Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The lone issue to be resolved here is who, between petitioner and respondent, have
the better right to the physical possession of the disputed property.
The disputed property in this case is covered by a TCT issued in the name of
Carolyn T. Tan. The court further explained in the Dizon case that such certificate
of title is a conclusive evidence of [their] (her) ownership. It does not even matter
if their title is questionable, because this is only an ejectment suit. Thus, as owner,
Ms. Tan is entitled to possession of the property from the time the Respondent and
her deceased spouse sold the property to her. The latter's possession ceased to be
legal from that moment.
Recently, in the case of Go vs. Looyuko, G.R. No. 196529, July 01, 2013, [t]he
Court has consistently upheld the registered owners superior right to possess the
property in unlawful detainer cases. It is an age-old rule that the person who has a
Torrens Title over a land is entitled to its possession. It has repeatedly been
emphasized that when the property is registered under the Torrens system, the
registered owners 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 partys title to the property is questionable.
The courts decision was a reiteration of its previous ruling in Arambulo vs.
Gungab, G.R. No. 156581, September 30, 2005, when it held that the registered
owner is preferred to possess the property subject of the unlawful detainer case.
The age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens Title over a land is entitled to
possession thereof.
The TCT of Petitioner Tan is, therefore, evidence of indefeasible title over the
property and, as its holder, she is entitled to its possession as a matter of right.
A reading of the complaint in this case will readily impress one that no
ultimate facts which may constitute the basis of plaintiffs-appellants rights
which had been violated are alleged. Neither are there allegations of ultimate
facts showing acts or omissions on the part of the defendants-appellees
which constitute a violation of the rights of plaintiffs-appellants.