[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
212 views1 page

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

The Spouses Barbarona filed a complaint for ejectment against occupants of Lot No. 1936, including Eversley Childs Sanitarium, claiming ownership based on a land title that was later cancelled. The Court of Appeals cancelled the land title and derivative titles, including the one claimed by the Spouses Barbarona, invalidating their basis for possession. As their title was cancelled, the Spouses Barbarona no longer had proof of a right to possess the property. The complaint was more accurately one for accion publiciana, to recover possession of property occupied without consent, rather than unlawful detainer, since the complaint alleged the occupation was always illegal rather than a change from lawful to unlawful possession.

Uploaded by

Napolyn Fernandez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
212 views1 page

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

The Spouses Barbarona filed a complaint for ejectment against occupants of Lot No. 1936, including Eversley Childs Sanitarium, claiming ownership based on a land title that was later cancelled. The Court of Appeals cancelled the land title and derivative titles, including the one claimed by the Spouses Barbarona, invalidating their basis for possession. As their title was cancelled, the Spouses Barbarona no longer had proof of a right to possess the property. The complaint was more accurately one for accion publiciana, to recover possession of property occupied without consent, rather than unlawful detainer, since the complaint alleged the occupation was always illegal rather than a change from lawful to unlawful possession.

Uploaded by

Napolyn Fernandez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

EVERSLEY CHILDS SANITARIUM, represented by DR. GERARDO M. AQUINO, JR. (now DR.

PRIMO JOEL S. ALVEZ) CHIEF OF SANITARIUM, vs. SPOUSES ANASTACIO


PERLABARBARONA

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

(Leonen, J.)

Spouses Barbarona allege that they are the owners of Lot No. 1936 by virtue of Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 53698. They filed a Complaint for Ejectment against the occupants of
Lot No. 1936, namely, Eversley, Jagobiao National High School, the Bureau of Food and Drugs,
and some residents (collectively, the occupants). The Spouses Barbarona alleged that they had
sent demand letters and that the occupants were given until April 15, 2005 to vacate the
premises. They further claimed that despite the lapse of the period, the occupants refused to
vacate; hence, they were constrained to file the Complaint. The occupants, on the other hand,
alleged that since they had been in possession of the property for more than 70 years, the case
was effectively one for recovery of possession

The Court of Appeals,in a separate case, rendered a Decision, cancelling OCT No. R0-824 and its
derivative titles, including TCT No. 53698, for lack of notice to the owners of the adjoining
properties and its occupants.

Q: Is the nullification of the Spouses Barbarona's title had the effect of invalidating their
right of possession over the disputed property

A: Yes. An ejectment case only resolves the issue of who has the better right of possession over
the property. In this instance, respondents anchor their right of possession over the disputed
property on TCT No. 5369859 issued in their names. Without TCT No. 53698, respondents have
no other proof on which to anchor their claim.

Q: Is the complaint against Eversley Childs Sanitarium was for accion publiciana or for
unlawful detainer?

A: 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 (I) 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. Respondents failed to state when petitioner's possession was initially lawful, and how
and when their dispossession started.

All that appears from the Complaint is that petitioner's occupation "is illegal and not anchored
upon any contractual relations with [respondents.]" This, however, is insufficient to determine if
the action was filed within a year from dispossession, as required in an ejectment case. On the
contrary, respondents allege that petitioner's occupation was illegal from the start. The proper
remedy, therefore, should have been to file an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria to assert
their right of possession or their right of ownership.

You might also like