SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 210504. January 24, 2018.]

HEIRS OF ALFONSO YUSINGCO, represented by their

Attorney-in-Fact, TEODORO K. YUSINGCO, petitioners, vs.
AMELITA BUSILAK, COSCA NAVARRO, FLAVIA CURAYAG and
LIXBERTO 1 CASTRO, respondents.

DECISION

PERALTA, J : p

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of

the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA),
Cagayan de Oro City, dated July 31, 2013 in CA-G.R. SP No. 04500. The
questioned CA Decision set aside the Joint Decision 3 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 30, Surigao City, dated August 17, 2011, which affirmed
with modification the February 25, 2011 Omnibus Judgment 4 of the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Surigao City, in five (5)
consolidated cases for accion publiciana and/or recovery of possession.
The pertinent factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as
follows:
On August 11, 2005, herein petitioners filed five separate (5)
Complaints 5 for accion publiciana and/or recovery of possession against
herein respondents and a certain Reynaldo Peralta. The suits, which were
subsequently consolidated, were filed with the MTCC of Surigao City, which
were later raffled to Branch 1 thereof. Petitioners uniformly alleged in the
said Complaints that: they are owners of three (3) parcels of land,
denominated as Lot Nos. 519, 520 and 1015, which are all located at
Barangay Taft, Surigao City; they inherited the lots from their predecessor-
in-interest, Alfonso Yusingco; they were in possession of the said properties
prior to and at the start of the Second World War, but lost possession thereof
during the war; after the war, petitioners discovered that the subject
properties were occupied by several persons, which prompted petitioners to
file separate cases for accion reivindicatoria and recovery of possession
against these persons; during the pendency of these cases, herein
respondents entered different portions of the same properties and occupied
them without the knowledge and consent of petitioners; petitioners were
forced to tolerate the illegal occupation of respondents as they did not have
sufficient resources to protect their property at that time and also because
their ownership was still being disputed in the earlier cases filed;
subsequently, the cases which they earlier filed were decided in their favor
and they were declared the owners of the subject properties; thereafter,
petitioners demanded that respondents vacate the said properties, but the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 latter refused.
In their Answer, respondents raised essentially similar defenses,
contending, in essence, that: they have been in possession of the subject
properties for more than thirty (30) years; petitioners never actually
possessed the said parcels of land and that they never had title over the
same; thus, petitioners' claim would be in conflict with and inferior to
respondents' claim of possession.
After the issues were joined, trial ensued.
On February 25, 2011, the MTCC, Branch 1, Surigao City issued an
Omnibus Judgment in favor of herein petitioners and disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered judgment is hereby
rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, Heirs of Alfonso Yusingco,
represented by their attorney-in-fact Teodoro E. Yusingco, against
defendants Flavia Curayag, Cosca Navarro, Amelita Busilak, Lexberto
Castro, Reynaldo Peralta and Adriano Solamo ordering:
1. Defendants Flavia Curayag, Cosca Navarro, Amelita Busilak,
Lexberto Castro, Reynaldo Peralta and Adriano Solamo and all those
claiming rights under them to vacate the premises of the lots
respectively occupied by them and to remove their improvements
from the premises and restore possession to the plaintiffs;
2. Defendant Amelita Busilak to pay the plaintiffs a monthly
compensation of P1,200.00 for the use of the property occupied by
her at 2763 P. Reyes cor. Narciso Sts., Surigao City, computed from
the time of the filing of the complaint on August 11, 2005 until she
vacates the subject property;
3. Defendant Cosca Navarro to pay the plaintiffs a monthly
compensation of P2,120.00 for the use of the property occupied by
her located at 03240 Borromeo St., Surigao City, computed from the
time of the filing of the complaint on August 11, 2005 until she
vacates the subject property;
4. Defendant Flavia Curayag to pay the plaintiffs a monthly
compensation of P1,760.00 for the use of the property occupied by
her located at 03818, Narciso St., Surigao City, computed from the
time of the filing of the complaint on August 11, 2005 until she
vacates the subject property;
5. Defendant Lexberto Castro to pay the plaintiffs a monthly
compensation of P1,500.00 for the use of the property occupied by
her located at SLB Pension House, Borromeo St., Surigao City,
computed from the time of the filing of the complaint on November
27, 2007 until he vacates the subject property;
6. Defendants Reynaldo Peralta and Adriano Solamo to pay the
plaintiffs a monthly compensation of P2,000.00 for the use of the
property occupied by them located at 04286, Navarro St., Surigao
City, computed from the time of the filing of the complaint on
November 27, 2007 until they vacate the subject property;
7. All the defendants to pay the cost of the suit.
SO ORDERED. 6

