FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 208284. April 23, 2018.]

THE IGLESIA DE JESUCRISTO JERUSALEM NUEVA OF MANILA,

PHILIPPINES, INC., represented by its President,
FRANCISCO GALVEZ , petitioner, vs. LOIDA DELA CRUZ using
the name CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, "NEW JERUSALEM"
and all persons claiming rights under her, respondents.

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J : p

Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 are the January 22,
2013 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) and its July 17, 2013 Resolution
3 in CA-G.R. SP No. 118132, both of which affirmed the January 19, 2011

Decision 4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malabon City, Branch 74 in

Appealed Case No. A9-001-MN. The RTC Decision upheld the November 7,
2008 Decision 5 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Malabon City,
Branch 56, in Civil Case No. JL00-891. HTcADC

Factual Antecedents

Petitioner's version

On March 26, 2007, the Iglesia De Jesucristo Jerusalem Nueva of

Manila, Philippines, Inc. (petitioner), represented by Francisco Galvez
(Galvez), filed before the MeTC of Malabon City a Complaint 6 for unlawful
detainer with damages (Complaint) against respondent Loida Dela Cruz
(Dela Cruz), using the name CHURCH OF JESUS CRIST, "NEW JERUSALEM"
and all persons claiming rights under her (collectively, respondents).
Docketed as Civil Case No. JL00-891, said Complaint contained the following
allegations:
1. [Petitioner] is a [r]eligious [c]orporation x x x with office
address at #29 Interior Leono St., Tanong, Malabon City represented
by its president, [Galvez]. x x x
2. [Dela Cruz] is of legal age, Filipino[,] with office address at #27
Leono St., Tanong, Malabon City. x x x
3. [Petitioner] is the owner of certain parcels of land consisting of
an area of TWO HUNDRED FOUR (204) SQUARE METERS and
SEVENTY[-]ONE (71) SQUARE METERS [both] covered by Original
Certificate of Title [(OCT)] No. 35266 and [the corresponding] Tax
Declaration [(TD)] [No.] 06223[(subject lot)]. x x x
4. [Galvez], x x x is the nephew of Rosendo Gatchalian (Rosendo),
the founder and the leader of [petitioner] way back [in] 1940 who
organized the said religious corporation and built a chapel within the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 [subject lot];
5. Since 1940, Miguela Gatchalian [Miguela], the late mother of
[Galvez] and her family used to occupy [and] possess and [likewise]
built a house of their own in the concept of an owner [with]
uninterrupted, peaceful[,] and physical possession [on a] certain
portion of the [subject lot] as they were relatives and [long-time]
member[s] of [petitioner] and were allowed by the founder [Rosendo]
to occupy the same;
6. During the lifetime of x x x [Rosendo], the chapel [inside the
subject lot] was used exclusively by the members of [petitioner] for
worship x x x every Sunday;
7. [Dela Cruz] used to be a member of the [petitioner] x x x.
However, when [Rosendo] died, x x x the members [became]
disorganized x x x. Since then, members who x x x come and visit the
chapel were allowed to enter the chapel and conduct their meetings
and worship therein;
8. Surprisingly[,] sometime [in] 1998, without the knowledge and
consent of all [the] members and offers of [petitioner], [Dela Cruz] x x
x formed, organized[,] and created the name of CHURCH OF JESUS
CHRIST, "NEW JERUSALEM";
9. The organization formed by [Dela Cruz] was used by her as an
instrument in claiming that she is the representative of the said
religious organization and had the right over the [subject lot]. x x x
10. The occupation and possession of [Dela Cruz] over the
[subject lot] of [petitioner] was merely tolerated because they were
former members of [petitioner] x x x
11. On 12 February 2007, a demand was sent to [respondents] to
vacate and surrender the peaceful possession of the chapel and to
stop using the [subject lot] of [petitioner] but the [respondents] failed
and refused x x x to vacate the same x x x. The demand letter was
personally served[,] but [Dela Cruz] refused to sign [the same]. x x x;
xxx xxx xxx
13. [Thus, petitioner] was constrained to institute the instant suit.
xxx xxx xxx 7
In the Position Paper it filed with the MeTC, 8 petitioner referred to its
pieces of evidence, viz. Secretary's Certificate dated March 27, 2007 signed
by Lourdes Co (Co) and Atty. Gerardo Cruz, OCT No. (8257) M-35266, TD No.
06223, Decision in Appealed Case No. 1064-MN dated January 17, 2000
issued by RTC-Branch 169, demand letter dated February 12, 2007 and the
corresponding affidavit of Co, its Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Certificate of Incorporation dated August 4, 1999 with Articles of
Incorporation (AOI), Order in Civil Case No. 1853-98 issued by the MeTC-
Branch 55, and Temporary Receipt issued by the MeTC-Branch 55 in Civil
Case No. 1853-98.

