DISCLAIMER: This article does not create an attorney-client relationship between the author and the reader.  The answer of the author on the issue is just an expression of his general opinion based on Philippine law and hence does not constitute legal advice.

My friend travelled by sea from Manila all the way to Cagayan de Oro to assist his septuagenarian mother to settle land disputes with relatives.  His mother fears of losing her titled land as this has been occupied by relatives for years already.

Based on the narration of facts, physical possession of the land is lost already.

To recover physical possession, three actions are available to wit: (a) accion interdictal; (b) accion publiciana; and (c) accion reivindicatoria (Heirs of Yusingco vs Busilak, et al, G.R. No. 210504, January 24, 2018).  Because these actions are judicial remedies, it is recommended resorting first to extra-judicial remedies before resorting to any judicial remedy to avoid the cost and hassle of litigation and the risk of the case being dismissed for failure to comply with the required condition precedent. 

In the instant case, the following extra-judicial remedies may be resorted with.

1) Talk to the possessor to vacate the land.  Sometimes, you might need to offer concession.  If the possessor leaves, put in a piece of paper the agreement to vacate the land and have it notarized.

2) If the possessor still refused to vacate, refer the matter to the barangay where the land is located for barangay conciliation. If the possessor still refused to vacate after barangay conciliation, request a certificate to file action from the barangay.

The appropriate court action depends on the situation: 

a) If the plaintiff alleges ownership and seeks recovery of its full possession, the appropriate action is accion reivindicatoria (or an action to recover ownership and possession) in the proper regional trial court or inferior court, depending upon the assessed value of the property.

b) If the plaintiff does not allege ownership but simply alleges his right to physical possession and the dispossession has lasted for more than one year (or even for less than a year in cases other than those mentioned in Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, i.e. when there is no allegation of deprivation of possession by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth), the appropriate action is accion publiciana (or a plenary action to recover the right of possession) in the proper regional trial court or inferior court, depending upon the assessed value of the property.

c) If the plaintiff does not allege ownership but simply alleges his right to physical possession and the dispossession has not lasted for more than one year, the appropriate action is accion interdictal (or an action for ejectment to recover possession) in the proper inferior court by filing a case for forcible entry or a case for unlawful detainer.

An ejectment case for forcible entry is filed when one is deprived of physical possession of real property by means of force, intimidation, strategy, threats, or stealth whereas an ejectment case for unlawful detainer is filed when one illegally withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied.

In the instant case, it appears that the mother seeks to recover possession of the subject land on the basis of her ownership thereof, the appropriate action then to recover possession of the land is accion reivindicatoria in the proper regional trial court.

Alternatively, if the objective is simply to eject the relatives, a demand letter to vacate must be served to the relatives and other occupants therein.  Thereafter and within one year from receipt of the demand letter, an ejectment case for unlawful detainer may be instituted against the relatives and other occupants.  As the ejectment case is summary in nature, this is simpler and faster against filing a case for accion reivindicatoria.

How about the transfer certificate of title (TCT)? Can it be cancelled or nullified in favor of the relatives by reason of notorious possession of the land for several years already?

As held in Wee vs Mardo, G.R. No. 202414, June 4, 2014, the certificate of title cannot be defeated by adverse, open, and notorious possession. Neither can it be defeated by prescription. As provided under Sec. 47 of PD 1529, no title to registered land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. In Spouses Jose Manuel and Maria Esperanza Ridruejo Stilianopoulos vs. RD of Legazpi City (G.R. NO. 224678, July 3, 2018), it was held that it is a fundamental principle that “a Torrens certificate of Title is indefeasible and binding upon the whole world unless it is nullified by a court of competent jurisdiction x x x in a direct proceeding for cancellation of title”.

Applying the above provisions of law, the certificate of title remains in tack with my friend’s mother.  It cannot be defeated by reason of loss of physical possession.

(April 27, 2024)