Eversley Childs Sanitarium vs. Spouses Barbarona

A complaint for unlawful detainer must allege that the defendant's possession was initially lawful by tolerance or permission and became unlawful only upon demand to vacate; where the complaint alleges that the possession was illegal from the start without acts of tolerance, the action is properly cognizable as accion publiciana by the Regional Trial Court, not as summary ejectment by the Municipal Trial Court.

Eversley Childs Sanitarium, a public health facility operated by the Department of Health since 1930 for the treatment of Hansen's disease patients, occupied a portion of Lot No. 1936 in Jagobiao, Mandaue City, Cebu. The property had been reserved for its use by Proclamation No. 507, series of 1932. Spouses Anastacio and Perla Barbarona claimed ownership of the entire lot by virtue of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 53698, derived from Original Certificate of Title No. R0-824 issued pursuant to Decree No. 699021 dated March 29, 1939 in favor of the Spouses Gonzales, from whom the Barbaronas acquired rights through a 2004 deed of renunciation.

• Nature of the Parties and Property: Eversley Childs Sanitarium is a public leprosarium operated by the Department of Health, constructed in 1928-1930 with funds donated by Eversley Childs and turned over to the Philippine government on May 30, 1930. It has occupied portions of Lot No. 1936 in Jagobiao, Mandaue City since that time. The Spouses Barbarona claim ownership of Lot No. 1936 via TCT No. 53698 issued February 7, 2005, which was reconstituted from Decree No. 699021 issued March 29, 1939 to their predecessors-in-interest, the Spouses Gonzales.
• The Ejectment Complaint: In their May 6, 2005 complaint before the MTCC, the Spouses Barbarona alleged that the occupants (including Eversley) were occupying the property "without color of right or title" and that such occupancy was "purely by mere tolerance," despite a demand to vacate by April 15, 2005. They sought recovery of possession and payment of monthly compensation.
• Defenses Interposed: Eversley and other defendants countered that they had possessed the property for over 70 years, that the action was actually for recovery of possession (accion publiciana) beyond the MTCC's jurisdiction, and that the Spouses Barbarona were guilty of laches. They also questioned the validity of the title for lack of notice to them as occupants.
• Parallel Proceedings on Title: While the ejectment case was pending, the Republic of the Philippines (represented by the OSG) filed a petition for annulment of judgment in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 01503) assailing the reconstitution of Decree No. 699021. On February 19, 2007, the Court of Appeals cancelled OCT No. R0-824 and all derivative titles, including TCT No. 53698, finding that the reconstitution proceedings violated due process for failure to notify actual occupants. The Register of Deeds cancelled TCT No. 53698 on January 25, 2011.
• Lower Courts' Reliance on Title: Both the MTCC and RTC predicated their decisions ordering ejectment on the strength of TCT No. 53698, holding that a certificate of title is conclusive evidence of ownership and that tax declarations could not prevail over a Torrens title. The Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that the nullification of the certificate based on procedural defects did not nullify the underlying decree, which remained a prima facie source of ownership.
• Historical Reservation: Proclamation No. 507, dated October 21, 1932, reserved certain parcels of land in Jagobiao, Mandaue City as an additional leprosarium site for the Eversley Childs Treatment Station, predating the 1939 decree in favor of the Spouses Gonzales.

• Prejudicial Effect of Title Nullification: Eversley maintained that the subsequent cancellation of TCT No. 53698 by the Court of Appeals in the separate annulment case should have been prejudicial to the Spouses Barbarona's cause of action, as the lower courts had relied solely on the title to determine the right of possession.
• Nature of the Action: Eversley argued that the complaint stated a cause of action for accion publiciana, not unlawful detainer, because the Spouses Barbarona failed to allege specific acts of tolerance showing that possession was initially lawful; the bare allegation of tolerance was insufficient given Eversley's possession since 1930, which predated the 1939 decree.
• Possession by Virtue of Law: Eversley asserted that its possession was not by tolerance but by virtue of Proclamation No. 507 (1932), which reserved the property for leprosarium use, and that such reservation constituted a lien or encumbrance that could not be defeated by the subsequent issuance of a Torrens title.
• Procedural Compliance: Regarding the alleged forum shopping, Eversley (through the OSG) explained that the motion for reconsideration filed in the Court of Appeals was done erroneously by a different set of solicitors and was immediately sought to be withdrawn upon discovery; the filing of the petition for review before the Supreme Court should have rendered the motion for reconsideration deemed abandoned under the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals.