Respondents' version

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 In her Answer, 9 Dela Cruz countered with the following averments:
1. x x x She is an Officer of Obispo Representante at Pastor
General ng Iglesia ni Jesu Kristo "Bagong Jerusalem," Inc. 10 [Her]
authority to represent said religious organization before [the MeTC] is
embodied in a board resolution and outlined in the Secretary's
Certificate hereto attached x x x;
2. On April 25, 2007[,] [she,] through a member of their church[,]
received a copy of the Complaint and the Summons from [the MeTC]
directing [her] to file her Answer x x x;
3. [She] denies the allegation in paragraph 1 of the Complaint for
lack of knowledge to form a reasonable belief as to the truth thereof.
As per inquiry on-line with the [SEC,] no such corporation or entity
exist[s] as [such]. x x x
4. Paragraph 2 of the Complaint is likewise denied by [her] insofar
as the allegation that No. 27 Leono St. x x x is being used by her as
her office. In truth[,] the said place is the site of the church of Obispo
Representante at Pastor General ng Iglesia ni Jesu Kristo "Bagong
Jerusalem," Inc.;
5. [She] denies the allegation in paragraph 3 of the [C]omplaint
for being false and misleading. [Galvez deviously acquired] a new
[title] by declaring the previous one as struck by flood x x x. [OCT]
No. 8257 (owner's copy) was never lost [as such and] is still in [the]
possession of the Obispo Representante at Pastor General ng Iglesia
ni Jesu Kristo "Bagong Jerusalem," Inc. x x x;
6. x x x [T]he TDs of the [subject lot] x x x already bore the name
of ["]New Jerusalem, New Church of Jesus Christ" as owner thereof, x
x x;
7. In [TD] No. B-001-04457[,] [Galvez] declared the improvement
(house) in his name x x x. However, the same document on the
dorsal portion [thereof showed that the] improvement was described
as situated "x x x on the land of New Jerusalem, New Church of Jesus
Christ." x x x;
8. [She claims that in] 1914, the [c]hurch was founded [and had]
its principal office at 797 Dagupan Ext., Solis, Tondo, Manila. The
bishop then was Rev. Ildefonso Agulo. The church was known then, as
it was now, as the following:
"Church of Jesus Christ New Jerusalem" (English) aScITE

"Iglesia ni Jesu-Kristo Bagong Jerusalem" (Tagalog)

"Iglesia De Jesucristo Jerusalem Nueva" (Spanish)
These three (3) nomenclatures were registered at the Department of
Instruction, National Library, Manila[,] Philippines.
It can be gleaned from the [OCT] No. 8257 x x x that the owner-
organization was incorporated x x x only after September 3, 1955
when it was registered as a corporation sole before the [SEC]. In [its
AOI] it was mentioned that Felicisima Pineda (Pineda) is the Bishop
Representative and General Pastor of the church known to the public
as[:]

