Spouses Padilla vs. Velasco

In an accion publiciana, the plaintiff need only establish a better right of possession; the action prescribes ten years after dispossession, and a claim that the occupied lot is the same as another registered lot amounts to an impermissible collateral attack on the registered title.

Respondents are the heirs of Dr. Artemio A. Velasco, who died single and without issue on January 22, 1949. During his lifetime, Artemio acquired Lot No. 2161, consisting of 7,791 square meters in Barangay Pinagsanjan, Pagsanjan, Laguna, from spouses Brigido Sacluti and Melitona Obial by deed of sale dated February 14, 1944. Petitioners are spouses Jonel and Sarah Padilla, who claim under a deed of sale executed by the Rural Bank of Pagsanjan in favor of spouses Bartolome Solomon, Jr. and Teresita Padilla covering a parcel identified as Lot No. 76-pt. The controversy concerns which party has the better right to possess Lot No. 2161, with respondents tracing their claim to Artemio and petitioners tracing theirs to the Solomon spouses' purchase from the bank.

Respondents are the heirs of Dr. Artemio A. Velasco, who died single and without issue on January 22, 1949. During his lifetime, Artemio acquired Lot No. 2161, consisting of 7,791 square meters situated at Barangay Pinagsanjan, Pagsanjan, Laguna, covered by Tax Declaration No. 4739, from spouses Brigido Sacluti and Melitona Obial by deed of sale dated February 14, 1944. In October 1987, petitioners entered the property as trustees by virtue of a deed of sale executed by the Rural Bank of Pagsanjan in favor of spouses Bartolome Solomon, Jr. and Teresita Padilla. Respondents demanded that petitioners vacate the property, but the latter refused; the matter was referred to the barangay for conciliation, but the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement. Thereafter, petitioners caused the cutting of trees in the area, fenced it, built a house thereon, harvested the crops, and performed other acts of dominion over the property.

On October 14, 1991, respondents filed a complaint for accion publiciana, accounting and damages against petitioners before the RTC of Santa Cruz, Laguna. They asked the court to order petitioners to vacate the property and to pay moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and costs of suit. Isauro A. Velasco, the brother of the deceased Artemio, as administrator of the property, was presented as a witness. He testified that Artemio owned the property; he presented the Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan executed by spouses Brigido Sacluti and Melitona Obial in favor of Artemio and declared that he was present during the signing of the instrument. He offered in evidence tax declarations and tax receipts covering Lot No. 2161, all in the name of Artemio. A certification from the Land Registration Authority was likewise presented, stating that based on its records, Decree No. 403348 was issued on October 10, 1930 covering Lot No. 2161. Rolando R. Flores, a geodetic engineer, also testified that on January 16, 1993, upon prior notice to petitioners, he conducted a survey of the land based on the technical description of the property and the map from the Bureau of Lands; upon examination and based on his survey, he concluded that the land occupied by petitioners was Lot No. 2161.

Petitioners averred that the Solomon spouses owned the property; that the said spouses bought it from the Rural Bank of Pagsanjan as evidenced by a deed of sale dated September 4, 1987; that the land was identified as Lot No. 76-pt, consisting of 10,000 square meters, located at Pinagsanjan, Pagsanjan, Laguna; and that the spouses authorized petitioners to occupy the land and introduce improvements thereon. Petitioners further claimed that subsequent to the sale of the property to the Solomon spouses, Lot No. 76-pt was levied on in Civil Case No. 320 under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court of Pagsanjan, Laguna, entitled “Rural Bank of Pagsanjan, Inc. vs. Spouses Hector and Emma Velasco, Valeriano Velasco and Virginia Miso.” Petitioners alleged that Valeriano Velasco obtained a loan from the Rural Bank of Pagsanjan, with Hector Velasco as co-maker, and the land was mortgaged by Valeriano as collateral. Valeriano's failure to pay the loan caused the foreclosure of the land, and on September 17, 1980, Lot No. 76-pt was sold at a public auction by the Provincial Sheriff; the Rural Bank of Pagsanjan was the highest bidder.

Pedro Zalameda Trinidad, Jr., as a witness for petitioners, testified that he was born in Barangay Pinagsanjan, Pagsanjan, Laguna, and had been residing there since birth. He said that based on his knowledge, the land belonged to Nonong (Valeriano) Velasco because he used to buy coconuts harvested from the said land and it was Nonong Velasco who caused the gathering of coconuts thereon. Petitioner Jonel Padilla also took the witness stand. He testified that Pedro was occupying the land when he initially visited it; a representative of the Rural Bank of Pagsanjan disclosed to him that the land previously belonged to Valeriano; he verified from the Municipal Assessor the technical description of the land, but no longer verified from the Bureau of Lands because he trusted the bank. Upon his recommendation, his sister and his brother-in-law purchased the property after verifying the supporting documents; it was his brother-in-law who went to the Bureau of Lands and found that it was Lot No. 2161.

