G.R. No.

172588
March 13, 2013
ISABEL N. GUZMAN, Petitioner,
vs.
ANIANO N. GUZMAN and PRIMITIVA G. MONTEALTO, Respondents.
Facts:
Isabel N. Guzman, spouse of Arnold N. Guzman, owned 6/7th and 1/7th portions,
respectively of a parcel of land in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan. She filed an ejectment suit
with the MTC against her children, Aniano N. Guzman and Primitiva G. Montealto,
claiming that they occupied the land by mere tolerance and they failed to comply upon
her written demand to vacate the property; subsequently barangay conciliation
proceedings failed to settle their differences.
In respondents defense, the children argued that their mother transferred all her
property rights of the said property in their favor, except her usufructuary right, as
evidenced by a document. They also alleged that she engaged in forum shopping since
she already raised the issue of ownership in a pending case in the RTC for petition for
cancellation of adverse claim against them.
The MTC found the petitioner to be the lawful owner of the land with a right to its
possession since respondents had no vested right to the land since they are merely her
children to whom no ownership or possessory rights have passed. It also held that she
did not commit forum shopping since she asserted ownership only to establish her right
of possession and the lower courts can provisionally resolve the issue of ownership to
determine who has the better right of possession.
Aggrieved, respondents appealed to the RTC. The RTC reversed the MTC ruling.
It took into account the petitioners transfer of rights in the respondents favor which, it
held, could not be unilaterally revoked without a court action. It also noted that there
was no earnest effort at a compromise which was exerted prior to the filing of the
complaint.
Petitioner filed 3 Motions for Reconsideration at the RTC on different dates and
were denied by the court on those occasions.
Petitioner appealed on certiorari with the CA. CA ruled against her favor. It held
that petitioner cannot validly claim that the respondents occupied the properties through
mere tolerance since they were co-owners of the property as compulsory heirs of
Alfonso N. Guzman, the original owner. It also noted that petition for review would have
been the proper remedy. It found that under the Rules, she lost her chance to appeal
when she filed a second motion for reconsideration.

Issue:
Whether or not CAs finding of co-ownership is bereft of factual and legal basis in
its case for ejectment.
Held:
No. The Court affirming the decision of CA has ruled that Ejectment cases are
summary proceedings intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual
possession or right of possession of property. Title is not involved; hence, it is a special
civil action with a special procedure. The only issue to be resolved in ejectment cases is
the question of entitlement to the physical or material possession of the premises or
possession de facto. Thus, any ruling on the question of ownership is only provisional,
made solely for the purpose of determining who is entitled to possession de facto.
Accordingly, any ruling on the validity of the petitioners transfer of rights is provisional
and should be resolved in a proper proceeding.