G.R. No.

210504 ; January 24, 2018

HEIRS OF ALFONSO YUSINGCO, represented by their

Attorney-in-Fact, TEODORO K. YUSINGCO vs. AMELITA
BUSILAK, COSCA NAVARRO, FLAVIA CURAYAG and
LIXBERTO CASTRO.

Doctrines:

The three (3) kinds of actions available to recover possession

of real property, to wit:

xx 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).

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 prior 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 filing 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. 11 It is a suit
to recover possession of a parcel of land as an element of
ownership. The judgment in such a case determines the
ownership of the property and awards the possession of the
property to the lawful owner. It is different from accion
interdictal or accion publiciana where plaintiff merely alleges
proof of a better right to possess without claim of title.

On the basis of the above discussions, it is clear that the lower

courts did not err in ruling that the suits filed 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 CAG. R. CV No. 66508-R used by the MTCC in
the present case as bases in holding that herein petitioners are
owners of the subject properties and are, thus, entitled to legal
possession thereof, are judgments on a previous case for
accion reivindicatoria, which was filed 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. 15 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." 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. Any judgment therein is binding only upon
the parties properly impleaded and duly heard or given an
opportunity to be heard. However, this rule admits of the
exception that even a non-party may be bound by the judgment
in an ejectment suit19 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.20

G.R. No. 195814 ; APRIL 4, 2018

EVERSLEY CHILDS SANITARIUM, represented by DR.

GERARDO M. AQUINO, JR. (now DR. PRIMO JOEL S.
ALVEZ) CHIEF OF SANITARIUM vs. SPOUSES ANASTACIO
PERLABARBARONA

Doctrines:

1. By its very nature, an ejectment case only resolves the issue

of who has the better right of possession over the property. The
right of possession in this instance refers to actual possession,
not legal possession. While a party may later be proven to have
the legal right of possession by virtue of ownership, he or she
must still institute an ejectment case to be able to dispossess
an actual occupant of the property who refuses to vacate. In
Mediran v. Villanueva:

Juridically speaking, possession is distinct from ownership, and

from this distinction are derived legal consequences of much
importance. In giving recognition to the action of forcible entry
and detainer the purpose of the law is to protect the person who
in fact has actual possession; and in case of controverted right,
it requires the parties to preserve the status quo until one or the
other of them sees tit to invoke the decision of a court of
competent jurisdiction upon the question of ownership. It is
obviously just that the person who has first acquired possession
should remain in possession pending this decision; and the
parties cannot be permitted meanwhile to engage in a petty
warfare over the possession of the property which is the subject
of dispute. To permit this would be highly dangerous to
individual security and disturbing to social order. Therefore,
where a person supposes himself to be the owner of a piece of
property and desires to vindicate his ownership against the
party actually in possession, it is incumbent upon him to
institute an action to this end in a court of competent
jurisdiction; and he [cannot] be permitted, by invading the
property and excluding the actual possessor, to place upon the
latter the burden of instituting an action to try the property right.
[56]

In ejectment cases, courts will only resolve the issue of

ownership provisionally if the issue of possession cannot be
resolved without passing upon it. In Co v. Militar:

We have, time and again, held that the only issue for resolution
in an unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession
of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership
by any of the party litigants. Moreover, an ejectment suit is
summary in nature and is not susceptible to circumvention by
the simple expedient of asserting ownership over the property.

In forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, even if the

defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and
the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding
the issue of ownership, the lower courts and the Court of
Appeals, nonetheless, have the undoubted competence to
provisionally resolve the issue of ownership for the sole
purpose of determining the issue of possession.

Such decision, however, does not bind the title or affect the
ownership of the land nor is conclusive of the facts therein
found in a case between the same parties upon a different
cause of action involving possession.

In this instance, respondents anchor their right of possession

over the disputed property on TCT No. 53698[59] issued in their
names. It is true that a registered owner has a right of
possession over the property as this is one of the attributes of
ownership. Ejectment cases, however, are not automatically
decided in favor of the party who presents proof of ownership,
thus:

Without a doubt, the registered owner of real property is entitled

to its possession. However, the owner cannot simply wrest
possession thereof from whoever is in actual occupation of the
property. To recover possession, he must resort to the proper
judicial remedy and, once he chooses what action to file, he is
required to satisfy the conditions necessary for such action to
prosper.

2. There are three (3) remedies available to one who has been
dispossessed of property: (1) an action for ejectment to recover
possession, whether for unlawful detainer or forcible entry; (2)
accion publiciana or accion plenaria de posesion, or a plenary
action to recover the right of · possession; and (3) accion
reivindicatoria, or an action to recover ownership.

Although both ejectment and accion publiciana are actions

specifically to recover the right of possession, they have two (2)
distinguishing differences. The first is the filing period.
Ejectment cases must be filed within one (1) year from the date
of dispossession. If the dispossession lasts for more than a
year, then an accion publiciana must be filed. The second
distinction concerns jurisdiction. Ejectment cases, being
summary in nature, are filed with the Municipal Trial Courts.
Accion publiciana, however, can only be taken cognizance by
the Regional Trial Court.