Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rem2 Case Digests Rule 70
Rem2 Case Digests Rule 70
ato
G.R. No. 182953 October 11, 2010
CORAZON D. SARMIENTA, JOSE DERAMA, CATES RAMA, JOSIE MIWA, TOTO
NOASCO, JES!S OI"!INO, NOR#ERTO O$EZ, R!#EN ES$OSO, #ERNARDO
%ORESCA, MARINA DIMATAO, RO#E DIMANDA&O, RICARDO $E'A, ED!ARDO
ES$INO, ANTONIO GAEGOS, (ICTOR SANDO(A, %EICITAS A#RANTES, MERC)
CR!Z, ROSENDO ORGANO, RIC&) #ARENO, ANITA TA&SAGON, JOSIE RAMA *+,
$A#O DIMANDA&O, "etitioners vs#MANAITE -OMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
.MA-A/, Res$ondent#
%ACTS0
%&e case stemmed from a com$laint
'
for (Forcible Entry/Unlawful Detainer( )led by
res$ondent *analite +omeowners ,ssociation -nc# .*,+,/ against ,*,R, 0 C-1E23,24
,ssociation .,*,R,/ and its members# %&e com$laint was ra5ed to t&e *%CC of ,nti$olo
City !ranc&#
*,+, alleged t&at it is t&e registered owner of a certain $arcel of land situated in 3itio
*analite "&ase - !arangay 3ta# Cru6 ,nti$olo City#
7
%&roug& force intimidation t&reat
strategy and stealt& $etitioners entered t&e $remises and constructed t&eir tem$orary
&ouses and an o8ce building#
9
"etitioners li:ewise even )led a civil case to annul *,+,;s
title on 3e$tember 2 <992 but said case was dismissed by t&e trial court# ,fter said
dismissal *,+, demanded t&at $etitioners vacate t&e land# "etitioners $leaded t&at t&ey be
given one year wit&in w&ic& to loo: for a $lace to transfer to w&ic& re=uest *,+, acceded#
%&e said one>year $eriod &owever was re$eatedly e?tended due to t&e benevolence of
*,+,;s members# 2ater on $etitioners came u$ wit& a $ro$osal t&at t&ey become members
of *,+, so t&ey can be =uali)ed to ac=uire $ortions of t&e $ro$erty by sale $ursuant to t&e
Community *ortgage "rogram .C*"/#
<0
*,+, again agreed and tolerated $etitioners;
$ossession giving t&em until December <999 to com$ly wit& t&e re=uirements to avail of t&e
C*" bene)ts# "etitioners nonet&eless failed to com$ly wit& said re=uirements# %&us on
,ugust 9 2000 *,+, sent formal demand letters to $etitioners to vacate t&e $ro$erty# U$on
t&e latter;s refusal to &eed t&e demand *,+, )led t&e com$laint for (Forcible
Entry/Unlawful Detainer#(
-n t&eir ,nswer wit& Counterclaims
<<
$etitioners denied t&e said allegations and averred t&at
t&ey are t&e owners of t&e sub@ect lot &aving been in actual $&ysical $ossession t&ereof for
more t&an t&irty .A0/ years before *,+, intruded into t&e land# %&ey claimed t&at as t&e
years went by t&ey establis&ed t&e ,*,R, and boug&t t&e sub@ect $ro$erty from Bulian
%allano# %&e $ro$erty later became :nown as t&e %allano Estate# %&ey li:ewise argued t&at
t&e allegations in t&e com$laint do not confer @urisdiction u$on t&e court acting as an
e@ectment court and t&at t&e com$laint was irregular and defective because its ca$tion
states t&at it was for (Forcible EntryCUnlawful Detainer#( *,+, additionally &ad no legal
ca$acity to sue and was guilty of forum s&o$$ing# -ts o8cers were li:ewise )ctitious#
4n *ay <9 200D t&e *%CC of ,nti$olo City rendered a decision dismissing t&e case for lac:
of cause of action# %&e *%CC &eld t&at t&e com$laint )led was one of forcible entry but
*,+, failed to establis& t&e @urisdictional re=uirement of $rior $&ysical $ossession in its