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 The MTCC held that: in an earlier case for accion reivindicatoria (Civil
Case No. 1645) decided by the Court of First Instance of Surigao Del Norte
on June 8, 1979 and affirmed by the CA in its Decision dated August 30,
1982 (CA-G.R. No. 66508-R), which became final and executory on
December 18, 1986, herein petitioners were declared the true and lawful co-
owners of the subject properties; on the other hand, evidence showed that
respondents were mere intruders on the lots in question; thus, as judicially-
declared owners of the said lots, petitioners are entitled to possession
thereof as against respondents whose entries into the said properties are
illegal.
Herein respondents filed an appeal with the RTC of Surigao City.
On August 17, 2011, the RTC, Branch 30, Surigao City, rendered a Joint
Decision, which affirmed, with modification, the Omnibus Judgment of the
MTCC. The dispositive portion of the RTC Joint Decision reads, thus:
WHEREFORE, the assailed Omnibus Judgment dated February
25, 2011 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Surigao City
i s AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION as to the judgment against
defendants Reynaldo Peralta and Adriano Solamo who did not file an
appeal therefrom. x x x
SO ORDERED. 7

Herein respondents then filed with the CA a petition for review under
Rule 42 of the Rules of Court assailing the abovementioned Joint Decision of
the RTC.
On July 31, 2013, the CA promulgated its Decision granting the petition
of herein respondents. The CA disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Joint Decision dated
August 17, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, 10th Judicial Region,
Branch 30, Surigao City is SET ASIDE and a new one rendered: (1)
SETTING ASIDE the Omnibus Judgment dated February 25, 2011 of
the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Surigao City, in
consolidated civil cases for Accion Publiciana and/or Recovery of
Possession, and (2) DISMISSING the consolidated cases for lack of
merit.
SO ORDERED. 8