The RTC found that respondents and their predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the subject realty for a long time, that their possession was interrupted by petitioners who entered the property in 1987 pursuant to the deed of sale between the Rural Bank of Pagsanjan and the Solomon spouses, and that the land occupied by petitioners was Lot No. 2161 while the land sold by the bank to the Solomon spouses was Lot No. 76-pt. The CA affirmed these factual findings.

• Deed of Sale and Title: Petitioners argued that the sale between Brigido Sacluti and Melitona Obial as sellers and Dr. Artemio Velasco as buyer was never established because respondents failed to present the original deed during trial despite their commitment to do so, and because the purported Original Certificate of Title in the names of Sacluti and Obial was never presented, creating the presumption that its presentation would have been adverse to respondents.
• Good Faith of Solomon Spouses: Petitioners maintained that the Solomon spouses acquired the subject property from its lawful owner in good faith and for value.
• Public Auction and Estoppel: Petitioners argued that the Solomon spouses acquired the property at the public auction sale conducted by the Provincial Sheriff of Laguna based on the judgment and writ of execution issued by the Municipal Trial Court of Laguna against respondent Valeriano Velasco for non-payment of a loan; that Tax Declaration No. 4624 in Valeriano's name was entitled to the presumption of regularity, especially since respondents did not explain how it was wrongly issued in their brother's name and took no action to correct it; and that respondents were barred by estoppel for failing to assert ownership and for not questioning the bank's action despite awareness since 1980.
• Prescription: Petitioners argued that the action was barred by prescription because respondents filed it only on October 14, 1991, more than ten years after the bank acquired the property on September 17, 1980 at the public auction.
• Laches: Petitioners argued that respondents were guilty of laches, having slept on their rights for an unreasonable length of time, such that dispossessing petitioners after they had introduced substantial improvements in good faith would cause undue damage and injury.
• Identity of Lots: Petitioners argued that the evidence proved that Lot No. 2161 and Lot No. 76-pt are one and the same.
• New Trial — Negligence of Counsel: Petitioners argued that the failure of Atty. Asinas to present other witnesses and additional documents and to respond to certain pleadings, caused by his serious illnesses, constituted excusable negligence or incompetency warranting a new trial, citing the Supreme Court's recognition of negligence or incompetency of counsel as a ground for new trial especially if it results in serious injustice or an uneven playing field.
• Overwhelming Evidence: Petitioners argued that the overwhelming testimonial and documentary evidence, if presented, would have altered the result and the decision appealed from.
• Counterclaim: Petitioners argued that they should be awarded their counterclaim for exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses.

• Better Right of Possession: Whether respondents, as heirs of Dr. Artemio A. Velasco, have a better right of possession of Lot No. 2161 than petitioners, who entered the property under a deed of sale executed by the Rural Bank of Pagsanjan in favor of the Solomon spouses covering Lot No. 76-pt.
• Prescription: Whether respondents' complaint for accion publiciana, filed on October 14, 1991, has prescribed.
• Collateral Attack on Title: Whether petitioners' claim that Lot No. 2161 and Lot No. 76-pt are one and the same, and that the land was owned by Valeriano when it was foreclosed, constitutes a collateral attack on the registered title in Artemio's name.
• New Trial — Negligence of Counsel: Whether the alleged illness and failure of petitioners' counsel to present additional evidence constitute excusable negligence warranting a new trial.

• Better Right of Possession: Yes. Respondents have the better right of possession; accion publiciana determines the better right to possess realty independently of title, and the RTC and CA findings established respondents' prior lawful possession of Lot No. 2161 while petitioners occupied it under a sale involving Lot No. 76-pt.
• Prescription: No. The action was filed only four years after dispossession in October 1987; under Article 555(4) of the Civil Code, the real right of possession is not lost until ten years, and accion publiciana prescribes after ten years.
• Collateral Attack on Title: No. Title to registered land cannot be collaterally attacked; a separate action is necessary, and in accion publiciana ownership is merely ancillary and may be provisionally resolved only if possession cannot be determined without it.
• New Trial — Negligence of Counsel: No. Mistakes of counsel are not grounds for new trial unless the incompetence is so great that the client is prejudiced and prevented from fairly presenting the case; the alleged illness and failure to present additional evidence did not meet that standard.