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 "Church of Jesus Christ New Jerusalem" (English)
"Iglesia ni Jesu-Kristo Bagong Jerusalem" (Tagalog)
"Iglesia De Jesucristo Jerusalem Nueva" (Spanish)
. . . And that it desires to become [a] corporation sole under the name
and style: Obispo Representante at Pastor General ng Iglesia ni Jesu
Kristo "Bagong Jerusalem," Inc.
Further, it was also stated that said entity shall administer and
manage the temporalities of the estates and properties of the church,
["]Church of Jesus Christ New Jerusalem," "Iglesia ni Jesu-Kristo
Bagong Jerusalem," "Iglesia De Jesucristo Jerusalem Nueva" within the
territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. x x x;
This is the reason why the TDs mentioned earlier x x x [bore] the
name of Pineda as Administrator at the subject property;
9. Paragraph 5 of the Complaint is likewise denied. The church in
Tanong[,] Malabon was named "Tempo Angeles" after one of the
bishops[,] Rev. Pedro Angeles[,] who died x x x on March 30, 1930.
[Miguela] built a shanty upon tolerance by [Pineda] upon the
prodding of one of its member[s,] Feliza Bravo;
10. [Galvez] or any of his relative[s] was not and never became a
member of the church. x x x;
11. That [Dela Cruz] remain[ed] an active member of the Obispo
Representante at Pastor General ng Iglesia ni Jesu Kristo "Bagong
Jerusalem," Inc.
12. [She] denies the allegations in paragraph 9 of the Complaint
insofar as she allegedly formed the organization as an instrument to
claim the [subject lot]. However, she admits filing an ejectment case
and the consequent dismissal thereof on appeal. The reason for the
dismissal being that [said] ejectment case has become "moot and
academic" by [therein defendants,' including Galvez's, act of]
voluntarily vacating the [subject lot]. Said act of [Galvez] is an
indication that he does not have any right over the [subject lot]. In
fact[,] during the proceedings before the Lupon Tagapamayapa[,]
[Galvez] offered to leave the [subject lot] provided [that] he would be
paid a reasonable sum for the house built thereon. x x x
13. Paragraph 10 is likewise denied because respondents have in
fact the right over the [subject lot] being the ADMINISTRATOR
thereof;
14. x x x There was [neither a] demand that came to her
attention [nor] was there an occasion that she refuse[d] to sign [the
same]. x x x This is fatal to the cause of [petitioner or Galvez] and
warrants the outright dismissal of the [C]omplaint;
15. [Galvez] x x x was using the church premises to gain profit by
offering for lease the portion occupied by his house to other persons.
[Dela Cruz] with the consent of the church filed a complaint on
February 20, 2007 before the Office of the Mayor [of] Malabon City. x
x x This is the very reason why [Galvez] filed this case to harass and
intimidate [her] and the church she represents;
16. Prior to the filing of [said] ejectment case [by respondents]
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 against [Galvez,] the latter has been offering for lease the said
portion of the [subject lot] and collecting rent [thereon] without the
consent of [respondents]. After the decision [in the said ejectment]
case on appeal[,] [Galvez] again surreptitiously entered the premises
of the [subject lot] and offered the same for lease anew. x x x 11
Respondent Dela Cruz thus prayed that the Complaint be dismissed;
that the petitioner's claims for damages and attorney's fees be denied and
that judgment be rendered ordering petitioner, represented by Galvez, to
vacate the premises and to remove the structures that petitioner thereon
erected, and that petitioner be also directed to pay her (respondent Dela
Cruz) attorney's fees, monthly rent with legal interest from the time of
occupation up to the present, plus exemplary damages.
In the Position Paper that she filed with the MeTC, 12 respondent
referred to her pieces of evidence, viz.: Secretary's Certificate dated April 30,
2007 signed by Josie Sengco and notarized by Atty. Mamaril, a copy of OCT
No. 8257, 13 TD No. 16094, TD No. B-001-04457, a copy of SEC Certificate of
Registration dated September 3, 1955 with AOI, Minutes of Lupon
Proceedings dated June 4, 1998, Complaint filed on February 20, 2007 with
the Office of the Malabon City Mayor, and Certification from the then Punong
Barangay dated February 2, 1999. What is more, Dela Cruz therein
emphasized that the reconstituted title granted to Galvez was irregular and
invalid because the alleged corporation represented by Galvez was not yet
existing when the reconstituted title was issued; and that Galvez moreover
did not have any authority to institute the instant proceedings in behalf of
the existing corporation, the Obispo Representante at Pastor General ng
Iglesia ni JesuKristo "Bagong Jerusalem," Inc.

Ruling of the Metropolitan Trial Court

In its Decision dated November 7, 2008, 14 the MeTC dismissed

petitioner's Complaint for lack of evidence. 15 The MeTC held that petitioner
had failed to establish by preponderant evidence that it had a better right of
possession over the disputed property arising from its claim of ownership.
The MeTC found that petitioner was organized as a religious
corporation only on June 15, 1999, and was registered only on August 4,
1999, per its SEC Certificate of Incorporation; that petitioner did not own any
real property per the List of Properties that it submitted to the SEC; that
petitioner, which was organized only in 1999, made the claim that it lost the
owner's copy of OCT No. 8257, which explains why it prayed for the issuance
of a new owner's copy; that TD No. B-001-06214 covering the disputed
property as shown in OCT No. 8257 in the name of New Jerusalem, New
Church of Jesus Christ c/o Pineda of No. 171 Solis St., Tondo, Manila was
cancelled by way of correction of name by TD No. B-001-06223 in the name
of petitioner, with Galvez as administrator; that Galvez's house was
indicated as an improvement in said TD No. B-001-06214; and that TD No. B-
001-04457 beginning the year 1994 in Galvez's name indicated that his
house is on the property of New Jerusalem, New Church of Jesus Christ with
OCT No. 8257. The MeTC also found that TD No. B-001-06223 in the name of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 petitioner and Galvez as administrator which referred to the disputed
property as covered by said OCT No. (8257) M-35266 is a corrected one, as
regards the owner's name; and that said TD No. B-001-06223 cancelled TD
No. B-001-06214 in the name of New Jerusalem, New Church of Jesus Christ
c/o Pineda. HEITAD