The CA ruled that the RTC and CA Decisions used by the MTCC in
holding that herein petitioners are owners of the subject properties and are,
thus, entitled to legal possession thereof, are based on a previous accion
reivindicatoria, which is a suit in personam. The CA held that, being an action
in personam, the judgments in the said case binds only the parties properly
impleaded therein. Since respondents were not parties to the said action, the
CA concluded that they could not be bound by the judgments declaring
petitioners as owners of the disputed properties. Hence, petitioners' present
actions to recover possession of the said properties from respondents, on the
basis of the said judgments, must fail.
Aggrieved by the CA Decision, herein petitioners are now before this
Court via the instant petition for review on certiorari contending that the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 assailed CA Decision is replete with legal infirmities, to wit:
1. When Honorable Court of Appeals held that the prior
judgments declaring herein petitioners as the true and lawful co-
owners of the property did not bind herein respondents, as they were
not parties to the actions, saying that these were an accion
reivindicatoria and an action for recovery of possession, hence in
personam, and as such, they bound only the parties properly
impleaded and duly heard or given an opportunity to be heard; even
if such principle is inapplicable in the instant case.
2. When Honorable Court of Appeals impliedly ruled that
herein respondents would have a better right of possession over the
subject matter property over herein petitioners, despite the rulings in
the prior judgments showing the contrary. 9
The petition is meritorious.
The issues raised in the instant petition boil down to the basic question
of whether or not the final and executory decisions rendered in a previous
accion reivindicatoria, finding petitioners to be the lawful owners of the
subject properties, are binding upon respondents.
This Court rules in the affirmative.
At the outset, the Court finds it proper to look into the nature of the
actions filed by petitioners against respondents. A perusal of the complaints
filed by petitioners shows that the actions were captioned as "Accion
Publiciana and/or Recovery of Possession." However, the Court agrees with
the ruling of the lower courts that the complaints filed were actually accion
reivindicatoria.
In a number of cases, 10 this Court had occasion to discuss the three
(3) kinds of actions available to recover possession of real property, to wit:
x x x (a) accion interdictal; (b) accion publiciana; and (a) accion
reivindicatoria
Accion interdictal comprises two distinct causes of action,
namely, forcible entry (detentacion) and unlawful detainer
(desahuico) [sic]. In forcible entry, one is deprived of physical
possession of real property by means of force, intimidation, strategy,
threats, or stealth whereas in unlawful detainer, one illegally
withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right to
hold possession under any contract, express or implied. The two are
distinguished from each other in that in forcible entry, the possession
of the defendant is illegal from the beginning, and that the issue is
which party has prior de facto possession while in unlawful detainer,
possession of the defendant is originally legal but became illegal due
to the expiration or termination of the right to possess.
The jurisdiction of these two actions, which are summary in
nature, lies in the proper municipal trial court or metropolitan trial
court. Both actions must be brought within one year from the date of
actual entry on the land, in case of forcible entry, and from the date
of last demand, in case of unlawful detainer. The issue in said cases is
the right to physical possession.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the right of
possession which should be brought in the proper regional trial court
when dispossession has lasted for more than one year. It is an
ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession
of realty independently of title. In other words, if at the time of the
filing of the complaint more than one year had elapsed since
defendant had turned plaintiff out of possession or defendant's
possession had become illegal, the action will be, not one of the
forcible entry or illegal detainer, but an accion publiciana. On the
other hand, accion reivindicatoria is an action to recover ownership
also brought in the proper regional trial court in an ordinary civil
proceeding.
Accion reivindicatoria or accion de reivindicacion is, thus, an action
whereby the plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel of land and seeks
recovery of its full possession. 11 It is a suit to recover possession of a parcel
of land as an element of ownership. 12 The judgment in such a case
determines the ownership of the property and awards the possession of the
property to the lawful owner. 13 It is different from accion interdictal or
accion publiciana where plaintiff merely alleges proof of a better right to
possess without claim of title. 14
On the basis of the above discussions, it is clear that the lower courts
did not err in ruling that the suits filed by petitioners are accion
reivindicatoria, not accion publiciana, as petitioners seek to recover
possession of the subject lots on the basis of their ownership thereof.
Proceeding to the main issue in the instant petition, there is no dispute
that the RTC Decision in Civil Case No. 1645 and the CA Decision in CA-G.R.
CV No. 66508-R used by the MTCC in the present case as bases in holding
that herein petitioners are owners of the subject properties and are, thus,
entitled to legal possession thereof, are judgments on a previous case for
accion reivindicatoria, which was filed by petitioners against persons other
than herein respondents.
It is settled that a judgment directing a party to deliver possession of a
property to another is in personam. 15 It is conclusive, not against the whole
world, but only "between the parties and their successors in interest by title
subsequent to the commencement of the action." 16 An action to recover a
parcel of land is a real action but it is an action in personam, for it binds a
particular individual only although it concerns the right to a tangible thing. 17
Any judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded
and duly heard or given an opportunity to be heard. 18 However, this rule
admits of the exception that even a non-party may be bound by the
judgment in an ejectment suit 19 where he is any of the following: (a)
trespasser, squatter or agent of the defendant fraudulently occupying the
property to frustrate the judgment; (b) guest or occupant of the premises
with the permission of the defendant; (c) transferee pendente lite; (d)
sublessee; (e) co-lessee; or (f) member of the family, relative or privy of the
defendant. 20
In the instant case, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 findings and conclusions of the MTCC, as affirmed by the RTC, that
respondents are mere intruders or trespassers who do not have a right to
possess the subject lots. Thus, the Court adopts the discussion of the MTCC
on the matter, to wit:
On the other hand, the evidence for the defendants showed
that they are mere intruders on the lots in question. They are
occupying their respective portions simply as places to stay with
intention of acquiring the said properties in the event that they are
public lands and not owned by any private person.
It is noted that while the defendants had declared their houses
and improvements for tax purposes, not one of them had declared in
his name the lot in which his house or improvement is built on. They
just waited for the Yusingcos to show proof of their ownership of the
lot.
It was indeed revealing that while professing that the lots are
public land, the defendants never bothered to apply under any of the
legal modes of acquiring land of the public domain for the portion
occupied by them. Obviously, their physical possession of the
premises was not under claim of ownership or in the concept of an
owner. Hence, the defendants' possession cannot ripen into
ownership by prescription as claimed by them. They are intruders,
plain and simple, without any right of possession to be protected.
The plaintiff[s] [herein petitioners] prayed that their right of
possession of the lots is entitled to protection under the law. In the
case at bar, the evidence showed that the defendant's [herein
respondents'] entry into and possession of the disputed premises was
illegal from the beginning and remain to be so until the present.
There is no question, therefore, that as between the plaintiffs [herein
petitioners] who had been judicially declared the owners of the land
and the defendants [herein respondents] who are mere squatters
therein, the former are entitled to such legal protection. 21
On the basis of the foregoing, the CA erred in ruling that the judgments
of the RTC (in Civil Case No. 1645) and the CA (in CA-G.R. CV No. 66508-R)
on the suit for accion reivindicatoria filed by petitioners against persons
other than herein respondents are not binding upon the latter. Respondents,
being trespassers on the subject lots are bound by the said judgments,
which find petitioners to be entitled to the possession of the subject lots as
owners thereof.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The July 31, 2013
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 04500 is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The Omnibus Judgment of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
Branch 1, Surigao City, dated February 25, 2011, is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 1. "Lexberto" in some parts of the records.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren, with the concurrence of

