Cresencia Tubo Rodriguez v. Evangeline Rodriguez G.R. No. 175720; Sepe!ber 11" 2007 #acs$ Juanito Rodriguez Rodriguez owned a 5-door apartment. In 1983, 1983, he executed executed a “Huing “Huing ha!iin at te"tamento# gi$ing petitioner %re"encia &u!o Rodriguez, hi" i$e-in partner, apartment" ' and (, and hi" chidren )en*amin +decea"ed hu"!and o re"pondent, apartment / re"pondent )uena$entura, apartment )/ and )een, apartment %. Howe$er, in 1980, the decea"ed executed a deed o a!"oute "ae o$er the propert in a$or o the petitioner. petitioner. In 21, petitioner 4ed a compaint or unawu detainer again"t aga in"t the re"pondent", aeging that "he i" the awu and regi"ter regi"tered ed owner o the propert, and that in 1980, "he aowed re"pondent" to occup the unit". Howe$er, without her nowedge and con"ent, the re"pondent" "eparate ea"ed the unit" to 6agpanta, 7a$arro, and ("cota. Re"pondent" caimed owner"hip o the propert ! "ucce""ion. &he aeged that the deed o "ae wa" "imuated and $oid. &he 6&% rendered *udgment in a$or o the re"pondent". &he R&% re$er"ed the deci"ion o the 6&%. &he % re$er"ed the deci"ion o the R&%. 6R denied. %ssue$ 1. 7 the % committed gra$e a!u"e o di"cretion in rein"tating the deci"ion o the 6et&% in di"mi""ing petitioner" compaint or unawu detainer 2. 7 the % committed re$er"i!e re$er"i!e error in decaring that the propert !ecame the "u!*ect o Juanito Rodriguez:" Huing Ha!iin at &e"tamento wherein the propert wa" di"tri!uted to hi" heir" +herein re"pondent" incuding the petitioner Ruling$ 1. ;
ect an ad*udication on owner"hip which i" not proper in the "ummar action or unawu detainer detainer.. ect a>ected ed part part in an appr appropri opriate ate action in the proper court.
2. Howe$er, when the i""ue o owner"hip i" rai"ed the court i" not ou"ted o it" *uri"diction. ?ection 1@ o Rue A +R% that the tria court can do i" to mae an initia determination o who i" the owner o the propert "o that it can re"o$e who i" entited to it" po""e""ion a!"ent other e$idence to re"o$e owner"hip. )ut thi" ad*udication i" on pro$i"iona and doe" not !ar or pre*udice an action !etween the "ame partie" in$o$ing tite to the propert. &'ills ( &he ower court" con"idered the oowing documentar e$idence in arri$ing at their re"pecti$e deci"ion"B 1 Huing Ha!iin at &e"tamento 2 'eed o ?ae 3 &%& 7o. in the name o the petitioner/ and 0 ect "ince the wi ha" not !een pro!ated. )eore an wi can ha$e orce or $aidit it mu"t !e pro!ated. &hi" cannot !e di"pen"ed with and i" a matter o pu!ic poic. rtice 838 o the %i$i %ode mandate" that “CnDo wi "ha pa"" either rea or per"ona propert une"" it i" pro$ed and aowed in accordance with the Rue" o %ourt.# " the wi wa" not pro!ated, the ect. &hu", the act that petitioner wa" a part to "aid agreement !ecome" immateria in the determination o the i""ue o po""e""ion. 6oreo$er, at the time the deed o "ae wa" executed in a$or o the petitioner, Juanito Rodriguez remained the owner thereo "ince owner"hip woud on pa"" to hi" heir" at the time o hi" death. &hu", a" owner o the propert, he had the a!"oute right to di"po"e o it during hi" ietime.
