of the same land by
Paulo Pascua in favor of the plaintiffs. Paulo Pascua had no right,
therefore, to transfer ownership of the subject land to plaintiffs
because, Luz B. Pascua, the original owner, had already sold the
same land to defendants during her lifetime. And upon the death of
Luz B. Pascua, Paulo Pascua had no right to adjudicate the subject
lot to himself because he even confirmed such sale and waived any
rights, interest and participation over the subject residential house
and lot in a Deed of Confirmation of Absolute Sale with Waiver
dated July 14, 1977 (Annex „3‰). It bears emphasis, however, that
the validity of the respective titles of the parties is now the subject
of controversy in Civil Case No. Q-94-19352 pending before the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 102.
From the foregoing, it is clear that defendants have priority of
right and possession over the subject property and have, therefore,
8
the right to be respected in their present possession thereon.

The petitioners filed a petition for review with the Court of

Appeals, which later rendered judgment reversing the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174003cb877c0cafd32003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ836/?username=Guest Page 7 of 10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 432 8/18/20, 2:25 PM

decision of the RTC and reinstated the decision of the

MeTC. The CA held that in ruling against the petitioners,
who were the registered owners of the property, the RTC
thereby violated the prescription against the collateral
attack of a torrens title.

The Present Petition

In the present recourse, the petitioners, the Spouses

Apostol, assert the following: (a) their possession of the
property since 1976 preceded the sale of the property to the
private respondents; (b) the

_______________

8 Rollo, pp. 69-70.

358

358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Apostol vs. Court of Appeals

respondents were purchasers of the property in bad faith;

and, (c) in declaring that the petitioners had priority of
possession of the property on the sale thereof by Luz
Pascua and Paulo Pascua way back in 1976 and 1977, the
RTC did not thereby collaterally attack the title of the
respondents over the property. According to the petitioners,
an inflexible adherence to the proscription against a
collateral attack of a torrens title may result to gross
injustice.
In their comment on the petition, the respondents assert
that contrary to the petitionersÊ claim, the petition raises
questions of facts. The respondents also aver that the CA
did not commit any error in its decision.
The petitioners contend that the respondents themselves
admitted in their complaint before the MeTC that they
knew that the petitioners were in actual possession of the
property even before they purchased the same. Hence, the
petitioners argue, the respondents were purchasers in bad
faith.
The petitioners also point out that since they purchased
the property before the respondents, they cannot be ejected
therefrom. Under Article 1544 of the Civil Code which,
according to Justice Jose C. Vitug, is „self-operating,‰ the
sale of the property to them prevails over the sale in favor
of the respondents. Thus, the sale in favor of the
respondents is null and void; consequently, TCT No. 87610
issued in favor of the respondents is, likewise, null and
void. Finally, the petitioners aver that they may very well
have become the owners of the property by prescription
under Article 1134 of the New Civil Code.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174003cb877c0cafd32003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ836/?username=Guest Page 8 of 10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 432 8/18/20, 2:25 PM

For its part, the CA held as follows:

The respondent court erred in dismissing the action for unlawful

detainer on the sole ground that the private respondents are
possessors in the concept of an owner of the subject premises and
cannot, thus, be dispossessed of the same. The subject property is
registered under the Torrens System in the names of the petitioners
whose title to the property is presumed legal and cannot be
collaterally attacked, much less in an action for unlawful detainer.
No title to registered land in derogation of the title of the registered
owner may be acquired by prescription or adverse possession (Caina
vs. Court of Appeals, 239 SCRA 256; Odsigue vs. Court of Appeals,
233 SCRA 615; Calang vs. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, 231
SCRA 257). The presumption of ownership granted by law to a
possessor

359

VOL. 432, JUNE 17, 2004 359

Apostol vs. Court of Appeals

in the concept of an owner under Article 541 is only prima facie and
cannot prevail over a valid title registered under the Torrens
9
System.

The Ruling of the Court

We agree 10
with the Court of Appeals. In Pangilinan v.
Aguilar, we held that it is an accepted rule that a person
who has a torrens title over the property, such as the
respondents, is entitled to the possession thereof. We
reiterated our ruling
11
in the Pangilinan Case in Javelosa v.
Court of Appeals, and declared that the registered owners
are entitled to the possession of the property covered by the
said title from the time such title was issued in their favor.
Moreover, the fact that the respondents were never in prior
physical possession of the subject land is of no moment, as
prior physical possession is necessary only in forcible entry
cases.
The petitioners claim that, as alleged in their answer to
the complaint for unlawful detainer, the respondentsÊ title
over the property is a nullity; hence, the complaint for
unlawful detainer against the petitioners should be
dismissed for lack of merit. Such allegation does not help
their present recourse. Under Section 48 of Presidential
Decree No. 1529, a certificate of title shall not be subject to
collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified or
cancelled, except in a direct proceeding for that purpose in
accordance with law. The issue of the validity of the title of
the respondents can only be 12
assailed in an action expressly
instituted for that purpose. Whether or not the petitioners
have the right to claim ownership over the property is
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174003cb877c0cafd32003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ836/?username=Guest Page 9 of 10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 432 8/18/20, 2:25 PM

beyond the power of the court13

a quo to determine in an
action for unlawful detainer.
The following issues are now the subject of Civil Case
No. Q-94-19352 before the RTC of Quezon City: (1) whether
the respondents were buyers in bad faith; (2) the validity of
the deed of absolute sale over the property executed by the
Spouses Pascua in favor of the respondents; and (3) the
validity of the title issued to and in the names of the
respondents. Hence, the Court shall no longer delve into
such issues.

_______________

9 Rollo, p. 76.
10 43 SCRA 136 (1972).
11 265 SCRA 493 (1996).
12 Eduarte v. Court of Appeals, 311 SCRA 18 (1999).
13 Co v. Court of Appeals, 196 SCRA 705 (1991).

360

360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Marcopper Mining Corporation vs. Solidbank Corporation

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is

DENIED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 38333 is AFFIRMED. Costs against the
petitioners.
SO ORDERED.

Puno (Chairman), Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez

and Tinga, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, assailed decision affirmed.

Note.·In an ejectment suit, respondents seek to

exercise their possessory right over their property. (Tumlos
vs. Fernandez, 330 SCRA 718 [2000])

··o0o··

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174003cb877c0cafd32003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ836/?username=Guest Page 10 of 10