Upon the other hand, the MeTC found that Dela Cruz had successfully
proven that she was the authorized representative of the Obispo
Representante at Pastor General ng Iglesia ni Jesu Kristo "Bagong
Jerusalem," Inc.; and that this corporation sole is the owner of the disputed
property as shown by OCT No. (8257) M-35266 and TD No. B-001-06214 in
the name of New Jerusalem, New Church of Jesus Christ beginning the year
1993.
The MeTC stressed that Obispo Representante at Pastor General ng
Iglesia ni Jesu Kristo "Bagong Jerusalem," Inc. was registered with the SEC as
a corporation sole on September 3, 1955; that this denomination is also
known as "Church of Jesus Christ, New Jerusalem," "Iglesia ni Jesu-Kristo,
Bagong Jerusalem," and "Iglesia de Jesucristo, Jerusalem Nueva" per its AOI;
that this denomination was established way back in 1914 under a succession
of bishops until its incorporation as a corporation sole in 1955. The MeTC
further found that the Obispo Representante at Pastor General ng Iglesia ni
Jesu Kristo "Bagong Jerusalem," Inc. is in actual possession of the original
owner's copy of OCT No. 8257 that was issued in 1940 when the religious
denomination was not yet a corporation.
On November 26, 2008, petitioner filed its Notice of Appeal to the RTC,
16 which was given due course by the MeTC on November 28, 2008.17
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On January 19, 2011, the RTC rendered its Decision 18 upholding the
MeTC Decision. 19 The RTC held that the disputed property which is covered
by OCT No. (8257) M-35266 is registered in the name of "The Iglesia De
Jesucristo Jerusalem Nueva of Manila, Philippines, Inc."; and that the only
issue to be resolved is who as between the parties is authorized to represent
the registered owner of the disputed property.
The RTC pointed out that although petitioner claimed that the religious
corporation it represented was organized in 1940, the same was allegedly
registered only in 1999, as compared to the earlier registration in 1955 of
the religious corporation represented by Dela Cruz, and which entity has the
words "Bagong Jerusalem" in its name, besides bearing the translated names
"New Jerusalem" in English and "Jerusalem Nueva" in Spanish.
The RTC noted that the disputed property was declared in TD No.
06214 dated January 23, 1967 under the name of "New Jerusalem, New
[Christ] of Jesus Christ" with Pineda as administrator, and that Galvez's
house was declared therein only as part of the improvements; that Galvez's
house was shown in TD No. B-001-6214 dated October 29, 1993 and in TD
No. B-001-6214 dated January 11, 2007, as situated on the land of New
Jerusalem, New Church of Jesus Christ; and that it was only on January 30,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 2007 that the disputed property was declared in the name of "The Iglesia De
Jesucristo Jerusalem Nueva of Manila, Philippines, Inc." under TD No. B-001-
06223 with Galvez as administrator; however, this contained a notation at
the back page stating that it was a correction of the owner's name.
Based on the foregoing findings, the RTC concluded that "The Iglesia
De Jesucristo Jerusalem Nueva of Manila, Philippines, Inc." appearing as
registered owner of the disputed property, and that respondent, with the
registered name of Bagong Jerusalem, also known as New Jerusalem in its
English translation, are one and the same, and that Dela Cruz was properly
authorized to represent the same as evidenced by a Secretary's Certificate;
that respondent's pieces of evidence are more preponderant as these are
consistent hence, more credible. It further ruled that petitioner's alleged
possession of the original owner's duplicate of OCT No. (8257) M-35266 was
to no avail, because it has been adequately explained that petitioner merely
filed a petition for the issuance of the duplicate owner's copy alleging loss of
the original title, but it utterly tailed to establish its legal right over the
disputed property.
Petitioner thereafter filed a Petition for Review with the CA. 20
Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In its Decision 21 dated January 22, 2013, the CA denied the Petition for
Review, viz.:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated
January 19, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 74, Malabon
City, which affirmed the Decision dated November 7, 2008 of the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Malabon City, Branch 56 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 22

The CA rejected petitioner's claim that it was the true owner of the
disputed property, based on OCT No. (8257) M-35266 and TD No. 06223. It
found no merit in petitioner's contention that he had a better right than
respondent over the disputed property, upon the ground that the latter had
allegedly failed to present the originals of the documents attached to the
Answer and merely submitted unreadable photocopies thereof. The CA
pointed out that while Dela Cruz failed to present the duplicate original copy
of the title which was allegedly still in the possession of the Obispo
Representante at Pastor General ng Iglesia ni JesuKristo "Bagong Jerusalem,"
Inc., the fact nonetheless remained that the title in petitioner's possession
was issued only after a petition for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate
copy was granted by Branch 170 of the RTC in LRC Case No. 958-MN.
The CA likewise upheld the RTC's finding that the disputed property is
clearly registered in the name of "The Iglesia de Jesucristo, Jerusalem Nueva
of Manila, Philippines" in 1940; that the only issue to be resolved in the case
was who as between Galvez and Dela Cruz was authorized to represent the
registered owner of the disputed property; that notwithstanding Dela Cruz's
failure to produce the original copy of the subject title, the MeTC's finding,
i.e., that "The Iglesia de Jesucristo, Jerusalem Nueva of Manila, Philippines"
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 appearing as the registered owner of the disputed property and "Bagong
Jerusalem," which is the registered name of the religious corporation of Dela
Cruz that is also known as "New Jerusalem" in its English translation, are one
and the same organization, was properly based on the totality of evidence
presented by the parties, taking into consideration such facts as
admissibility, credibility and plausibility, vis-a-vis the respective legal
theories of the contending parties; that petitioner's failure to explain why the
religious denomination was registered with the SEC only in 1999, even
though it alleged in its Complaint that it was organized way back in 1940, as
compared to the registration in 1955 of the Obispo Representante at Pastor
General ng Iglesia ni JesuKristo "Bagong Jerusalem," Inc. with Rev. Pineda as
Bishop Representative and General Pastor, can only mean that petitioner's
evidence lacked credence; and that in fine, Dela Cruz's pieces of evidence
were more consistent, mote credible, and more trustworthy as compared to
the pieces of evidence adduced by petitioner, which were remarkable for
their lack of consistency, as well as their utter unreliability.
The CA also highlighted the fact that, notwithstanding petitioner's
claim of a better right over the disputed property, Galvez and the latter's
sub-lessees had, in fact, vacated the same.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration 23 of the CA's Decision, but this
was denied by the CA in its Resolution of July 17, 2013. 24 ATICcS

