Heirs of Alfonso Yusingco vs. Busilak, et al.

A judgment in an accion reivindicatoria, though in personam and generally binding only upon parties properly impleaded and their successors in interest, binds even non-parties who are mere trespassers, squatters, or intruders without any right to possess the property, as their illegal possession cannot prevail against the judicially-declared ownership of the true owner.

Petitioners, heirs of Alfonso Yusingco, inherited three parcels of land (Lots 519, 520, and 1015) located in Barangay Taft, Surigao City. They possessed these properties prior to World War II but lost them during the conflict. After the war, they discovered various persons occupying the land, prompting them to file earlier suits for accion reivindicatoria. While those cases were pending, respondents entered and occupied different portions of the same properties without petitioners' knowledge or consent. Petitioners tolerated this occupation temporarily due to insufficient resources to protect the property and the pending litigation over ownership. In 1979, the Court of First Instance declared petitioners the lawful co-owners of the subject lots, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals in 1982 and which became final and executory in 1986. Following this final determination of ownership, petitioners demanded that respondents vacate, but respondents refused, claiming over thirty years of possession and asserting that petitioners never possessed the land nor held valid title.

• Nature of the Actions: On August 11, 2005, petitioners filed five separate complaints denominated as "Accion Publiciana and/or Recovery of Possession" against respondents and a certain Reynaldo Peralta with the MTCC of Surigao City, later consolidated and raffled to Branch 1. Petitioners alleged ownership of Lots 519, 520, and 1015 through inheritance from Alfonso Yusingco, prior possession before World War II, loss of possession during the war, and subsequent unauthorized entry by respondents during the pendency of earlier ownership disputes against other occupants.

• Prior Litigation and Final Judgments: Earlier cases for accion reivindicatoria (Civil Case No. 1645) resulted in a Court of First Instance decision dated June 8, 1979, declaring petitioners as true and lawful co-owners of the subject lots. The Court of Appeals affirmed this in its Decision dated August 30, 1982 (CA-G.R. No. 66508-R), which became final and executory on December 18, 1986.

• Respondents' Entry and Occupation: Respondents entered and occupied different portions of the subject properties without petitioners' knowledge or consent while the earlier ownership cases were pending. Petitioners tolerated this occupation due to insufficient resources to protect the property and because their ownership was still being disputed in the earlier litigation. Respondents declared their houses and improvements for tax purposes, but none declared the lots themselves in their names, nor did they apply for legal modes of acquiring public land despite claiming the lots were public domain.

• Demand and Refusal: After the earlier judgments became final, petitioners demanded respondents vacate the premises. Respondents refused, asserting possession for over thirty years and claiming petitioners never possessed the land nor held valid title.

• Lower Court Findings: The MTCC found respondents to be mere intruders occupying the properties simply as places to stay with the intention of acquiring them should they prove to be public lands. The trial court concluded that respondents' possession was not under claim of ownership or in the concept of an owner, and therefore could not ripen into ownership by prescription.

• Binding Effect of Prior Judgments: Petitioner maintained that the prior judgments in the accion reivindicatoria, having declared them the lawful owners, should bind respondents notwithstanding their non-party status, as the principle that such judgments are in personam and bind only parties is inapplicable where respondents are mere trespassers and intruders.

• Superior Right to Possess: Petitioner argued that respondents could not possess a better right of possession than the judicially-declared owners, emphasizing that the prior rulings established petitioners' ownership conclusively and entitled them to legal protection against mere squatters.

• In Personam Nature of Judgments: Respondent countered that the prior judgments in the accion reivindicatoria were actions in personam binding only the parties properly impleaded and duly heard therein. Since respondents were not parties to Civil Case No. 1645, they could not be bound by the declarations of ownership therein.

• Independent Possessory Right: Respondent argued that their possession of over thirty years created an independent right to possess that could not be defeated by judgments to which they were not privy, effectively implying a superior right to possession over petitioners' claim.

• Binding Effect on Non-Parties: Whether the final and executory decisions in the prior accion reivindicatoria, declaring petitioners as lawful owners, bind respondents who were not parties to those proceedings.

• Characterization of Actions: Whether the complaints filed were properly characterized as accion reivindicatoria rather than accion publiciana given the allegations of ownership.