com$laint# ,lso t&e trial court &eld t&at *,+,;s failure to initiate immediate legal action
after $etitioners unlawfully entered its $ro$erty and its subse=uent declaration of
benevolence u$on t&e $etitioners cannot be construed as tolerance in accordance wit& law
as to @ustify t&e treatment of t&e case as one for unlawful detainer#
<A
*,+, a$$ealed t&e decision to t&e R%C# %&e R%C rendered a Decision dated Banuary <0
200' reversing t&e decision of t&e *%CC# %&e R%C &eld t&at t&e lower court erred in
dismissing t&e case by considering t&e com$laint as one of forcible entry w&ic& re=uired $rior
$&ysical $ossession# %&e R%C found t&at *,+, was able to allege and $rove by
$re$onderance of evidence t&at $etitioners; occu$ation of t&e $ro$erty was by mere
(tolerance#( *,+, tolerated t&e occu$ation until all t&ose w&o wanted to ac=uire *,+,;s
rig&ts of owners&i$ could com$ly wit& members&i$ obligations and dues#
<E
"etitioners
&owever failed to com$ly wit& said obligations wit&in t&e given $eriodF t&us t&eir occu$ation
became illegal after *,+, demanded t&at t&ey vacate t&e $ro$erty#
,ggrieved $etitioners )led a $etition for review wit& t&e C, assailing t&e decision of t&e R%C#
-n a Decision dated 4ctober <9 2007 t&e C, a8rmed t&e decision of t&e R%C# The CA held
that while the complaint in the beginning alleged facts, which make out a case for forcible
entry, the rest of the aerments therein show that the cause of action was actually for
unlawful detainer! %&e C, noted t&at t&e com$laint alleged su$ervening events t&at would
s&ow t&at w&at was initially forcible entry was later tolerated by *,+, t&ereby converting its
cause of action into one for unlawful detainer# ,ccordingly t&e com$laint was )led wit&in t&e
re=uired one>year $eriod counted from t&e date of last demand# %&e C, furt&er &eld t&at t&e
fact t&at t&e com$laint was ca$tioned as bot& for forcible entry and unlawful detainer does
not render it defective as t&e nature of t&e com$laint is determined by t&e allegations of t&e
com$laint#
ISS!ES0
0&et&er or not t&e allegations in t&e com$laint are su8cient to ma:e u$ a case of forcible
entry or unlawful detainer#
0&et&er or not t&e C, was correct in a8rming t&e R%C;s decision )nding a case of unlawful
detainer#
-ED0
"etitioners assert t&at t&e @urisdictional re=uirement of $rior $&ysical $ossession in actions
for forcible entry was not alleged wit& $articularity in t&e com$laint as it merely alleged t&at
res$ondent &ad been de$rived of its $ossession over t&e $ro$erty# %&ey also maintained t&at
t&ey were not wit&&olding $ossession of t&e $ro$erty u$on t&e e?$iration or termination of
t&eir rig&t to $ossess because t&ey never e?ecuted any contract e?$ress or im$lied in favor
of t&e res$ondent# +ence t&ere was also no unlawful detainer#
0e deny t&e $etition#
0ell settled is t&e rule t&at w&at determines t&e nature of t&e action as well as t&e court
w&ic& &as @urisdiction over t&e case are t&e allegations in t&e com$laint#
<9
-n e@ectment
cases t&e com$laint s&ould embody suc& statement of facts as to bring t&e $arty clearly
wit&in t&e class of cases under 3ection < Rule 70 of t&e <997 Rules of Civil "rocedure as
amended#