Issues

Before this Court, petitioner instituted the present Petition 25 where it

raised the following issues:
[WHETHER] THE [CA] SERIOUSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE
APPEAL DESPITE (1) CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF THE
PETITIONER [; AND] (2) FAILURE OF THE RESPONDENT TO PRESENT
EVIDENCE ON THEIR CLAIM THAT PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT
RELIGIOUS CORPORATION IS ONE [AND] THE SAME ORGANIZATION[.]
[WHETHER] THE [CA] SERIOUSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE
APPEAL CONTRARY TO THE WELL[-]SETTLED RULE THAT A VALIDLY
ISSUED TORRENS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT OF
COLLATERAL ATTACK[.]
[WHETHER] THE [CA] SERIOUSLY ERRED IN ITS CONCLUSION
THAT [GALVEZ] (REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PETITIONER)
[VOLUNTARILY] VACATED THE [SUBJECT LOT] WHEN RESPONDENT
FILED AN EJECTMENT [CASE] x x x 26

Petitioner's Arguments

In its Petition, 27 Reply, 28 and Memorandum, 29 petitioner argues that

it is the true, absolute, and registered owner of the disputed property which
is covered by OCT No. (8257) M-35266 and TD No. 06223; that its President,
Galvez, is in possession of the owner's duplicate copy of OCT (8257) M-
35266; that being the registered owner of the disputed property, it has the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 right to possess, enjoy, dispose of the same, and to initiate the appropriate
action to recover the same under Article 428 of the Civil Code, as in the
instant case; that it filed the action for unlawful detainer against
respondents in accordance with Sections 1 and 3 of Rule 70 of the Rules of
Court; that respondents' right to the possession of the disputed property,
was through mere tolerance, and expired upon receipt of its demand for
them to vacate the same through a letter dated February 12, 2007; that the
date of unlawful deprivation is to be counted from the date of the demand to
vacate; that respondents' continued possession of the disputed property has
become unlawful, warranting their ejectment therefrom; that Dela Cruz's
failure to present the original duplicate copy of the title which she alleged to
be in respondents' possession, negated such claim; that Dela Cruz's
allegation that petitioner is the same as Obispo Representante at Pastor
General ng Iglesia ni JesuKristo "Bagong Jerusalem," Inc. is false, because the
latter's SEC Certificate of Incorporation clearly showed that it was another
entity; that it could not comprehend why the RTC mentioned that the
originals of the SEC Certificate of Incorporation and AOI of Obispo
Representante at Pastor General ng Iglesia ni JesuKristo "Bagong Jerusalem,"
Inc. as well as the original copy of the title in respondents' possession were
presented before the MeTC, although these were not in fact presented
before the court; and that despite respondents' failure to present the original
documents to prove that the Church of Jesus Christ and the Iglesia ni
JesuKristo "Bagong Jerusalem," Inc. were one and the same organization, the
MeTC, RTC, and CA all still erroneously found that they are one and the same
organization.
Petitioner further contends that respondents can be prosecuted for
perjury for falsely claiming that the ejectment case was dismissed because
Galvez in point of fact voluntarily vacated the disputed property; that Dela
Cruz even paid attorney's fees to Galvez pursuant to said judgment; that
while it may be true that some of the defendants in the ejectment case
vacated the disputed property, Galvez did not vacate the disputed property,
and in fact still resides there, hence, the CA's finding that Galvez vacated the
disputed property is contrary to the evidence; that petitioner even filed a
motion for execution with respect to the award of costs of suit in the amount
of P10,000.00 and Dela Cruz even paid that award, as evidenced by a
temporary receipt; and that what was merely stated in the MeTC Decision in
the ejectment case was that the demand letter by registered mail to Galvez
was returned to sender "with the notation that the addressee had moved
already."
Petitioner moreover insists that as the instant case is only for unlawful
detainer, it follows that the only issue to be resolved pertains to who has a
better right to the possession of the disputed property, independent of any
claim of ownership or possession de jure; that in view of the existence of the
validly issued title in its name, there is no need to determine the issue of
ownership at all; that it is settled that a person who has a Torrens Title over
the property is entitled to the possession thereof; that it had complied with
all the requirements for the institution of an unlawful detainer case under
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Civil Procedure; that the date of the filing
of the Complaint on March 28, 2007 is within one year from the date of the
final demand letter dated February 12, 2007; that respondents obstinately
refused to surrender the possession of the disputed property, despite its
demand; that Galvez was in peaceful possession of the disputed property
until Dela Cruz filed the ejectment case, hence he was prompted to "fix" the
documentation in 1999; and that he (Galvez) is now 94 years old, and has
been residing at the disputed property since birth, hence its late registration
should not be adjudged against him (Galvez).
Petitioner likewise argues that Dela Cruz's defense, which was upheld
by the CA, that the petitioner and the Obispo Representante at Pastor
General ng Iglesia ni JesuKristo "Bagong Jerusalem," Inc. are one and the
same organization, is a collateral attack upon the title validly issued to it,
which is proscribed by Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529; that
respondents did not resort to any legal action to annul or cancel the title
issued to it; and that it was error for the CA to conclude that respondents'
claim of ownership is better than petitioner's title.
Petitioner thus prays that the CA Decision and Resolution be set aside,
and that judgment be rendered ordering Dela Cruz and all persons claiming
rights under her to vacate the subject property; to pay petitioner monthly
rent of P20,000.00 or reasonable compensation therefor as well as
P50,000.00 in exemplary damages; P50,000.00 in attorney's fees plus
P3,000.00 per hearing; and to pay the costs of suit.
Respondents' Arguments

