Cresencia Tubo Rodriguez v. Evangeline Rodriguez
G.R. No. 175720; Sepe!ber 11" 2007
#acs$
Juanito Rodriguez Rodriguez owned owned a 5-door apartment. In 1983, 1983, he executed executed a "Huing "Huing ha!iin ha!iin at tetamento# gi$ing petitioner %reencia &u!o Rodriguez, hi i$e-in partner, apartment ' and (, and hi chidren )en*amin+deceaed hu!and o repondent, apartment / repondent )uena$entura, aprtment )/ and )een, apartment %.
Howe$er, in 1980, the deceaed executed a deed o a!oute ae o$er the propert in a$or o the petitioner.
In 21, petitioner 4ed a compaint or unawu detainer againt the repondent, aeging that he i the awu and regitered owner o the propert, and that in 1980, he aowed repondent to occup hte unit. Howe$er, without her nowege and conent, the repondent eparate eaed the unit to 6agpanta, 7a$arro, and (cota.
Repondent caimed ownerhip o hte propert ! ucceion. &he aeged that the deed o ae wa imuated and $oid. &he 6&% rendered *udgment in a$or o the repondent. &he R&% re$ered the deciion o the 6&%. &he % re$ered the deciion o the R&%. 6R denied.
%ssue$
oeion o the propert.
wnerhip
Ruling$
1. :etitioner aege that a the regitered owner o the u!*ect propert, he en*o the right o poeion thereo and that ;uetion o ownerhip cannot !e raied in an e*ectment cae une it i intertwined with the iue o poeion. duh>
--? )eing a ummar proceeding intended to pro$ide an expeditiou mean o protecting actua poeion or right to poeion o propert, the ;uetion o tite i not in$o$ed and houd !e raied ! the a=ected part in an appropriate action in the proper court.
2. Howe$er, when the iue o ownerhip i raied the court i not outed o it *uridiction. @ection 1A o Rue B.+R%
that the tria court can do i to mae an initia determination o who i the
owner o the propert o that it can reo$e who i entited to it poeion a!ent other e$idence to reo$e ownerhip. )ut thi ad*udication i on pro$iiona and doe not !ar or pre*udice an action !etween the ame partie in$o$ing tite to the propert.
&'ills ( &he ower court conidered the oowing documentar e$idence in arri$ing at their repecti$e deciionC 1 Huing Ha!iin at &etamento 2 'eed o @ae 3 &%& 7o. in the name o the petitioner/ and 0 artition greement executed ! !oth the repondent and the petitioner.
)aed on the oregoing documentar e$idence, we 4nd that there i preponderance o e$idence in a$or o the petitionerD caim. Repondent aied to pro$e their right o poeion, a the Huing Ha!iin at &etamento and the artition greement ha$e no ega e=ect ince the wi ha not !een pro!ated. )eore an wi can ha$e orce or $aidit it mut !e pro!ated. &hi cannot !e dipened with and i a matter o pu!ic poic. rtice
838 o the %i$i %ode mandate that EFnGo wi ha pa either rea or perona propert une it i pro$ed and aowed in accordance with the Rue o %ourt. the wi wa not pro!ated, the artition greement which wa executed puruant thereto cannot !e gi$en e=ect. &hu, the act that petitioner wa a part to aid agreement !ecome immateria in the determination o the iue o poeion.
6oreo$er, at the time the deed o ae wa executed in a$or o the petitioner, Juanito Rodriguez remained the owner thereo ince ownerhip woud on pa to hi heir at the time o hi death. &hu, a owner o the propert, he had the a!oute right to dipoe o it during hi ietime.