%&ere are two entirely distinct and diGerent causes of action under t&e afore=uoted rule to
wit: .</ a case for 1orc2b3e e+tr4 w&ic& is an action to recover $ossession of a $ro$erty from
t&e defendant w&ose occu$ation t&ereof is illegal from t&e beginning as &e ac=uired
$ossession by force intimidation t&reat strategy or stealt&F and .2/ a case for 5+3*6153
,et*2+er w&ic& is an action for recovery of $ossession from t&e defendant w&ose
$ossession of t&e $ro$erty was ince$tively lawful by virtue of a contract .e?$ress or im$lied/
wit& t&e $laintiG but became illegal w&en &e continued &is $ossession des$ite t&e
termination of &is rig&t t&ereunder#
-n forcible entry t&e $laintiG must allege in t&e com$laint and $rove t&at &e was in $rior
$&ysical $ossession of t&e $ro$erty in dis$ute until &e was de$rived t&ereof by t&e defendant
by any of t&e means $rovided in 3ection < Rule 70 of t&e Rules eit&er by force intimidation
t&reat strategy or stealt&#
20
-n unlawful detainer t&ere must be an allegation in t&e
com$laint of &ow t&e $ossession of defendant started or continued t&at is by virtue of lease
or any contract and t&at defendant &olds $ossession of t&e land or building (after t&e
e?$iration or termination of t&e rig&t to &old $ossession by virtue of any contract e?$ress or
im$lied#(
, com$laint su8ciently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it recites t&e
following: .</ initially $ossession of $ro$erty by t&e defendant was by contract wit& or by
tolerance of t&e $laintiGF .2/ eventually suc& $ossession became illegal u$on notice by
$laintiG to defendant of t&e termination of t&e latter;s rig&t of $ossessionF .A/ t&ereafter t&e
defendant remained in $ossession of t&e $ro$erty and de$rived t&e $laintiG of t&e en@oyment
t&ereofF and .E/ wit&in one year from t&e last demand on defendant to vacate t&e $ro$erty
t&e $laintiG instituted t&e com$laint for e@ectment#
22
2i:ewise t&e evidence $roves t&at after *,+, ac=uired t&e $ro$erty *,+, tolerated
$etitioners; stay and gave t&em t&e o$tion to ac=uire $ortions of t&e $ro$erty by becoming
members of *,+,# "etitioners; continued stay on t&e $remises was sub@ect to t&e condition
t&at t&ey s&all com$ly wit& t&e re=uirements of t&e C*"# %&us w&en t&ey failed to ful)ll t&eir
obligations *,+, &ad t&e rig&t to demand for t&em to vacate t&e $ro$erty as t&eir rig&t of
$ossession &ad already e?$ired or &ad been terminated# %&e moment *,+, re=uired
RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 70: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer || Castro !oco !ato
$etitioners to leave $etitioners became deforciants illegally occu$ying t&e land#
2A
0ell
settled is t&e rule t&at a $erson w&o occu$ies t&e land of anot&er at t&e latter;s tolerance or
$ermission wit&out any contract between t&em is necessarily bound by an im$lied $romise
t&at &e will vacate u$on demand failing w&ic& a summary action for e@ectment is t&e $ro$er
remedy against &im#
2E
%&us t&e R%C and t&e C, correctly ruled in favor of *,+,#
"etition for review on certiorari is &ereby denied# C, resolution is a8rmed#
7G.R. No. 158939 0 Se:te;ber 29, 2010<
CEMENCIA $. CAARA, ET A., $ETITIONER, (S. TERESITA %RANCISCO, ET A.
RES$ONDENTS.
