G.R. No. 189248 Case Digest

G.R. No. 189248, February 5, 2014

Teodoro S. Teodoro, substituted by his heirs Nelson Teodoro and Rolando Teodoro

vs Danilo Espino, Rosario Santiago, etc.

Ponente: Perez

Facts:

The subject property is a piece of land registered in the name of Genaro, long deceased ascendant of all the parties. Teodoro is a nephew of Petra (daughter of Genaro), while the respondents are grand nephews.

Of all Genaro's children, only Petra occupied the land and lived at their ancestral house. After Petra's death, her will was probated in RTC Bulacan, which decision on the will's extrinsic validity has become final and executory. In the will, Petra devised the property to Teodoro.

Teodoro then demolished the ancestral house to use the property for other purposes. Soon thereafter, the respondents prevented Teodoro from using the property.

After, Teodoro's demand to vacate went unheeded; he filed the complaint for forcible entry against respondents.

In their answer, the respondents asserted ownership and possession of the land.

MTC dismissed the complaint. Although it its undisputed that Petra Teodoro was in actual possession of the subject lot prior to her demise and that she left a Holographic Will wherein the subject lot was bequeathed to [Teodoro Teodoro], the probate of her last will has not finally settled the question of ownership over the subject lot. Clearly, the subject lot still forms part of the estate of the late Genaro Teodoro. In the absence of an actual and approved partition plan among his heirs, the subject lot remains part of the Genaro Teodoro’s estate. Since his children Santiago, Maria, Petra, Mariano and Ana are all deceased, their children or grandchildren by right of representation have the right to inherit from their ancestor.

A person who claims that he has a better right to real property must prove his ownership of the same x x x. Clearly, [Teodoro Teodoro] has failed to prove his ownership over the property or that of his devisee Petra Teodoro. Thus, the court is convinced that the possession of [respondents] over the subject lot should not be disturbed, until and unless the question of ownership over the same shall have been finally resolved before the appropriate court.

RTC adopted the factual findings of the MTC but reversed the ruling in favor of Teodoro. CA explained that the ancestral house was the clear share of Petra's inheritance and Teodoro claims right to possession only over the said portion, not the netire thing. Teodoro has acknowledged that the rest is occupied.

CA reversed the RTC decision. It specifically ruled that Teodoro Teodoro:

(1) Never had physical possession of the subject property, not having lived there at any time, whether while Petra was alive nor after her death;

(2) did not adduce evidence before the lower courts on proof of payment of any real property tax on the disputed vacant lot, portion of Lot No. 2476, or to the whole of Lot No. 2476;

(3) did not solely or unilaterally cause the demolition of the ancestral house such a fact equating to his exclusive ownership of the subject property and complete control and dominion over it; and

(4) Cannot tack his alleged possession of the subject property to that of Petra Teodoro simply by virtue of the latter’s holographic will, leading to the issue of ownership which is insignificant in forcible entry cases.

SC: We grant the petition. We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and restore the decision of the RTC on the appeal reversing the MTC.

Certainly, and as found by the trial courts, the whole of Lot No. 2476 including the portion now litigated is, owing to the fact that it has remained registered in the name of Genaro who is the common ancestor of both parties herein, co-owned property. All, or both Teodoro Teodoro and respondents are entitled to exercise the right of possession as co-owners.

Neither party can exclude the other from possession. Although the property remains unpartitioned, the respondents in fact possess specific areas. Teodoro Teodoro can likewise point to a specific area, which is that which was possessed by Petra. Teodoro Teodoro cannot be dispossessed of such area, not only by virtue of Petra's bequeathal in his favor but also because of his own right of possession that comes from his co-ownership of the property. As the RTC concluded, petitioners, as heirs substituting Teodoro

Teodoro in this suit, should be restored in the lawful possession of the disputed area.