Ejectment Actions: Courts Can Only Determine Possession, Not Ownership

G.R. No. 116854, November 19, 1996 – AIDA G. DIZON, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND ELIZABETH SANTIAGO, RESPONDENTS.

Imagine a scenario where you believe you rightfully own a property, but someone else is occupying it. Or conversely, you’re renting a place, and the landlord suddenly claims you have no right to be there. These situations often lead to legal battles known as ejectment suits. In the Philippines, ejectment cases are designed to quickly resolve who has the right to physical possession of a property. However, the question of who actually owns the property is a separate, and often more complex, matter. This is the core principle illuminated in the Supreme Court case of Dizon v. Court of Appeals. This case underscores a critical distinction: in an ejectment suit, courts primarily focus on determining who has the right to possess the property, not who legally owns it.

Understanding Ejectment Suits and the Concept of Possession

Ejectment suits, also known as unlawful detainer or forcible entry cases, are summary proceedings designed to restore physical possession of a property to the rightful possessor. These actions are governed by the Rules of Court, specifically Rule 70. The key issue in these cases is possession de facto, which refers to actual, physical possession, not possession de jure, which refers to the legal right to possess based on ownership.

To fully grasp this, let’s look at some important provisions in our laws. Section 33(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, states that Metropolitan Trial Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over ejectment cases. It further adds that when the defendant raises the question of ownership, the court can resolve it, but only to determine the issue of possession. Rule 70, Section 4 of the Rules of Court further clarifies that evidence of title is admissible only to determine the character and extent of possession and damages for detention.

Consider this hypothetical: Maria allows her brother, Jose, to live in her house while he gets back on his feet. After a year, Maria asks Jose to leave, but he refuses, claiming she gifted him the property verbally. Maria files an ejectment suit. Even if Jose presents evidence suggesting a verbal agreement (which would be difficult to prove), the court’s primary concern is who had prior physical possession and who is currently being deprived of it. The court won’t definitively rule on whether Jose legally owns the house in this ejectment case.

The Dizon v. Court of Appeals Case: A Detailed Look

The case of Aida G. Dizon v. Court of Appeals and Elizabeth Santiago revolves around a property initially owned by Dizon, which she mortgaged to Monte de Piedad Bank. Unable to pay, the bank foreclosed on the property. Dizon then asked Santiago to repurchase the property, which Santiago did. Here’s the sequence of events:

• Mortgage and Foreclosure: Dizon mortgaged her property but failed to fulfill her obligations, leading to foreclosure.
• Repurchase Agreement: Santiago repurchased the property from the bank for P550,000.00.
• Deed of Sale and Option to Buy Back: Dizon signed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Santiago and her siblings. Simultaneously, they granted Dizon an option to buy back the property within three months.
• Failure to Exercise Option: Dizon failed to exercise her option to buy back the property within the stipulated period.
• Ejectment Suit: Santiago filed an ejectment suit when Dizon refused to vacate the premises.

The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of Santiago, ordering Dizon to vacate. However, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed this decision and even ordered the cancellation of Santiago’s Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT), reinstating Dizon’s. The Court of Appeals (CA) ultimately reinstated the MTC’s ruling.

The Supreme Court, in resolving the issue, emphasized the limited scope of ejectment suits, quoting:

“Well-settled is the rule that in an ejectment suit, the only issue is possession de facto or physical or material possession and not possession de jure. So that, even if the question of ownership is raised in the pleadings, as in this case, the court may pass upon such issue but only to determine the question of possession especially if the former is inseparably linked with the latter. It cannot dispose with finality the issue of ownership – such issue being inutile in an ejectment suit except to throw light on the question of possession.”

The Court further stated:

“As owners, the Santiagos are entitled to possession of the property from the time Dizon failed to exercise the option within the given period. The latter’s possession ceased to be legal from that moment.”

Practical Implications of the Dizon Ruling

This case serves as a reminder that winning an ejectment suit does not automatically equate to establishing absolute ownership. The decision primarily focuses on who has the right to physical possession. Here are some practical implications:

• For Property Owners: If you need to regain possession of your property quickly, an ejectment suit is the appropriate remedy. However, be aware that this action does not conclusively resolve ownership disputes.
• For Renters: Understand your rights as a tenant. If you believe you have a valid lease agreement, assert your right to possession. However, remember that an ejectment suit can still proceed if you violate the terms of your lease.
• For Buyers and Sellers: When entering into agreements involving property, ensure that all terms, including options to buy back, are clearly defined and documented. Failure to comply with these terms can have significant consequences in an ejectment action.

Key Lessons

• Possession vs. Ownership: Always distinguish between the right to possess and the right to own.
• Ejectment Suit Limitations: Understand that an ejectment suit primarily addresses possession, not ownership.
• Document Everything: Ensure all agreements related to property are properly documented and notarized.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the difference between forcible entry and unlawful detainer?

A: Forcible entry involves taking possession of a property through force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. Unlawful detainer, on the other hand, occurs when someone initially had lawful possession but continues to possess the property unlawfully after the right to possess has expired or been terminated.

Q: Can I file an ejectment suit even if I don’t have a title to the property?

A: Yes, you can file an ejectment suit if you can prove you had prior physical possession of the property and were subsequently deprived of it.

Q: What evidence is required in an ejectment suit?

A: Evidence may include lease agreements, titles, tax declarations, receipts, and witness testimonies to prove prior possession or the right to possess.

Q: How long does an ejectment suit typically take?

A: Ejectment suits are designed to be summary proceedings, but the actual duration can vary depending on the complexity of the case and court congestion. However, the law mandates expedited procedures to ensure swift resolution.

Q: What happens if I lose an ejectment suit?

A: If you lose, you will be ordered to vacate the property and may be required to pay damages, such as unpaid rent or compensation for the unlawful detention.

Q: Does winning an ejectment case mean I now own the property?

A: No. Winning an ejectment case only establishes your right to possess the property. A separate action may be necessary to determine ownership definitively.

Q: Can the court order the cancellation of a title in an ejectment case?

A: Generally, no. The court’s power in an ejectment case is limited to resolving the issue of possession. Ordering the cancellation of a title would be beyond the scope of the proceedings.

ASG Law specializes in property disputes and ejectment cases. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.