%ACTS0
"etitioner Clemencia Calara and &er c&ildren $etitioners Conce$cion Elenita -sidro Carlosa
!ernardino Doris Cladiolosa and 2o$&cal all surnamed Calara own t&e 2o$&cal .Calara/
3ubdivision in !rgy# ,nos 2os !anos# "etitioner Clemencia Calara was named res$ondent in a
letter>com$laint for violation of "#D# 9D7 instituted on 27 ,$ril <972 by a grou$ of buyers one
1audencio Havarro and res$ondent Besus Francisco among t&em before t&e t&en +uman
3ettlement Regulatory Commission .+3RC/#
4n 29 Buly <972 $etitioners conse=uently )led against res$ondents 3$ouses Besus and
%eresita Francisco t&e com$laint for unlawful detainer doc:eted as Civil Case Ho# 99A before
t&e t&en *unici$al Court of 2os !anos 2aguna#
, se$arate com$laint for unlawful detainer
was li:ewise )led by $etitioners against 1audencio Havarro and was doc:eted before t&e
same court as Civil Case Ho# 99E#
-n t&eir 29 Banuary <990 amendment of t&e com$laint against res$ondents $etitioners
alleged t&at sometime in <97' t&e former manifested t&eir intention to buy t&e 2D0>s=uare
meter $arcel denominated as 2ot Ho# 2A of t&e 2o$&cal .Calara/ 3ubdivision at t&e $rice of
"70#00 $er s=uare meterF t&at &aving made an advance $ayment in t&e sum of "709A#00
res$ondents were made to understand t&at t&eir $urc&ase of said $arcel is conditioned on
t&e $artiesI e?ecution of a contract to sell over t&e sameF t&at after constructing a &ouse of
strong materials &owever res$ondents &ave not only refused to e?ecute a contract to sell
but also failed to ma:e any furt&er $ayments on t&e lotF and t&at &aving already ignored
$etitioner Clemencia CalaraIs 20 *arc& <979 demand letter for t&em to vacate t&e $ro$erty
res$ondents also refused to &eed t&e 27 *arc& <972 demand to t&e same eGect served u$on
t&em by $etitionersI counsel# -n addition to res$ondentsI e@ectment from t&e lot and t&e
turnover of t&e $eaceful $ossession t&ereof $etitioners soug&t indemnities for e?em$lary
damages attorneyIs fees and t&e costs#
4n 2' ,ugust <972 res$ondents and 1audencio Havarro )led a @oint motion to dismiss on
t&e ground t&at t&e *unici$al Court &ad no @urisdiction over t&e com$laints )led against
t&em by $etitioner since anot&er action over t&e same cause and t&e same $arties was
$ending before t&e +3RCF and t&at said com$laints failed to state a cause of
action# Dissatis)ed wit& t&e denial of said motion in t&e 27 Bune <97A resolution issued by t&e
*unici$al Court w&ic& &ad by t&en been reorgani6ed as a *unici$al %rial Court .*%C/
$ursuant to !atas "ambansa !lg# <29
res$ondents and 1audencio Havarro )led a A0 Bune
<97A motion for reconsideration
w&ic& was no longer resolved in view of t&e ensuing
a$$roval and eGectivity of t&e Rules on 3ummary "rocedure# -n t&e meantime t&e +3RC
rendered a decision dated E Bune <97D in +2UR! Case dis$osing of t&e case#
4n t&e ot&er &and in com$liance wit& t&e *%CIs directive during 2A *ay <979 &earing
conducted in t&e case res$ondents and 1audencio Havarro )led t&eir D Bune <979 answer
s$eci)cally denying t&e material allegations of t&e com$laint#
+aving terminated t&e mandatory $re>trial conference
and in recei$t of t&e $osition $a$ers
submitted by t&e $arties t&e *%C went on to render a decision dated ' 4ctober <999
discounting t&e e?istence of a contract of sale between $etitioners and res$ondents and
u$&olding its @urisdiction over t&e case# Furt&er )nding t&at res$ondents were builders in bad
fait&#
3aid defendants %ERE3-%, FR,HC-3C4 and BE3U3 FR,HC-3C4 and all t&ose acting in t&eir
be&alves or claiming rig&ts under t&em to com$letely vacate t&e $arcel of residential lot
