Anzures vs. Ventanilla

A co-owner cannot be ejected from co-owned property through an action for unlawful detainer based on tolerance, because possession by a co-owner is a juridical consequence of co-ownership and not mere tolerance. Where documentary evidence preponderantly establishes co-ownership between the parties, the summary remedy of unlawful detainer is unavailable; the appropriate action is partition under Article 494 of the Civil Code.

The contested property is a 289-square-meter parcel of land and the residential house standing on it, situated in Barangay Sta. Ines, Bulakan, Bulacan. The land originally belonged to Vicenta Galvez, who died intestate in 1967. Her heirs — Filomena Rodriguez Rivera, Enriqueta Rodriguez, and Rosalina Rodriguez — conveyed the land and improvements to their nieces, Erlinda Ventanilla and Carolina Anzures, through a notarized Waiver of Rights and a Deed of Absolute Sale, both executed in 2000. The sisters and their brother Emiliano later agreed to register the land in Carolina’s name while retaining co-ownership among themselves; Emiliano subsequently waived his share back to his sisters. Carolina was married to petitioner Fortunato Anzures. Following Carolina’s death, respondents Erlinda and Arturo Ventanilla sought to eject Anzures from the house, asserting exclusive ownership on the basis of a deed of donation and an extrajudicial settlement.

• The Property and Its Transfer: A 289-square-meter parcel of land in Bulacan originally belonged to Vicenta Galvez, who died intestate in 1967. Her heirs — Filomena Rodriguez Rivera, Enriqueta Rodriguez, and Rosalina Rodriguez — executed a notarized Waiver of Rights over the Unregistered Parcel of Land on May 31, 2000, in favor of their nieces, Erlinda Rodriguez (later Ventanilla) and Carolina Rodriguez (later Anzures). To confirm the transfer, on August 2, 2000, the same heirs executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of Unregistered Land, selling the parcel “with improvements” absolutely and unconditionally to both Erlinda and Carolina. Both documents were notarized by Atty. Jose S. Tayo on September 22, 2000.
• Conflicting Document: On the same date, August 2, 2000, a document titled Pagpapamana sa Labas ng Hukuman na may Pagtalikod sa Bahagi ng Lupa at Bilihang Tuluyan sa Lupa was executed. It showed the heirs waiving rights over the land in favor of Erlinda alone, who then sold it to Carolina. The MTC found the two earlier documents (Waiver and Deed of Absolute Sale to both sisters) prevailed because they bore the notary public’s stamp and signatures consistent with each other, and the Pagpapamana was inconsistent with the clear intent to transfer to both nieces.
• Agreement Among Siblings: On October 31, 2008, Erlinda and Carolina executed a Pagkakaloob ng Bahagi ng Lupa na may Kasunduan, giving one-third of the property to their brother Emiliano, agreeing to register the land in Carolina’s name, and expressly stating that all three remained co-owners. On January 19, 2010, Emiliano executed a Pagwawaksi ng Karapatan sa Pag-aari ng Bahagi ng Lupa, waiving his share back to Erlinda and Carolina, thus solidifying their co-ownership.
• Registration and Donation: On September 23, 2010, Original Certificate of Title No. 2011000008 was issued in the name of “Carolina R. Anzures, … kasal kay Fortunato Anzures,” pursuant to the siblings’ agreement. On March 21, 2011, Carolina executed a Deed of Donation transferring 144 square meters (roughly half) of the land to Erlinda in recognition of their co-ownership. The donation was not registered but acknowledged their equal shares.
• Extrajudicial Settlement: On October 11, 2011, Filomena and Rosalina executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights, waiving their rights over the residential house in favor of Erlinda Ventanilla. Respondents relied on this document to claim exclusive ownership of the house.
• The Ejectment Complaint: Respondents alleged they were the owners of the house, that petitioner occupied it by mere tolerance, that they demanded he vacate to allow partition of the land, and that he refused. Petitioner denied the allegations, claiming sole ownership of the land and house as the heir of Carolina, and challenged the genuineness of the 2011 Deed of Donation, contending his wife was mentally and physically incompetent at the time of its execution.

• Lack of Cause of Action: Petitioner argued that respondents failed to sufficiently allege the jurisdictional fact of unlawful withholding — specifically when and how entry and dispossession occurred — thereby depriving them of a cause of action for unlawful detainer.
• Forgery of the Deed of Donation: Petitioner maintained that the March 21, 2011 Deed of Donation purportedly signed by his wife Carolina was forged, as she was seriously ill and mentally incompetent at the time of its alleged execution. He contended he never signed the document and had no knowledge of it.

• Possession by Tolerance: Respondents countered that petitioner occupied their house by mere tolerance, that his possession became unlawful upon their demand to vacate, and that all elements of unlawful detainer were therefore satisfied.
• Better Right of Ownership: Respondents claimed a better right to the house based on the Deed of Donation and the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights, asserting that petitioner’s continued occupation was without legal basis.