• Independence of Decree from Title: The Spouses Barbarona countered that the cancellation of TCT No. 53698 did not divest them of ownership or the right of possession because the underlying Decree No. 699021 remained valid; the nullification of the certificate based on procedural defects in reconstitution did not affect the decree's validity or their derivative rights as successors of the Spouses Gonzales.
• Jurisdiction of the MTCC: Respondents maintained that the MTCC had jurisdiction because the complaint sufficiently alleged unlawful detainer; prior physical possession by the plaintiff is not required, and the one-year period commences from the demand to vacate.
• Forum Shopping: Respondents argued that Eversley committed forum shopping by filing the petition for review with the Supreme Court while a motion for reconsideration was pending before the Court of Appeals, and that the withdrawal of the motion did not cure the violation because the Court of Appeals had not yet acted upon the withdrawal.

• Forum Shopping: Whether Eversley Childs Sanitarium violated the rule against forum shopping by filing a petition for review with the Supreme Court while a motion for reconsideration was pending before the Court of Appeals.
• Effect of Title Nullification: Whether the nullification of the Spouses Barbarona's certificate of title (TCT No. 53698) invalidated their right to possession over the disputed property.
• Nature of the Action and Jurisdiction: Whether the Spouses Barbarona's complaint against Eversley Childs Sanitarium was for accion publiciana or for unlawful detainer, and consequently, whether the Municipal Trial Court had jurisdiction over the case.

• Forum Shopping: No forum shopping was committed. Under Rule VI, Section 15 of the 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, a motion for reconsideration pending before the Court of Appeals is deemed abandoned once the movant files a petition for review or motion for extension of time to file such petition with the Supreme Court. Although the OSG filed a motion to withdraw the motion for reconsideration rather than merely manifesting abandonment, the Court of Appeals' failure to apply its own Internal Rules and its subsequent denial of the motion for reconsideration (despite the withdrawal motion) did not retroactively validate the pending status of the motion; the filing of the petition for review with the Supreme Court rendered the motion for reconsideration abandoned as a matter of law.
• Effect of Title Nullification: The cancellation of TCT No. 53698 defeated the Spouses Barbarona's claim to possession. While a certificate of title does not vest ownership but merely recognizes it, the Spouses Barbarona had no other proof of ownership or right to possession once the title was cancelled. The Deed of Renunciation from the heirs of the Spouses Gonzales was insufficient to prove valid conveyance absent proof that the heirs themselves acquired ownership. Moreover, Proclamation No. 507 (1932), which reserved portions of the property for the leprosarium, predated the 1939 decree in favor of the Spouses Gonzales; a Torrens title is issued subject to such liens, encumbrances, or reservations as the law warrants. Eversley's possession, therefore, was by virtue of law and not by mere tolerance of the registered owner.
• Nature of the Action and Jurisdiction: The complaint stated a cause of action for accion publiciana, not unlawful detainer. For unlawful detainer to lie, the complaint must allege that possession was initially lawful by tolerance or permission and became unlawful only upon demand; the acts of tolerance must be proved and must have been present from the start of possession. Here, the complaint merely alleged that possession was "illegal and not anchored upon any contractual relations" from the start, without alleging specific acts of tolerance or when possession turned unlawful. Where possession is alleged to be illegal ab initio, the proper remedy is accion publiciana (for recovery of the better right to possess) or accion reivindicatoria (for recovery of ownership), both cognizable by the Regional Trial Court, not the Municipal Trial Court. Accordingly, the MTCC lacked jurisdiction over the case.