containing 277 s=uare meters more or less registered in t&e name of $laintiGs and w&ic&
lot is identi)ed as 2ot 2A in t&e original subdivision $lan of 24"+C,2 .C,2,R,/ 3U!D-J-3-4H
located at !rgy# ,nos 2os !anos 2aguna and fort&wit& to turn over and surrender
$ossession of t&e same to said $laintiG and &er c&ildren#
4n <2 ,$ril 2002 t&e t&en 3$ecial 3event& Division of t&e C, rendered t&e &erein assailed
decision reversing t&e decisions of t&e *%C and R%C and ordering t&e dismissal of
$etitionersI com$laint for unlawful detainer: 0&ere t&e law con)nes in an administrative
o8ce =uasi>@udicial functions t&e @urisdiction of suc& o8ce s&all $revail over t&e court# %&us
t&e courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a =uestion w&ic& is lodged
RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 70: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer || Castro !oco !ato
wit& an administrative tribunal of s$ecial com$etence and w&en a uniformity of ruling is
essential to com$ly wit& t&e $ur$oses of t&e regulatory statute administered# %&e *%C
&aving no @urisdiction to entertain t&e case it is also wit&out @urisdiction to award damages
to $etitioners#
ISS!E0
%+E +4H4R,!2E C4UR% 4F ,""E,23 ERRED -H DEC2,R-H1 %+,% %+E *UH-C-",2 %R-,2
C4UR% +,3 H4 BUR-3D-C%-4H 4JER %+E 3U!BEC% C4*"2,-H% F4R EBEC%*EH%CUH2,0FU2
DE%,-HER F-2ED !K "E%-%-4HER C2E*EHC-, C,2,R, ,1,-H3% RE3"4HDEH%3 %ERE3-%, ,HD
BE3U3 FR,HC-3C4
-ED0
H4
Designed to $rovide an e?$editious means of $rotecting actual $ossession or t&e rig&t to
$ossession of t&e $ro$erty involved
LAEM
e@ectment cases concededly fall wit&in t&e original
and e?clusive @urisdiction of )rst level courts by e?$ress $rovision of 3ection AA of "atas
#ambansa "lg! $%&, in relation to 3ection < Rule 70 of t&e $&&' (ules of Ciil #rocedure!
Considering t&at t&e same is determined by t&e allegations $leaded in t&e com$laint and t&e
c&aracter of t&e relief soug&t
t&e rule is e=ually settled t&at @urisdiction in e@ectment cases
cannot be made to de$end u$on t&e defenses set u$ in t&e answer or $leadings )led by t&e
defendant#
+owever our $erusal of t&e record s&ows t&at t&e C, correctly ruled t&at t&e cause of action
embodied in t&e original and amended com$laint $etitioners )led a )uo was not a sim$le
cause of action for unlawful detainer against res$ondents# Claiming t&at res$ondents oGered
to buy 2ot 2A of t&e 2o$&cal 3ubdivision sometime in <97' for t&e selling $rice of "70#00 $er
s=uare meters $etitioners alleged among ot&er matters t&at t&ey acce$ted advance
$ayments in t&e total sum of "709A#00 from t&e former on t&e condition t&at t&e
transaction would only $us& t&roug& u$on t&e $arties e?ecution of a written contract to sellF
t&at aside from not ma:ing any furt&er $ayments on t&e $ro$erty res$ondents &ave
un@usti)ably refused to &eed t&eir re$eated demands for t&e e?ecution of said contract to
sellF t&at in view of t&eir non>$erformance of t&e foregoing $restations res$ondents were
guilty of bad fait& in constructing a &ouse of strong materials on t&e 2ot 2AF and t&at
res$ondents stubborn refusal to &eed t&e 20 *arc& <979 and 27 *arc& <972 demands to
vacate res$ectively served by $etitioner Clemencia Calara and &er counsel left t&em no ot&er
recourse e?ce$t to )le t&e com$laint for unlawful detainer from w&ic& t&e instant suit
stemmed#
-n Francel (ealty Corporation s! *ycip
t&e town&ouse develo$er similarly )led a com$laint
for unlawful detainer against t&e buyer on t&e ground t&at t&e latter failed to $ay t&e