In her Comment 30 and Memorandum, 31 Dela Cruz counters that the

records before the MeTC clearly showed that the original AOI was presented
and marked; that if she and her co-respondents indeed failed to present the
original AOI of the religious corporation that they belonged to, then
petitioner should have made a comment thereon or requested for the
correction of the Preliminary Conference Order to reflect such facts; and,
that both the MeTC and the RTC made the finding that Dela Cruz presented
the original document. TIADCc

More than these, Dela Cruz argues that petitioner's title was obtained
only because Dela Cruz filed an action or motion for the issuance of a
reconstituted copy allegedly because the original title had been lost although
it was not in fact lost; and that above all, the MeTC itself adverted to
petitioner's declaration before the SEC that it does not in fact own any real
property, whether land or building.

Our Ruling

This Court finds no merit in the present Petition.

We start off with the basic postulate that the present case was a
complaint for unlawful detainer and damages by petitioner against
respondents. The requirements for such an ejectment suit are fundamental,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 thus:
x x x Section 1, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended x x x states:
SECTION 1. Who may institute proceedings,
and when. — Subject to the provisions of the next
succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession
of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat,
strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other
person against whom the possession of any land or
building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or
termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of
any contract, express or implied, or the legal
representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor,
vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one (1)
year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of
possession, bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial
Court against the person or persons unlawfully
withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or
persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such
possession, together with damages and costs.
xxx xxx xxx
A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful
detainer if it recites the following: (1) the defendant's initial
possession of the property was lawful, either by contract with or by
tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) eventually, such possession became
illegal upon the plaintiff's notice to the defendant of the termination
of the latter's right of possession; (3) thereafter, the defendant
remained in possession and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment of
the property; and (4) the plaintiff instituted the complaint for
ejectment within one (1) year from the last demand to vacate the
property. 32
In this case, the MeTC, the RTC, and the CA ruled for respondents, by
uniformly holding that Dela Cruz was able to show by convincing evidence
that she is the duly authorized representative of the registered owner of the
disputed property. Quoting the RTC, the CA agreed that it is beyond doubt or
dispute that the disputed property is registered in the name of "The Iglesia
de Jesucristo, Jerusalem Nueva of Manila, Philippines, Inc." and that the sole
issue for resolution in the case is which party was authorized to represent
the registered owner of the disputed property, viz.:
Indeed, the totality of evidence presented by the parties tilts in
favor of [Dela Cruz]. We quote with approval the [RTC's]
ratiocinations x x x:
xxx xxx xxx
There is no question that the subject [lot] is
registered in the name of 'Iglesia de Jesucristo, Jerusalem
Nueva of Manila, Philippines,' ([']Nueva de Manila' for
brevity) in 1940, [Galvez] argued that he is the president
of 'Nueva de Manila' hence, authorized to represent the
same; likewise, [Dela Cruz] as an officer of Church of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Jesus Christ, 'New Jerusalem' ('New Jerusalem' for brevity)
claims the same representation as 'Nueva de Manila' and
'New Jerusalem' are one and the same entity.
The only issue to be resolved is who as between
[Galvez] and [Dela Cruz] is authorized to represent the
registered owner of the subject property. x x x
The Court notes that as stated in [Galvez's]
[C]omplaint (par. 4) his religious organization, 'Nueva [de]
Manila,' of which he represents was organized way back
in 1940; but why is it that [Galvez] registered it only in
1999? On the other hand[,] 'Bagong Jerusalem' which also
bears the name of 'New Jerusalem' in its English
[t]ranslation and 'Jerusalem Nueva' in its Spanish
translation was registered in 1955 as a corporation sole
with Rev. Pineda as the Bishop Representative and
General Pastor of the church and not [Rosendo], the
founder as [Galvez] claimed x x x. [Galvez] failed to
explain this glaring inconsistency, which render[ed] his
evidence not worthy of credence.
xxx xxx xxx
x x x [T]he Court finds that 'Nueva de Manila'
appearing as the registered owner of the subject property
and 'Bagong Jerusalem,' the registered name of the
religious organization of [Dela Cruz] which is also known
as 'New Jerusalem' in its English translation are one and
the same organization; and [Dela Cruz], as evidenced by
a Secretary's Certificate x x x was authorized to
represent [the same]. The [pieces of] evidence of [Dela
Cruz] are found to be more preponderant, the same being
consistent and more credible and therefore, more
plausible than that of [Galvez's pieces of] evidence which
are inconsistent, doubtful[,] and implausible. 33
It is beyond cavil that the disputed property is registered in the name
of "The Iglesia de Jesucristo, Jerusalem Nueva of Manila, Philippines, Inc." as
stated in both the reconstituted title 34 attached to the Complaint submitted
by petitioner, as represented by Galvez, as well as in the copy of the original
title 35 thereof attached to the Position Paper filed by Dela Cruz, which as
claimed by the latter is in the possession of Obispo Representante at Pastor
General ng Iglesia ni JesuKristo "Bagong Jerusalem," Inc. We note that this
name is actually the name of petitioner verbatim. Moreover, it is indicated in
the dorsal portion of the reconstituted title that Galvez had been authorized
to prosecute the action to reconstitute the title, to wit:
Entry No. 77467/OCT (8257)35266-AFFIDAVIT OF LOSS-Executed by
[Galvez] in his capacity as the president of the Iglesia De Jesucristo,
Jerusalem Nueva of Manila, Philippines, Inc., that the Certificate of
Owners [D]uplicate of Title No. 8257 had been lost, misplaced, struck
by flood unknown to him.
Date of Instrument: 06-08-06
Date of Inscription: 06-09-06 AIDSTE

