G.R. No. 134329 - VERONA PADA-KILARIO AND RICARDO KILARIO, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND SILVERIO PADA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, a judgment is hereby rendered, reversing the judgment earlier promulgated by the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Matalom, Leyte, [sic] consequently, defendants-appellees are hereby ordered: "1. To vacate the premises in issue and return peaceful possession to the appellant, being the lawful possessor in concept of owner; "2. To remove their house at their expense unless appellant exercises the option of acquiring the same, in which case the pertinent provisions of the New Civil Code has to be applied; "3. Ordering the defendants-appellees to pay monthly rental for their occupancy and use of the portion of the land in question in the sum of P100.00 commencing on June 26, 1995 when the case was filed and until the termination of the present case; "4. Ordering the defendants to pay to the appellant the sum of P5,000.00 as moral damages and the further sum of P5,000.00 as attorney's fees; "5. Taxing defendants to pay the costs of suit." [12] Petitioners filed in the Court of Appeals a petition for review of the foregoing decision of the Regional Trial Court. On May 20, 1998, respondent Court of Appeals rendered judgment dismissing said petition. It explained: "Well-settled is the rule that in an ejectment suit, the only issue is possession de facto or physical or material possession and not de jure . Hence, even if the question of ownership is raised in the pleadings, the court may pass upon such issue but only to determine the question of possession, specially 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 x x x. "Private respondent Silverio Pada anchors his claim to the portion of the land possessed by petitioners on the Deed of Sale executed in his favor by vendor Maria Pada-Pavo, a daughter of Marciano, son of Jacinto Pada who was the registered owner of the subject lot. The right of vendee Maria Pada to sell the property was derived from the extra-judicial partition executed in May 1951 among the heirs of Jacinto Pada, which was written in a Bisayan dialect signed by the heirs, wherein the subject land was adjudicated to Marciano, Maria Pavo's father, and Ananias Pada. Although the authenticity and genuineness of the extra-judicial partition is now being questioned by the heirs of Amador Pada, no action was ever previously filed in court to question the validity of such partition. "Notably, petitioners in their petition admitted among the antecedent facts that Maria Pavo is one of the co-owners of the property originally owned by Jacinto Pada x x x and that the disputed lot was adjudicated to Marciano (father of Maria Pavo) and Ananias, and upon the death of Marciano and Ananias, their heirs took possession of said lot, i.e. Maria Pavo the vendor for Marciano's share and Juanita for Ananias' share x x x. Moreover, petitioners do not dispute the findings of the respondent court