47. Heirs v.

City, 3/12/18
Constitutional Law II
G.R. No. 197743, March 12, 2018

HEIRS OF JOSE MARIANO AND HELEN S. MARIANO, REPRESENTED BY DANILO DAVID S.

MARIANO, MARY THERESE IRENE S. MARIANO, MA. CATALINA SOPHIA S. MARIANO, JOSE
MARIO S. MARIANO, MA. LENOR S. MARIANO, MACARIO S. MARIANO AND HEIRS OF ERLINDA
MARIANO-VILLANUEVA, REPRESENTED IN THIS ACT BY IRENE LOURDES M. VILLANUEVA
THROUGH HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT EDITHA S. SANTUYO AND BENJAMIN B.
SANTUYO, Petitioners, v. CITY OF NAGA, Respondent.

TIJAM, J.:

FACTS:
The officers of City Heights Subdivision wrote to the mayor of the City of Naga (City), offering to
construct the Naga City Hall within the premises of the Subdivision. Their letter indicated that the City
Hall would be built on an area of not less than two hectares within the Subdivision, which would be
designated as the open space reserved for a public purpose. Upon the City's request, the Subdivision
amended its offer and agreed to donate five hectares to the City. The area is a portion of the land
registered in the names of Macario Mariano and Jose Gimenez under TCT No. 671 measuring a total
of 22.9301 hectares.

The amended offer was signed by Mariano and Gimenez to indicate their "conforme," together their
respective spouses. Thereafter, the Municipal Board adopted Resolution No. 89 accepting the
Subdivision's offer of donation and its proposed contract.

According to the City, the Mayor Imperial and the registered landowners, Mariano and Gimenez,
executed a Deed of Donation on August 16, 1954, whereby the latter donated five hectares of land
(subject property), two hectares of which to be used as the City Hall site, another two hectares for the
public plaza, and the remaining hectare for the public market. By virtue thereof, the City entered the
property and began construction of the government center. It also declared the five-hectare property in
its name for tax purposes. Subsequently, other government agencies and instrumentalities entered the
same property and built their offices thereon.

However, the heirs of Mariano (petitioners) aver that the plan to donate five hectares to the City did not
materialize as the contract to build the City Hall was not awarded to the Subdivision but to a another
contractor (Francisco Sabaria). This caused Mariano and officers of the Subdivision to meet with Mayor
Imperial to demand the return of the five-hectare lot as the condition for the donation was not complied
 47. Heirs v. City, 3/12/18
Constitutional Law II
with. Mayor Imperial purportedly assured them that the City would buy the property from them. On May
14, 1968, Mariano instructed the Subdivision's President to make a follow-up on the City's payment for
the subject lot. The purchase, however, did not materialize. In 1971, Mariano died without receiving
payment from the City.

In 1976, a certain Tirso Mariano filed an action for partition of Mariano's estate. The action was opposed
by his widow, Irene, and their adopted children, Jose and Erlinda. Irene died in 1988. Jose's heirs and
Erlinda were declared as Irene's heirs.

In 2003, Danilo Mariano, as administrator of Irene's estate, demanded upon then City Mayor of Naga,
Jesse M. Robredo, to vacate and return the subject property. When the City did not comply, petitioners,
as heirs of Jose and Erlinda, filed a Complaint for unlawful detainer against the City.
The MTC dismissed the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It reasoned that the City's
defense, which involved a claim of ownership, removed the issue from the case of unlawful detainer.
The RTC reversed the dismissal and ruled in favor of petitioners by ordering the City of Naga and the
other government agencies occupying the subject property to vacate therefrom and pay back rentals
to petitioners. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA), in an amended decision, overturned the RTC and
upheld the dismissal of the MTC. The CA thus concluded that the existence and due execution of the
Deed of Donation had been duly established, warranting the dismissal of the ejectment case. The CA
also found that petitioners' claim was barred by laches, noting that the City had been in open, public
and adverse possession of the subject property for 49 years at the time the ejectment case was filed.

ISSUE :
Whether or not the Petitioners, as heirs of a registered owner of the subject property, have the
preferred or better right of possession?

Held:
Yes, the Petitioners, as heirs of a registered owner of the subject property, have the preferred
or better right of possession.
The sole issue for resolution in an unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession of
the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties - possession de
facto and not possession de jure. When the defendant, however, raises the defense of ownership in his
pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership,
 47. Heirs v. City, 3/12/18
Constitutional Law II
the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession, or more particularly,
to determine who between the parties has the better right to possess the property. Nonetheless, the
adjudication is merely provisional and would not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties
involving title to the property.

In this case, the City, as the defendant in the unlawful detainer case, asserted ownership over the
subject property by virtue of an alleged donation made in 1954 by the landowners in its favor. In support
of this claim, the City proffered a copy of a Deed of Donation dated August 16, 1954.

Article 749 of the Civil Code requires that donation of real property must be made in a public instrument
to be valid. The purported Deed of Donation submitted by the City cannot be considered a public
document. While it contains an Acknowledgment before a notary public, the same is manifestly
defective as it was made neither by the alleged donors (Macario and Gimenez) and their respective
spouses, or by the donee (the City, through Mayor Imperial), but only by Eusebio M.Lopez, Faustino
Dolor, Soledad Lirio Dolor and Lopez, Jr., as the Subdivision's President, Vice President, Secretary
and General Manager, respectively.

The Court has consistently upheld the registered owners' superior right to possess the property in
unlawful detainer cases. A fundamental principle in land registration is that the certificate of title serves
as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose
name appears therein. It is conclusive evidence as regards ownership of the land therein described,
and the titleholder is entitled to all the attributes of ownership of the property, including possession
Thus, the Court has time and again reiterated the age-old rule that the person who has a Torrens title
over a parcel of land is entitled to possession thereof.

The title to the subject property remains registered in the names of Macario and Gimenez. The alleged
Deed of Donation does not appear to have been registered and TCT No. 671 does not bear any
inscription of said Deed. It has likewise been constantly emphasized that when the property is
registered under the Torrens
system, the registered owner's title to the property is presumed legal and cannot be collaterally
attacked, especially in a mere action for unlawful detainer. It has even been held that it does not even
matter if the party's title to the property is questionable.
 47. Heirs v. City, 3/12/18
Constitutional Law II

It has been held that a certificate of title has a superior probative value as against that of an
unregistered deed of conveyance in ejectment cases. As against the City's unregistered claim, the
Torrens title in the name of Mariano and Gimenez must prevail, conferring upon the registered owners
the better right of possession. This superior or preferred right of possession applies to petitioners as
Mariano's hereditary successors who have stepped into said decedent's shoes by operation of law.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.