• Better Right of Possession: The RTC found, and the CA affirmed, that Lot No. 2161 was the subject of Decree No. 403348 based on the decision dated October 10, 1930 in Cadastre Case No. 11, LRC Record No. 208; that the Original Certificate of Title was issued to Brigido Sacluti and Melitona Obial; that on February 14, 1944, the original owners sold the land to Artemio; that from the sale until Artemio's death on January 22, 1949, he was in continuous possession; that after his death, Isauro acted as administrator with Tomas Vivero as caretaker; and that in 1987 petitioners occupied the property by virtue of the deed of sale between the Rural Bank of Pagsanjan and the Solomon spouses. The land bought by the Solomon spouses was denominated Lot No. 76-pt and previously owned by Valeriano, but it was proved during trial that the land occupied by petitioners was Lot No. 2161 in Artemio's name. Because these factual findings were affirmed by the CA and no exceptional reason appeared to depart from the general rule that such findings are conclusive and binding, respondents were legally entitled to possession of Lot No. 2161.
• Prescription: The complaint was filed with the RTC on October 14, 1991, while petitioners dispossessed respondents in October 1987. Only four years had elapsed from dispossession to filing. Under Article 555(4) of the Civil Code, the real right of possession is not lost until after the lapse of ten years, and accion publiciana prescribes after ten years. The action was therefore filed within the allowable period.
• Collateral Attack on Title: Petitioners placed in issue that Lot No. 2161 and Lot No. 76-pt are one and the same and that the land was owned by Valeriano when it was foreclosed by the bank. This was, in effect, a collateral attack on the title registered in Artemio's name. Title to registered land cannot be collaterally attacked; a separate action is necessary to raise ownership. In accion publiciana, the principal issue is possession, and ownership is merely ancillary. Only when possession cannot be resolved without resolving ownership may the trial court delve into ownership. The Court cited Refugia vs. CA for the rule that where prior possession hinges on who the real owner is, the inferior court may resolve ownership and declare who the real owner is, but such pronouncement is provisional and does not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the land.
• New Trial — Negligence of Counsel: Petitioners sought a new trial because their counsel failed to present testimonial and documentary evidence, allegedly due to lingering illness, and argued this constituted excusable negligence. The Court reiterated that mistakes of counsel as to the competency of witnesses, sufficiency and relevancy of evidence, proper defense, or burden of proof, as well as failure to introduce evidence, summon witnesses, or argue the case, are not proper grounds for a new trial unless the incompetence is so great that the client is prejudiced and prevented from fairly presenting his case. The illness of petitioners' counsel and his alleged failure to present additional evidence did not constitute sufficient ground. The trial court's order denying the motion for new trial explained that even assuming Atty. Asinas failed to perform the imputed acts due to ailments, the evidence on record established that respondents and their predecessors-in-interest had long possessed the subject realty, that their possession was interrupted by petitioners in 1987 pursuant to the deed of sale between the Rural Bank of Pagsanjan and the Solomon spouses, and that in an accion publiciana where respondents' earlier rightful possession was adequately established, the evidence sought in a new trial would not adversely affect the findings; the ownership and possession of the property purchased by the Solomon spouses could be the subject of an appropriate action.