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 (SGD.) JOSEPHINE H. PONCIANO
Actg. Reg. of Deeds
Entry No. 79998-99/T-No. (8257)M-35266: COURT ORDER ISSUANCE
OF NEW OWNERS CERT. OF TITLE:
ISSUING AUTHORITY: Branch 170/City of Malabon
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS: LRC CASE NO. 958-MN
Date of Instrument: Sept. 30, [2]006
Date of Inscription: Oct. 20, 2006 at 10:45 a.m.
This Cert. of Title is issued in lieu of the lost/destroyed first copy of
the same previously declared null and void.
[Illegible Signature]
JOSEPHINE H. PONCIANO
Actg. Reg. of Deeds 36
Stock must be taken, too, of Dela Cruz's insistence that Galvez
succeeded in obtaining a new title to the disputed property based on the
latter's untruthful claim that the original thereof was destroyed by a flood,
(even though the said original title, OCT No. 8257, was never in fact lost)
and was still in the possession of Obispo Representante at Pastor General ng
Iglesia ni JesuKristo "Bagong Jerusalem," Inc. Hence, the issuance of the
reconstituted title was irregular and improper because the alleged
corporation which owned the disputed property was not yet in existence
when the alleged original title was issued.
"When the defendant raises the defense of ownership in [her]
pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without
deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved
only to determine the issue of possession." 37 In other words, "[w]here the
parties to an ejectment case raise the issue of ownership, the courts may
pass upon that issue to determine who between the parties has the better
right to possess the property. However, where the issue of ownership is
inseparably linked to that of possession, adjudication of the ownership issue
is not final and binding, but only for the purpose of resolving the issue of
possession." 38
We need not repeatedly belabor the issue in an ejectment case:
x x x The principal issue must be possession de facto, or actual
possession, and ownership is merely ancillary to such issue. The
summary character of the proceedings is designed to quicken the
determination of possession de facto in the interest of preserving the
peace of the community, but the summary proceedings may not be
proper to resolve ownership of the property. Consequently, any issue
on ownership arising in forcible entry or unlawful detainer is resolved
only provisionally for the purpose of determining the principal issue of
possession. x x x 39
"Indeed, a title issued under the Torrens system is entitled to all the
attributes of property ownership, which necessarily includes possession." 40
Nevertheless, "an ejectment case will not necessarily be decided in favor of
one who has presented proof of ownership of the subject property. Key
jurisdictional facts constitutive of the particular ejectment case filed must be
averred in the complaint and sufficiently proven." 41
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Quite independently of the foregoing, what further strengthens herein
respondents' posture was petitioner's utter failure to adduce proof that he
merely tolerated respondents' possession of the disputed property. In Corpuz
v. Spouses Agustin , 42 this Court recognized that even as the registered
owner generally has the right of possession as an attribute of ownership,
nevertheless the dismissal of the complaint for unlawful detainer is justified
where proof of preponderant evidence of material possession of the disputed
premises has not been convincingly adduced —
x x x Petitioner is correct that as a Torrens title holder over the
subject properties, he is the rightful owner and is entitled to
possession thereof. However, the lower courts and the appellate court
consistently found that possession of the disputed properties by
respondents was in the nature of ownership, and not by mere
tolerance of the elder Corpuz. In fact, they have been in continuous,
open and notorious possession of the property for more than 30 years
up to this day.
xxx xxx xxx
The pronouncement in Co v. Militar was later reiterated in
Spouses Pascual v. Spouses Coronel and in Spouses Barias v. Heirs of
Bartolome Boneo, et al., wherein we consistently held the age-old rule
'that the person who has a Torrens Title over a land is entitled to
possession thereof.'
However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the present
petitioner has instituted an unlawful detainer case against
respondents. It is an established fact that for more than three
decades, the latter have been in continuous possession of the subject
property, which, as such, is in the concept of ownership and not by
mere tolerance of petitioner's father. Under these circumstances,
petitioner cannot simply oust respondents from possession through
the summary procedure of an ejectment proceeding. 43
In the case at bench, petitioner miserably failed to substantiate its
claim that it merely tolerated respondents' possession of the disputed
property. Indeed, "[w]ith the averment here that the respondent[s']
possession was by mere tolerance of the petitioner, the acts of tolerance
must be proved, for bare allegation of tolerance did not suffice. At least,
the petitioner should show the overt acts indicative of [its] or [its]
predecessor's tolerance x x x But [it] did not adduce such evidence," 44 as in
this case. It is thus quite evident from the allegations and evidence
presented by petitioner that its claim that it merely tolerated respondents'
entry into and possession of the disputed property, is baseless and
unsubstantiated. Furthermore, while possession is a question of fact which is
generally not allowed to be raised in a Rule 45 petition, the MeTC, RTC, and
CA made no finding in respect to the question of tolerance as discussed
above.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of
merit.
Without costs.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 SO ORDERED.
Leonardo-de Castro, ** Jardeleza and Tijam, JJ., concur.
Sereno, * C.J., is on leave.