mont&ly amorti6ations sti$ulated in t&e $artiesI Contract to 3ell# -n &is answer t&e buyer
alleged t&at &e sto$$ed $ayment of &is mont&ly amorti6ations because t&e town&ouse was
defective and t&at &e &ad already )led an action for unsound real estate business $ractice
against t&e town&ouse develo$er# 0&ile dismissing t&e com$laint on t&e ground t&at
@urisdiction over t&e case $ro$erly $ertained to t&e +2UR! &owever t&e *%C granted t&e
buyerIs counterclaims for moral and e?em$lary damages as well as attorneyIs fees# 0it& t&e
R%CIs a8rmance of t&e decision t&e town&ouse develo$er )led a $etition for review wit& t&e
C, w&ic& u$&eld t&e grant of damages on t&e ground t&at t&e *%C &ad @urisdiction over t&e
com$laint for unlawful detainer# -n reversing t&e C,Is decision t&is Court ruled as follows:
"etitionerIs com$laint is for unlawful detainer# 0&ile generally s$ea:ing suc& action falls
wit&in t&e original and e?clusive @urisdiction of t&e *%C t&e determination of t&e ground for
e@ectment re=uires a consideration of t&e rig&ts of a buyer on installment basis of real
$ro$erty# -ndeed $rivate res$ondent claims t&at &e &as a rig&t under "#D# Ho# 9D7 3ec# 2A to
sto$ $aying mont&ly amorti6ations after giving due notice to t&e owner or develo$er of &is
decision to do so because of $etitionerIs alleged failure to develo$ t&e subdivision or
condominium $ro@ect according to t&e a$$roved $lans and wit&in t&e time for com$lying wit&
t&e same# %&e case t&us involves a determination of t&e rig&ts and obligations of $arties in a
sale of real estate under "#D# Ho# 9D7# "rivate res$ondent &as in fact )led a com$laint
against $etitioner for unsound real estate business $ractice wit& t&e +2UR!#
%&is is t&erefore not a sim$le case for unlawful detainer arising from t&e failure of t&e lessee
to $ay t&e rents com$ly wit& t&e conditions of a lease agreement or vacate t&e $remises
after t&e e?$iration of t&e lease# 3ince t&e determinative =uestion is e?clusively cogni6able
by t&e +2UR! t&e =uestion of t&e rig&t of $etitioner must be determined by t&e agency#
-n t&e case at benc& res$ondents similarly claimed in t&eir answer t&at t&ey sto$$ed
$ayments on 2ot 2A in view of $etitionersI failure to develo$ 2o$&cal .Calara/ 3ubdivision#
"rior to t&e commencement of t&e case for unlawful detainer before t&e *%C res$ondent
Besus Francisco along wit& ot&er lot buyers at said subdivision also )led a letter>com$laint
for violations of "#D# 9D7 w&ic& was doc:eted before +3RC as +3RC Case Ho# RE*>0'0E72>
<0EA# -n &er answer to t&e com$laint $etitioner Clemencia Calara alleged t&at t&e
subdivision was not covered by "#D# 9D7 and t&at s&e was about to )le com$laints for
e@ectment against said buyers# Even before t&e issues could be @oined in t&e com$laint for
unlawful detainer $etitioners )led against res$ondents &owever t&e record s&ows t&at a
decision dated E Bune <97D was rendered in +3RC Case Ho# RE*>0'0E72 &olding $etitioner
Clemencia Calara liable for violation of "#D# 9D7#
1iven t&e foregoing factual and $rocedural antecedents and t&e absence of s&owing t&at
$etitioner Clemencia Calara $erfected an a$$eal from t&e foregoing decision 0e )nd t&at
t&e C, correctly ruled t&at t&e case $etitioners )led before t&e *%C fell wit&in t&e @urisdiction
of t&e +2UR! w&ic& as a recon)guration of t&e +3RC
retained said o8ceIs regulatory and
ad@udicatory functions under 3ection 7 of E#4# 'E7# (0&en an administrative agency is
conferred =uasi>@udicial functions it &as been ruled t&at all controversies relating to t&e
sub@ect matter $ertaining to its s$eciali6ation are deemed to be included wit&in its