• Accion Publiciana — A plenary action filed in the regional trial court to determine the better right to possession of realty independently of title. It also refers to an ejectment suit where the cause of dispossession is not among the grounds for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, or when possession has been lost for more than one year and can no longer be maintained under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. The objective is to recover possession only, not ownership. The Court applied this doctrine by treating the case as an accion publiciana and requiring respondents to establish only a better right of possession.
• Prescription of Accion Publiciana — The remedy of accion publiciana prescribes after ten years. Under Article 555(4) of the Civil Code, the real right of possession is not lost until after the lapse of ten years. The Court applied this by counting from the October 1987 dispossession to the October 14, 1991 filing, a period of only four years, and holding that the action had not prescribed.
• Non-Collateral Attack on Registered Title — A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack; it cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. The Court applied this by rejecting petitioners' assertion that Lot No. 2161 and Lot No. 76-pt are one and the same and that the land was owned by Valeriano when foreclosed, because it was a collateral attack on the registered title in Artemio's name.
• Ownership in Accion Publiciana — In accion publiciana, the principal issue is possession, and ownership is merely ancillary. Only when possession cannot be resolved without resolving the issue of ownership may the trial court delve into the claim of ownership. Any pronouncement on ownership is provisional and does not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the land. The Court applied this by refusing to resolve ownership collaterally and noting that a separate action was necessary.
• New Trial Based on Counsel's Negligence — Mistakes of counsel as to the competency of witnesses, the sufficiency and relevancy of evidence, the proper defense, or the burden of proof, as well as failure to introduce certain evidence, summon witnesses, or argue the case, are not proper grounds for a new trial unless the incompetence of counsel is so great that the client is prejudiced and prevented from fairly presenting his case. The Court applied this by holding that the illness and alleged failure of petitioners' counsel did not meet the threshold.
• Conclusiveness of Lower Court Factual Findings — Findings of fact of the RTC, when adopted and affirmed by the CA, are generally deemed conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court, which is not a trier of facts and will not disturb them absent substantial reasons. The exceptions include findings grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible inferences; grave abuse of discretion; misapprehension of facts; conflicting findings; findings beyond the issues or contrary to admissions; findings contrary to the trial court; conclusions without citation of specific evidence; undisputed facts in the petition and briefs; findings premised on supposed absence of evidence but contradicted by the record; and overlooked relevant facts. The Court found no exceptional reason to depart from the rule.

• "Accion publiciana is also used to refer to an ejectment suit where the cause of dispossession is not among the grounds for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, or when possession has been lost for more than one year and can no longer be maintained under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. The objective of the plaintiffs in accion publiciana is to recover possession only, not ownership." — Defines accion publiciana and its limited objective, which framed the Court's treatment of the case as a possession dispute rather than an ownership action.
• "Under Article 555(4) of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the real right of possession is not lost till after the lapse of ten years. It is settled that the remedy of accion publiciana prescribes after the lapse of ten years." — States the controlling prescriptive period, which the Court applied to hold that the complaint filed four years after dispossession was timely.
• "Title to a registered land cannot be collaterally attacked. A separate action is necessary to raise the issue of ownership." — States the rule against collateral attack, which the Court used to reject petitioners' identity-of-lots and ownership claim.
• "It may be reiterated that mistakes of counsel as to the competency of witnesses, the sufficiency and relevancy of evidence, the proper defense, or the burden of proof, as well as his failure to introduce certain evidence or to summon witnesses and to argue the case, are not proper grounds for a new trial, unless the incompetence of counsel be so great that his client is prejudiced and prevented from fairly presenting his case." — States the standard for new trial based on counsel's negligence, which the Court found unmet.

• Sps. Cruz vs. Torres, 374 Phil. 529, 533 (1999) — Cited for the definition of accion publiciana as a plenary action filed in the regional trial court to determine the better right to possession of realty independently of title.
• Natalia Realty, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 440 Phil. 1, 25 (2002) — Cited for the rule that the objective of plaintiffs in accion publiciana is to recover possession only, not ownership.
• Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs. Gobonseng, Jr., G.R. No. 163562, July 21, 2006, 496 SCRA 305, 316 — Cited for the exceptions to the general rule that the factual findings of the RTC and the CA are conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court.
• Cutanda vs. Heirs of Cutanda, 390 Phil. 740, 751 (2000) — Cited for the rule that the remedy of accion publiciana prescribes after the lapse of ten years.
• Refugia vs. CA, 327 Phil. 982, 1006 (1996) — Cited for the rule that where the question of prior possession hinges on who the real owner is, the inferior court may resolve ownership and declare who the real owner is, but such pronouncement is provisional and does not bar or prejudice an action involving title.
• Palanca vs. The American Food Manufacturing Company, 133 Phil. 872, 882 (1968) — Cited for the rule that mistakes of counsel are not proper grounds for a new trial unless the incompetence is so great that the client is prejudiced and prevented from fairly presenting his case.
• People vs. Manzanilla, 43 Phil. 167, 169 (1922) — Cited for the same rule on counsel's mistakes and new trial.

• Article 555(4), Civil Code of the Philippines — Provides that the real right of possession is not lost until after the lapse of ten years. The Court applied it to hold that the accion publiciana filed four years after dispossession had not prescribed.
• Section 48, Presidential Decree No. 1529 — Provides that a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack and cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. The Court applied it to reject petitioners' collateral attack on the registered title in Artemio's name.
• Rule 70, Rules of Court — Referenced in the definition of accion publiciana as an ejectment suit where possession has been lost for more than one year and can no longer be maintained under Rule 70.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioners to assail the CA decision and resolution.

Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, and Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro concurred.