Footnotes
* On Leave.

** Designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2540 dated February
28, 2018.
1. Rollo , pp. 10-37.

2. Id. at 41-52; penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio and concurred in

by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Priscilla J. Baltazar-
Padilla.
3. Id. at 53-54.

4. CA rollo, pp. 35A-42; penned by Judge Celso R. L. Magsino, Jr.

5. Id. at 43-48; penned by Judge Edison F. Quintin.

6. Records (Volume I), pp. 1-6.

7. Id. at 1-4.
8. Records (Volume II), pp. 94-116.

9. Records (Volume I), pp. 16-21.

10. Also referred to as Obispo Representante at Pastor General ng Iglesia ni Jesu

Cristo "Bagong Jerusalem," Inc., Obispo Representante at Pastor General ng
Iglesia ni JesuCristo "Bagong Jerusalem," Inc. and as Obispo Representante at
Pastor General ng Iglesia ni Jesu-Kristo "Bagong Jerusalem," Inc. in some
parts of the records.

11. Records (Volume I), pp. 16-19.

12. Id. at 112-117.

13. The attached photocopy of OCT No. 8257 is in the name of "Iglesia De
Jesucristo Jerusalem Nueva of Manila, Philippines, Inc."; id. at 118-119.
14. CA rollo, pp. 43-48.

15. Id. at 48.

16. Records (Volume I), pp. 172-173.

17. Id. at 180.

18. CA rollo, pp. 35A-42.

19. Id. at 42.

20. Id. at 150.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 21. Rollo , pp. 41-52.
22. Id. at 51.

23. CA rollo, pp. 201-210.

24. Rollo , pp. 53-54.

25. Id. at 10-37.

26. Id. at 17.

27. Id. at 10-37.

28. Id. at 133-148.

29. Id. at 158-184.

30. Id. at 120-126.

31. Id. at 201-205.

32. Diaz v. Punzalan, G.R. No. 203075, March 16, 2016, 787 SCRA 531, 535-536.

33. Rollo , pp. 49-51.

34. OCT No. (8257) M-35266 per Records (Volume I), p. 8 (Annex "B" of petitioner's
Complaint).
35. The attached photocopy of OCT No. 8257 is in the name of "Iglesia De
Jesucristo Jerusalem Nueva of Manila, Philippines, Inc."; id. at 118-119.

36. Dorsal portion of OCT No. (8237) M-35266 per id. at 8 (Annex "B" of
(petitioner's Complaint).

37. Section 16, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.

38. Corpuz v. Spouses Agustin, 679 Phil. 352, 360 (2012).

39. Penta Pacific Realty Corporation v. Ley Construction and Development
Corporation, 747 Phil. 672, 686 (2014).
40. Corpuz v. Spouses Agustin, supra note 38 at 361.
41. Dr. Carbonilla v. Abiera , 639 Phil. 473, 481 (2010).

42. Supra note 38.

43. Id. at 361-363.

44. Quijano v. Amante , 745 Phil. 40, 52 (2014).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com