@urisdiction( since (s$lit @urisdiction is not favored#(
%&is &olds $articularly true of t&e case at
benc& w&ere des$ite $etitioner Clemencia CalaraIs failure to a$$eal t&e afore=uoted
decision of t&e +3RC $etitionersI $ursuit of t&eir com$laint for unlawful detainer against
res$ondents was accom$anied by a de)ance of said o8ceIs order to develo$ subdivision
w&ic& &ad in t&e meantime been renamed as t&e 3an -sidro Jillage#
%&e mere relations&i$ of t&e $arties as a subdivision develo$erCowner and subdivision lot
buyer does not concededly vest t&e +2UR! automatic @urisdiction over a case# -n t&e cases
of (o+as s! Court of Appeals and Filar Deelopment Corporation s! *ps! ,illar
LE9M
t&is Court
u$&eld t&e *%CIs @urisdiction over t&e com$laint for e@ectment commenced by t&e
subdivision develo$er on account of t&e buyerIs failure to $ay t&e installments sti$ulated in
t&e $artyIs contract to sell# -n said cases &owever t&e buyers &ad no @usti)able ground to
sto$ $ayment of t&e sti$ulated installments andCor any of t&e causes of action cogni6able by
t&e +2UR! under 3ection <
of "#D# <AEE# -n not a$$lying t&e ruling in Francel (ealty
Corporation s! *ycip
LD2M
moreover t&e Court li:ewise too: a$$ro$riate note of t&e fact t&at
t&e buyers in said cases &ave not commenced an action for unsound real estate businesses
$ractices against t&e subdivision develo$ers# +ere res$ondents &ave not only instituted a
com$laint for violation of "#D# 9D7 against $etitioner Clemencia Calara but &ad also already
obtained a de)nitive ruling on t&e latterIs failure to fully develo$ t&e subdivision w&ic& t&ey
cited as @usti)cation for not ma:ing furt&er $ayments on 2ot Ho# 2A of t&e 2o$&cal .Calara/
3ubdivision#
,s t&e sole regulatory body for &ousing and land develo$ment
L'7M
t&e +2UR! &as @urisdiction
over $etitionersI cause against res$ondents and is clearly t&e best forum for t&e
determination of all t&e issues relevant t&ereto#
RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 70: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer || Castro !oco !ato
G.R. No. 189859 October 18, 2010
$IO MODESTO *+, CIRIA RI(ERA=MODESTO, "etitioners vs#CAROS !R#INA,
>5b>t2t5te, b4 t?e ?e2r> o1 O)M$IA MIG!E (DA. DE !R#INA .S5r@2@2+A S:o5>e/
*+, c?23,re+, +*;e340 ESCOASTICA M. !R#INA, ET A., Res$ondents#
%ACTS0
%&is case stems from a com$laint for recovery of $ossession )led by res$ondent Carlos
Urbina .Urbina/ against t&e $etitioners wit& t&e Regional %rial Court of "asig .(TC/#
-n &is com$laint Urbina alleged t&at &e is t&e owner of a $arcel of land situated at 2ower
!icutan %aguig designated as 2ot D' "23 272# ,ccording to Urbina t&e *odestos t&roug&
stealt& sc&eme and mac&ination were able to occu$y a $ortion of t&is $ro$erty designated
as 2ot AD' "23 272# %&ereafter t&e *odestos negotiated wit& Urbina for t&e sale of t&is lot#
+owever before t&e $arties could )nali6e t&e sale t&e *odestos allegedly cancelled t&e
transaction and began claiming owners&i$ over t&e lot# Urbina made several demands on t&e
*odestos to vacate t&e $ro$erty t&e last of w&ic& was t&roug& a demand letter sent on Buly
22 <97A# 0&en t&e *odestos still refused to vacate Urbina )led t&e $resent action against
t&em#
-n t&eir answer t&e *odestos claimed t&at Urbina could not be t&e lawful owner of t&e
$ro$erty because it was still government $ro$erty being a $art of t&e Fort !onifacio *ilitary
Reservation#
R%C of "asig City rendered a decision in favor of Urbina #%&e R%C noted t&at t&e $etitioners