• Forum Shopping and Abandonment of Motion for Reconsideration — Under Rule VI, Section 15 of the 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, the filing of a petition for review on certiorari or a motion for extension of time to file such petition with the Supreme Court automatically renders any pending motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals deemed abandoned; the Court of Appeals lacks discretion to act upon the motion for reconsideration once the party has sought relief from the Supreme Court.
• Essential Requisites of Unlawful Detainer — An action for unlawful detainer requires: (1) the plaintiff's allegation and proof that the defendant's possession was initially lawful by virtue of tolerance, permission, or contract; (2) the subsequent withdrawal of such tolerance or expiration of the right to possess; and (3) the defendant's refusal to vacate after demand. A bare allegation of tolerance is insufficient; the plaintiff must show overt acts indicative of permission from the inception of possession. If the complaint alleges that possession was illegal from the start, the remedy is accion publiciana, not unlawful detainer.
• Jurisdiction Determined by Allegations — Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint. If the complaint alleges facts constituting accion publiciana (possession illegal from the start, beyond one year), the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction notwithstanding the prayer for ejectment.
• Effect of Reservation on Torrens Title — A certificate of title issued under the Torrens system is subject to liens, encumbrances, and reservations that the law warrants or reserves. A presidential proclamation reserving land for public use, issued prior to the registration of the title, constitutes a valid reservation that affects the right of possession of the registered owner and prevents the possessor under such reservation from being deemed a tenant by tolerance.
• Provisionality of Ownership Determination in Ejectment — While courts may provisionally pass upon issues of ownership in ejectment cases solely to determine the issue of possession, such determination is not conclusive and does not bind the title or affect ownership in a subsequent action between the same parties involving title.

• "A case for unlawful detainer must state the period from when the occupation by tolerance started and the acts of tolerance exercised by the party with the right to possession. If it is argued that the possession was illegal from the start, the proper remedy is to file an accion publiciana, or a plenary action to recover the right of possession."
• "Petitioner cannot be considered as one occupying under mere tolerance of the registered owner since its occupation was by virtue of law. Petitioner's right of possession, therefore, shall remain unencumbered subject to the final disposition on the issue of the property's ownership."
• "Under the Torrens system of registration, the government is required to issue an official certificate of title to attest to the fact that the person named is the owner of the property described therein, subject to such liens and encumbrances as thereon noted or what the law warrants or reserves."
• "In any event, petitioner has some other recourse. He may pursue recovering possession of his property by filing an accion publiciana, which is a plenary action intended to recover the better right to possess; or an accion reivindicatoria, a suit to recover ownership of real property. We stress, however, that the pronouncement in this case as to the ownership of the land should be regarded as merely provisional and, therefore, would not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the land."

• Carbonilla v. Abiera, 639 Phil. 473 (2010) — Controlling precedent on the requisites of unlawful detainer, specifically the requirement to prove acts of tolerance from the inception of possession and the distinction between unlawful detainer and accion publiciana.
• Co v. Militar, 466 Phil. 217 (2004) — Cited for the principle that ejectment courts may only provisionally resolve ownership to determine possession, and that such provisional determination is not binding in subsequent actions.
• Mediran v. Villanueva, 37 Phil. 752 (1918) — Historical authority on the distinction between possession and ownership, and the purpose of ejectment suits to protect actual possession pending resolution of ownership disputes.
• City of Taguig v. City of Makati, G.R. No. 208393 (2016) — Cited for the definition and rationale of the rule against forum shopping.

• Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court — Governs the certification against forum shopping required in initiatory pleadings.
• Rule VI, Section 15 of the 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals — Provides that a motion for reconsideration pending before the Court of Appeals is deemed abandoned if the movant files a petition for review or motion for extension with the Supreme Court.
• Proclamation No. 507 (Series of 1932) — Reserved certain parcels of land in Jagobiao, Mandaue City, Cebu as additional leprosarium site for the Eversley Childs Treatment Station.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Lucas P. Bersamin, Samuel R. Martires, Alexander G. Gesmundo.