Associate Justices Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and Edward B. Contreras,
Annex "A" to Petition, rollo, pp. 21-28.
3. Penned by Presiding Judge Evangeline S. Yuipco Bayana; rollo, pp. 42-57.
4. Penned by Presiding Judge Cesar P. Bordalba; id . at 30-41.

5. CA rollo, pp. 61-80.

6. Rollo , pp. 40-41.
7. Id. at 57.
8. Id. at 27-28.

9. Id. at 12-13.
10. Spouses Valdez, Jr. v. Court of Appeals , 523 Phil. 39, 45-46 (2006); Encarnacion
v. Amigo , 533 Phil. 466, 472 (2006); Suarez v. Spouses Emboy, Jr. , 729 Phil.
315, 329-330 (2014).
11. Amoroso v. Alegre, Jr. , 552 Phil. 22, 34 (2007); Serdoncillo v. Spouses
Benolirao, 358 Phil. 83, 96 (1998).
12. Id.

13. Amoroso v. Alegre, Jr., supra, at 35.

14. Serdoncillo v. Spouses Benolirao , supra note 11.
15. Spouses Stilgrove v. Sabas, 538 Phil. 232, 244 (2006).
16. Id. at 244-245.
17. Id. at 245.

18. Id.
19. This Court has explained in Vencilao v. Camarenta and in Sering v. Plaza that
the term action in ejectment includes a suit for forcible entry (detentacion) or
unlawful detainer (desahucio). The Court also noted in Sering that the term
action in ejectment includes also, an accion publiciana (recovery of
possession) or accion reivindicatoria (recovery of ownership). Most recently
i n Estreller v. Ysmael , the Court applied Article 487 of the Civil Code to an
accion publiciana case; in Plasabas v. Court of Appeals the Court
categorically stated that Article 487 applies to reivindicatory actions. See
discussions and citations in Marmo, et al. v. Anacay , 621 Phil. 212, 222
(2009).

20. Spouses Stilgrove v. Sabas, supra note 14, at 245.

21. Rollo , pp. 54-55.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com