Garcia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 133140, August 10, 1999

Facts:

Atty. Pedro V. Garcia, in whose name TCT No. S-31269 covering a parcel of land identified as Lot 17 situated at Bel Air II Village, Makati, was registered, sold with the consent of his wife Remedios T. Garcia, the same to their daughter Ma. Luisa Magpayo and her husband Luisito Magpayo. The Magpayos mortgaged the land to the Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom) to secure a loan. The Magpayos failed to pay their loan upon its maturity, hence, the mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed and at the public auction sale, PBCom which was the highest bidder bought the land. PBCom filed at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession over the land. Mrs. Magpayo's brother, Jose Ma. T. Garcia (Garcia), who was in possession of the land, refused to honor it and filed a motion for Intervention in the above-said PBCom petition, which motion was denied. PBCom averred, inter alia, that Garcia's claim over the land is belied by the fact that it is not among the properties owned by his mother listed in the Inventory of Real Estate. The Magpayos, on the other hand, asserted that title over the land was transferred to them by Mrs. Magpayo's parents to enable them (Magpayos) to borrow from PBCom.

RTC Ruling:

The court a quo denied the motion for summary judgment on the ground that PBCom raised in its answer both factual and legal issues.

CA Ruling:

CA reversed the Ruling of RTC.

Issue:

WON Garcia is the owner and possessor of the property?

Ruling:

No, Garcia is not the owner and the possessor of the property.

Ownership confers certain rights to the owner, one of which is the right to dispose of the thing by way of sale.  possession is defined as the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right. Literally, to possess means to actually and physically occupy a thing with or without right. Possession may be had in one of two ways: possession in the concept of an owner and possession of a holder. "A possessor in the concept of an owner may be the owner himself or one who claims to be so." On the other hand, "one who possesses as a mere holder acknowledges in another a superior right which he believes to be ownership, whether his belief be right or wrong.

In this case, Atty. Pedro Garcia and his wife Remedios exercised their right to dispose of what they owned when they sold the subject property to the Magpayo spouses. The records show that petitioner occupied the property not in the concept of an owner for his stay was merely tolerated by his parents. Petitioner's subsequent claim of ownership as successor to his mother's share in the conjugal asset is belied by the fact that the property was not included in the inventory of the estate submitted by his father to the intestate court. This buttresses the ruling that indeed the property was no longer considered owned by petitioner's parents. The Magpayo spouses were already the owners when they mortgaged the property to PBCom.

Hence, Garcia is not the owner and the possessor of the property.