G.R. No. 175561 - SPOUSES IDA AKA "MILAGROS" NIEVES BELTRAN AND JOSE BELTRAN, VS. ANITA R. NIEVES, REPRESENTED BY NELIA G. MORAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly amended the complaint to refer to "Milagros" as "Ida Nieves Beltran." The spouses Beltran then filed their answer with compulsory counterclaim on 11 January 2005. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court's Ruling On 20 April 2005, the MCTC promulgated its Decision in favor of the spouses Beltran and dismissed Nieves' complaint. The MCTC also dismissed all claims for damages by the parties. [8] The MCTC found that Nieves exerted utmost efforts to settle the case amicably before she resorted to court processes. However, Nieves' presentation of a photocopy of the owner's duplicate certificate merely proved that the document consisting of entries in public records are prima facie evidence of the facts stated. The deed of sale between Gaston Nieves and Anita Nieves, albeit a private document, was presumed to be duly executed. The MCTC made a provisional ruling that Gaston Nieves, Milagros Nieves' father, owned the subject lot by virtue of the unregistered deed of sale by Nieves to Gaston. The registration of the title in Nieves' name in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Albay is not necessarily conclusive of Nieves' ownership of the property. The MCTC respected the right of possession of the spouses Beltran because the deed of sale, although unregistered, was executed in December 1964, much later than the issuance of the TCT in Nieves' name in April 1960. Aggrieved, Nieves then appealed before the RTC. The Regional Trial Court's Ruling On 9 August 2005, the RTC found Nieves' appeal unmeritorious and consequently affirmed the MCTC's decision. [9] The RTC held that the MCTC had no jurisdiction to entertain the question of just title. Moreover, an action for unlawful detainer should be filed within one year from the unlawful withholding of possession. Therefore, the complaint's failure to allege with clarity the specific date that the withholding of possession became unlawful was a fatal jurisdictional lapse. The RTC denied Nieves' motion for reconsideration in an Order dated 22 September 2005. The Order in its entirety read: In the face of this Court's decision dated 9 August 2005, this Court has not ventured into the area of determining the controversy of ownership over Lot 5847-A. As may be noted, anyway, the record is bereft of credible evidence showing that the appellant [Nieves] ever has had prior actual physical possession of Lot 5847-A at anytime before she filed her ejectment suit for unlawful detainer. The central controversy this Court has entertained is limited to possession - with this Court adverting to the evidence presented by the parties so far as material for the purpose of resolving the controversy of possession only. This Court has refrained from touching issues that put title over Lot 5847-A as the main controversy. ACCORDINGLY, upon consideration of the motion for reconsideration dated 3 September 2005 filed by the appellant [Nieves], this Court hereby modifies the dispositive portion of its decision dated 9 August 2005 to