• Cause of Action – Unlawful Detainer Based on Tolerance: Whether respondents have a cause of action to eject petitioner based on tolerance.
• Validity of the Deed of Donation: Whether the March 21, 2011 Deed of Donation was forged and therefore could not support respondents’ claim.

• Cause of Action – Unlawful Detainer Based on Tolerance: No cause of action for unlawful detainer existed. The totality of documentary evidence preponderantly established that Carolina Anzures and Erlinda Ventanilla were co-owners of the 289-square-meter land and the house erected on it. As Carolina’s surviving spouse and heir, petitioner Fortunato Anzures stepped into her shoes as a co-owner. Possession by a co-owner is not by mere tolerance but by juridical right inherent in co-ownership; each co-owner may use and enjoy the whole property provided no injury is caused to the interests of the other co-owners. Because petitioner possessed the property in the exercise of his right as co-owner, the factual predicate for unlawful detainer — possession originally lawful under a contract or by tolerance that becomes unlawful upon termination or demand — was absent. The complaint was dismissed for lack of cause of action.
• Validity of the Deed of Donation: The claim of forgery was not substantiated. Forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. Petitioner adduced no evidence beyond a bare allegation. Moreover, petitioner did not assail the authenticity of the earlier Waiver of Rights and Deed of Absolute Sale, and he was a signatory to the sibling agreements that confirmed co-ownership. He was thus estopped from contesting the 2011 Deed of Donation, which merely reflected the pre-existing co-ownership. Even if the donation were set aside, the documentary record independently established co-ownership, rendering the forgery issue immaterial to the question of possession.

• Co-owner’s Possession is Not by Tolerance — A co-owner cannot be ejected from co-owned property through an unlawful detainer suit based on tolerance. The possession of a co-owner is a consequence of the right of co-ownership over the undivided property and is not dependent on the permission or tolerance of another co-owner. The remedy of a co-owner seeking exclusive possession is partition, not summary ejectment.
• Scope of Inquiry in Unlawful Detainer — The sole issue in an unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession. However, when the defendant raises the defense of ownership and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding ownership, the court may provisionally resolve ownership solely to determine the issue of possession.
• Unlawful Detainer Defined — Unlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real property from one who unlawfully withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied. The defendant’s possession is initially lawful but becomes illegal upon the expiration or termination of the right to possess.
• Proof of Forgery — Forgery cannot be presumed. The party alleging forgery bears the burden of proving it by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. A mere allegation is insufficient.
• Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet — No one can give what one does not have. The extrajudicial settlement executed by the original heirs in 2011 could not transfer exclusive ownership of the house to Erlinda because they had already conveyed the property, including improvements, to both Erlinda and Carolina in 2000.
• Remedy of Co-owner — Partition — Under Article 494 of the Civil Code, no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership; each may demand partition at any time. The filing of an action for partition, not unlawful detainer, is the proper recourse where co-ownership is established.

• “Being a co-owner of the property as heir of Carolina, petitioner cannot be ejected from the subject property. In a co-ownership, the undivided thing or right belong to different persons, with each of them holding the property pro indiviso and exercising [his] rights over the whole property. Each co-owner may use and enjoy the property with no other limitation than that he shall not injure the interests of his co-owners.”
• “Ultimately, respondents do not have a cause of action to eject petitioner based on tolerance because the latter is also entitled to possess and enjoy the subject property. Corollarily, neither of the parties can assert exclusive ownership and possession of the same prior to any partition.”
• “As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed. It must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence. Mere allegation of forgery is not evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging it.”
• “No one can give what one does not have (Nemo dat quod non habet).”

• Pascual v. Burgos, et al., 776 Phil. 167 (2016) — Cited for the general rule that only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 petition, and for the ten recognized exceptions where the Court may review factual findings.
• Bejar v. Caluag, 544 Phil. 774 (2007) — Enumerated the four remedies for recovery of possession: unlawful detainer, forcible entry, accion publiciana, and accion reinvidicatoria, and distinguished their respective scopes.
• Spouses Valdez v. Sps. Tabisula (mis-cited as “Gov. Looyuko, et al.”), 713 Phil. 125 (2013) — Defined unlawful detainer and reiterated that the only issue is physical possession, with provisional resolution of ownership when necessary.
• Quijano v. Atty. Amante, 745 Phil. 40 (2014) — Expounded on the nature of co-ownership, the rights of co-owners to use and enjoy the entire property pro indiviso, and the limitation that no co-owner may injure the interests of the others.
• Mahilum v. Spouses Ilano, 761 Phil. 334 (2015) — Applied the principle of nemo dat quod non habet.

• Article 494, New Civil Code — “No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned.” Applied to hold that respondents’ remedy was to file an action for partition, not an unlawful detainer suit.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governed the petition for review; the Court relied on the well-settled exceptions permitting review of factual findings when the lower courts’ conclusions are grounded on misapprehension of facts.

• Justice Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson)
• Justice Bersamin
• Justice Martires
• Justice Leonen (on official business)