• Characterization of Actions: The complaints were properly treated as accion reivindicatoria, not accion publiciana. An accion reivindicatoria seeks recovery of possession as an element of ownership, whereas accion publiciana determines the better right of possession independently of title. Because petitioners alleged ownership and sought recovery based thereon, the nature of the action was correctly determined to be reivindicatoria, notwithstanding the caption.

• Binding Effect on Non-Parties: The prior judgments bind respondents. While it is settled that judgments directing delivery of possession in accion reivindicatoria are in personam and conclusive only between parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action, an exception exists for non-parties who are trespassers, squatters, agents fraudulently occupying the property, guests or occupants with the defendant's permission, transferees pendente lite, sublessees, co-lessees, or family members/privies of the defendant. Respondents, having been found to be mere intruders without any claim of ownership or color of right, possessing the premises merely as places to stay with the hope of acquiring them should they prove to be public lands, fall squarely within the category of trespassers bound by the prior judgments declaring petitioners' ownership.

• Accion Reivindicatoria Defined — An action whereby the plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full possession. It is a suit to recover possession of a parcel of land as an element of ownership, distinct from accion publiciana where the plaintiff merely alleges proof of a better right to possess without claim of title. The Court applied this doctrine to determine that the complaints, though captioned as accion publiciana, were actually accion reivindicatoria because petitioners sought recovery based on ownership.

• In Personam Judgments in Real Actions — A judgment directing a party to deliver possession of property to another is in personam. It is conclusive, not against the whole world, but only between the parties properly impleaded 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 is in personam insofar as it binds a particular individual only, although it concerns the right to a tangible thing.

• Exception for Trespassers and Intruders — Non-parties to an ejectment suit or accion reivindicatoria may be bound by the judgment where they fall into specific categories: (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. The Court held that respondents, as mere intruders without right, were bound by the prior judgments.

• Prescription by Intruders — Possession by mere intruders or squatters without claim of ownership or in the concept of an owner cannot ripen into ownership by acquisitive prescription. The Court applied this principle to reject respondents' claim of ownership through thirty years of possession, noting their failure to declare the lots in their names or apply for legal modes of acquiring public land.

• "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. 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." — Establishes the fundamental distinction between ownership-based and possession-based recovery actions.

• "It is settled that a judgment directing a party to deliver possession of a property to another is in personam. 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." — Articulates the general rule regarding the binding effect of possession judgments.

• "However, this rule admits of the exception that even a non-party may be bound by the judgment in an ejectment suit 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." — Enumerates the specific categories of non-parties who may be bound by in personam judgments in ejectment cases.

• "On the other hand, the evidence for the defendants showed that they are mere intruders on the lots in question. They are occupying their respective portions simply as places to stay with intention of acquiring the said properties in the event that they are public lands and not owned by any private person... Obviously, their physical possession of the premises was not under claim of ownership or in the concept of an owner. Hence, the defendants' possession cannot ripen into ownership by prescription as claimed by them. They are intruders, plain and simple, without any right of possession to be protected." — Factual finding that placed respondents within the exception as trespassers without colorable right.

• _Spouses Valdez, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 523 Phil. 39 (2006):_ Cited for the distinction between the three types of actions to recover possession: accion interdictal (forcible entry and unlawful detainer), accion publiciana, and accion reivindicatoria.

• _Spouses Stilgrove v. Sabas, 538 Phil. 232 (2006):_ Controlling precedent establishing that judgments directing delivery of possession are in personam and enumerating the specific exceptions whereby non-parties, including trespassers and squatters, may be bound by such judgments.

• _Amoroso v. Alegre, Jr., 552 Phil. 22 (2007):_ Cited for the definition of accion reivindicatoria as a suit to recover possession as an element of ownership, where the judgment determines ownership and awards possession to the lawful owner.

• _Marmo v. Anacay, 621 Phil. 212 (2009):_ Referenced regarding the application of Article 487 of the Civil Code to reivindicatory actions and the binding effect of judgments on non-parties.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court: Governs the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioners to assail the Court of Appeals' decision.

• Rule 42, Rules of Court: Governs the petition for review filed by respondents with the Court of Appeals assailing the RTC decision.

• Article 487, Civil Code: Applied in relation to the rights of a possessor in the concept of owner, referenced in the context of reivindicatory actions and the distinction between possession with and without claim of ownership.

Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, Andres B. Reyes, Jr.