ABIGAIL L. MENDIOLA v VENERANDO P.
SANGALANG
G.R. No. 205283
The Facts
This case is a Petition for Review on the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals which
affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissing petitioner's accion
publiciana for failure to prove the better right of possession.
The property in question is a parcel of land that was originally registered in the name of
Honorata G. Sangalang (Honorata). Honorata had two siblings, Sinforosa and Angel. Sinforosa
had three children, petitioner Abigail Mendiola, Vilma Aquino (Vilma) and Azucena De Leon;
while Angel begot four children, respondent Venerando, Ma. Lourdes, AngeFno and Fernando,
all surnamed Sangalang. Sinforosa and Angel predeceased Honorata, and on May 31, 1994,
Honorata herself died intestate without any issue.
While Honorata was still alive, one-half of the residential house of the subject property was
being used by petitioner and the other half by Vilma's son. The commercial building, on the
other hand, was being leased to third persons. This set-up continued until after Honorata's
death.
In 2003, respondent and his siblings discovered that the subject property was already registered
in the names of petitioner and Vilma. Upon verification, they discovered that the title over the
property had been transferred in favor of petitioner and Vilma by virtue of a Deed of Sale
purportedly executed by Honorata in their favor. Consequently, a new title, TCT No. N-
148021 was issued in the names of petitioner and Vilma.
After Vilma's son left the residential house, that respondent, allegedly without asking permission
from the petitioner or Vilma and with the use of force and violence upon things, broke open the
door of the unit and had since detained the same. The petitioner and Vilma demanded that
respondent vacate the unit but the latter refused to do so. Petitioner and Vilma commenced
their complaint for accion publiciana against respondent for the latter to return the illegally
occupied unit and to pay reasonable rental.
The RTC rendered its Decision dismissing the complaint. The court noted that respondent
raised the defense of co-ownership, the case was converted from accion publiciana to accion
reivindicatoria. It further noted that since it is undisputed that the parties are all heirs of
Honorata, then they all have an equal right thereto.
Petitioner and Vilma's motion for reconsideration was similarly rebuffed by the trial
court. Undaunted, they elevated the case to the CA on appeal raising as sole error the trial
court's conversion of the complaint from accion publiciana to accion reivindicatoria and in
consequently ruling in favor of respondent. The CA denied the appeal.
The Issue
Whether the petitioner has the better right of possession over the subject property as to
successfully evict respondent.
The Ruling of this Court
The petition is devoid of merit.
It is settled that the issue of ownership may be resolved only to determine the issue of
possession. To prove their right of possession, petitioner and Vilma harp on their claim as
registered owners while respondent claims entitlement thereto as a co-heir. There is no error
when the RTC and the CA decided the case in favor of respondent.
In this case, it is undisputed that the Deed of Sale, through which ownership over the property
had been purportedly transferred to the petitioner and Vilma, was executed in 1996. However, it
is perfectly obvious that Honorata could not have signed the same as she passed away as early
as 1994. If any, Honorata's signature thereon could only be a product of forgery. This makes the
Deed of Sale void and as such, produces no civil effect; and it does not create, modify, or
extinguish a juridical relation:
In Spouses Reyes v. Montemayor, the Court explains:
Insofar as a person who fraudulently obtained a property is concerned, the registration of the
property in said person's name would not be sufficient to vest in him or her the title to the
property. A certificate of title merely confirms or records title already existing and vested. The in
defeasibility of the Torrens title should not be used as a means to perpetrate fraud against the
rightful owner of real property. Good faith must concur with registration because, otherwise,
registration would be an exercise in futility. A Torrens title does not furnish a shield for fraud,
notwithstanding the longstanding rule that registration is a constructive notice of title binding
upon the whole world. The legal principle is that if the registration of the land is fraudulent, the
person in whose name the land is registered holds it as a mere trustee. Neither can the
argument that a certificate of title is not subject to collateral attack would persuade us to rule
otherwise. With the determination that petitioner and Vilma's title is void, the issue as to whether
it is subject to direct or collateral attack is no longer relevant. Settled is the rule that an action to
declare the nullity of a void title does not prescribe and is susceptible to direct, as well as to
collateral attack. Hence, respondent is not precluded from questioning the validity of the
petitioner and Vilma's title in the accion publiciana. A necessary and logical consequence of the
foregoing pronouncements is that, title over the property remained in the name of Honorata as
original registered owner thereof. By theory of succession, petitioner and respondent are co-
owners of the property and equally entitled to possession thereof, either de facto or de Jure. As
such, petitioner and Vilma had no right to exclude respondent from enjoying possession thereof
through a possessory action. Finally, there being no further argument against the award of
attorney's fees, We have no resort but to affirm the same.
The petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA G
dismissing petitioner's complaint for accion publiciana and awarding attorney's fees in
respondent's favor are AFFIRMED in toto.
