When ownership and possession part ways

Ownership and possession are different concepts in law. Usually, possession follows ownership. Thus, when one is the owner, he/she is entitled to possession. But this ideal does not happen all the time. Here, we have a case where certain parties’ right to remain in possession was upheld even as the opposing party’s right of ownership through a void Torrens title was allowed to subsist.

Facts:

Soledad was the registered owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 042-2014001413. She allegedly donated it to Norberto and his children through a Deed of Donation dated February 6, 2019, acknowledged before a Notary Public. A new title, TCT No. 042-2019005107, was thereafter issued in Norberto’s name. Norberto claimed ownership of the subject property and asserted that he had been paying the real property taxes on the land from then on. For some reason, since Spouses Marciano and Ester were in possession of subject property, Norberto demanded that they vacate the premises through a Demand Letter dated April 25, 2019.

When Spouses Marciano and Ester failed to vacate, Norberto filed a case for accion publiciana to recover possession of subject property based on his ownership as evidenced by TCT No. 042-2019005107. In their Answer with Affirmative Defense and Counterclaim, Spouses Marciano and Ester maintained that they should not be evicted as Norberto’s title is void because the Deed of Donation is a product of forgery, Soledad being already deceased as of its execution. Too, Spouses Marciano and Ester prayed for cancellation of Norberto’s TCT No. 042-2019005107.

Ruling of the RTC:

The RTC ruled that indeed, at the time of execution of the Deed of Donation, Soledad was already deceased. Thus, the same is void. Given that Norberto’s title is void, he has no right to seek ejectment of Spouses Marciano and Ester. Further, the RTC cancelled TCT No. 042-2019005107 in the name of Norberto, being a by-product of the void donation.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals:

The CA upheld the ruling of the RTC insofar as it held that Spouses Marciano and Ester cannot be evicted from subject property but reversed the portion of the decision which ordered the cancellation of TCT No. 042-2019005107 in the name of Norberto.

Issue:

Is the CA correct in sustaining the RTC insofar only as to its decision that Spouses Marciano and Ester cannot be evicted from subject property but reversed the portion of the decision which ordered the cancellation of TCT No. 042-2019005107 in the name of Norberto?

SC ruling:

A Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked. In an accion publiciana, the defendant must question plaintiff’s title through a permissive counterclaim given that the issue involved is only “better right of possession.” Indeed, it was held that a counterclaim is a direct attack. While in accion reivindicatoria, defendant may immediately challenge plaintiff’s Torrens title as the issue of ownership is already subsumed in accion reivindicatoria. Relatedly, it was held that “In Heirs of Cullado v. Gutierrez (Cullado), the Court ruled that if the plaintiffs’ claim of ownership is based on a Torrens title and the defendant disputes the validity of such title, then the issue of whether there is a direct or collateral attack on the plaintiffs’ title is irrelevant. This is because the court where the reivindicatory or reconveyance suit is filed has the requisite jurisdiction to rule definitively or with finality on the issue of ownership-it can pass upon the validity of the plaintiffs’ certificate of title.” (Annaliza C. Singson v. Spouses Nar Christian Carpio and Cecilia Cao Carpio, G.R. No. 238714, August 30, 2023.) In an accion reivindicatoria, prior physical possession or subsequent unlawfulness of possession is irrelevant. (Sps. Rudy Celis and Nemia Celis v. Sps. Romeo L. Celis, Jr. and Roswena S. Celis, G.R. No. 279185, November 24, 2025)

However, in an accion publiciana, where plaintiff’s Torrens title is being challenged as void, it is not enough that defendant will raised the invalidity by way of counterclaim, he/she must do so in the pleadings during trial (not belatedly on appeal) and, more important, the defendant must show that he/she is the owner of subject property to be clothed with legal personality to seek the cancellation of title.

Thus:

Rule No. 1: Ownership is not the same as possession.

In Spouses Agullo v. Victa-Espinosa, the Court clarified that the mere allegation of ownership does not, by itself, convert an action into one for accion reivindicatoria. What is determinative is whether the complaint seeks recovery of ownership or alleges that ownership is in dispute. (Spouses Marciano and Ester Austria v. Norberto L. Abalon, G.R. No. 271451, June 30, 2026).

Accordingly, not every complaint alleging ownership and seeking possession is one for accion reivindicatoria. Absent any allegation in the complaint that ownership is disputed or that recovery of ownership is sought, there is no basis for the court to conclusively determine title. Conversely, in an accion publiciana, ownership may be invoked, but only as a basis to establish such right of possession. (Spouses Marciano and Ester Austria v. Norberto L. Abalon, G.R. No. 271451, June 30, 2026).

2)Rule No. 2: Counterlaim must be invoked by proper party claiming ownership and at the earliest opportunity. As earlier discussed, a counterclaim treated as an independent action must itself satisfy the substantive requirements governing the relief sought. In Hacbang v. Alo, the Court held that even assuming a certificate of title was fraudulently obtained, a party who has no legal right or interest in the property cannot seek its cancellation because such right belongs to the rightful owner. Likewise, in Demegillo v. Lumampao, the Court held that an action for reconveyance may be maintained only by one who claims ownership or a superior right over the property.

Here, petitioners do not claim ownership over the subject property, nor do they assert any right by virtue of which title should be transferred or reconveyed to them. Their position throughout the proceedings has not been that title should be transferred or reconveyed to them, but only that respondent is not the true owner. (Spouses Marciano and Ester Austria v. Norberto L. Abalon, G.R. No. 271451, June 30, 2026).

Conclusion: The final decision is that while Spouses Marciano and Ester cannot be evicted from the premises because Norberto’s Torrens title is void for being a by-product of a void donation; however, Spouses Marciano and Ester cannot seek the cancellation of Norberto’s Torrens title because the said spouses failed to show that they are the owners of subject property. Being non-owners, they have no right to ask the court to cancel Norberto’s title.

In the end, while Spouses Marciano and Ester may stay in possession, Norberto’s Torrens title remains until the proper party will legally challenge it.

The possessors (Spouses Marciano and Ester) won in terms of possession; but Norberto still prevailed as to ownership.

Indeed, this is an instance in law where possession and ownership do not belong to the same person.

(The author is the senior partner of ETRIII Law Firm which is based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor, MCLE lecturer, bar reviewer and a book author. Among the books he authored is “Law on Property and Essentials of Land Registration [2024 Edition]” which has been on the bestseller’s list in online shops for several months. In 2026, he published his second major legal textbook titled “Comprehensive Reviewer on Persons and Family Relations.” His website is etriiilaw.com).