recogni6ed Urbina;s $ossessory rig&ts over t&e $ro$erty w&en t&ey entered into a negotiated
contract of sale wit& &im for t&e $ro$erty# %&us t&e *odestos were esto$$ed from
subse=uently assailing or disclaiming Urbina;s $ossessory rig&ts over t&is lot#
%&e $etitioners a$$ealed CA and C, a8rmed t&e R%C;s decision# +ence t&is $etition
ISS!E0
0&o &as a better rig&t of $ossession over t&e sub@ect $ro$erty#
-ED0
Heit&er *odesto nor Urbina &as t&e rig&t of $ossession#
"refatorily we observe t&at t&e sub@ect $ro$erty &as not yet been titled nor &as it been t&e
sub@ect of a validly issued $atent by t&e 2*!# %&erefore t&e land remains $art of t&e $ublic
domain and neit&er Urbina nor t&e *odestos can legally claim owners&i$ over it# %&is does
not mean &owever t&at neit&er of t&e $arties &ave t&e rig&t to $ossess t&e $ro$erty#
Urbina alleged t&at &e is t&e rig&tful $ossessor of t&e $ro$erty since &e &as a $ending
*iscellaneous 3ales ,$$lication as well as ta? declarations over t&e $ro$erty# +e also
relied to su$$ort &is claim of a better rig&t to $ossess t&e $ro$erty on t&e admission on t&e
$art of t&e *odestos t&at t&ey negotiated wit& &im for t&e sale of t&e lot in =uestion#
4n t&e ot&er &and t&e *odestos anc&ored t&eir rig&t to $ossess t&e same on t&eir *ct5*3
:o>>e>>2o+ of t&e $ro$erty# %&ey also =uestioned t&e legality of Urbina;s *iscellaneous
3ales ,$$lication and &is ta? declarations over t&e $ro$erty arguing t&at since t&ese were
obtained w&en t&e land was still not alienable and dis$osable t&ey could not be t&e source
of any legal rig&ts#
*emorandum Ho# <<9 t&e following are t&e =uali)cations for an a$$licant to be
=uali)ed to a$$ly for and ac=uire a lot under "roclamation Ho# <72 among ot&ers
to wit:
.</ +eC3&e ;5>t be * bona fde re>2,e+t of t&e $roclaimed areas# %o
be considered a bona -de resident t&e a$$licant must &ave t&e
following =uali)cations:
a/ , Fili$ino citi6en of legal age andCor a &ead of t&e familyF
b/ M5>t ?*@e co+>tr5cte, * ?o5>e in t&e area $roclaimed
for dis$osition on or before Banuary ' <97' and *ct5*334
re>2,2+A t?ere2+F
c/ M5>t +ot o6+ *+4 ot?er re>2,e+t2*3 or co;;erc2*3
3ot 2+ Metro M*+23*B
d/ *ust not &ave been a registered awardee of any lot under
t&e administration of t&e H+, *+3 or any ot&er
government agency nor t&e ,F" 48cer;s villageF
e/ *ust not be a $rofessional s=uatter# , $rofessional
s=uatter for $ur$oses of t&is 4rder is one w&o engages
in selling lots in t&e areas $roclaimed for dis$ositionF and
f/ +as )led t&e $ro$er a$$lication to $urc&ase#
!ased on t&e Re$ort of 3$ecial -nvestigator 2im and t&e ot&er
2and -ns$ectors w&o investigated t&is case namely: Bose "# ,ntonio and
Bose "# "arayno it was found t&at $2o Mo,e>to *+, ?2> 1*;234 *re t?e
*ct5*3 occ5:*+t> o1 t?e *re* 62t? * re>2,e+t2*3 ?o5>e *+, c?*:e3
;*,e o1 32A?t ;*ter2*3> and "io *odesto and &is family are actually
residing in t&e said residential &ouse# 4n t&e ot&er &and it was
establis&ed t&at C*r3o> !rb2+* ?*> bee+ * re>2,e+t o1 $*>*4 Ro*,
or 9929 $2o De3 $23*r, M*C*t2 C2t4. ,$$lying t&e =uali)cations
$rovided for in *emorandum 4rder Ho# <<9 we )nd t&at 3$ouses
*odesto are to be =uali)ed to a$$ly for t&e sub@ect lot as t&ey &ave
been in occu$ation t&ereof and &ave constructed t&eir residential &ouse
t&ereon# +ence t&ey satisfy t&e re=uirements in order to be considered
a N!ona)de ResidentO as de)ned in t&e guidelines#
,s $er our records S:o5>e> $2o *+, C2r23* Mo,e>to ?*@e
*3>o D3e, *+ 5++5;bere, I.G.$.S.A. A::32c*t2o+ 1or t?e >5bEect
3ot o+ J*+5*r4 2F, 2009. C*r3o> !rb2+*, ?o6e@er, +e@er
co+>tr5cte, *+4 ?o5>e o+ t?e >5bEect 3ot *+, +e2t?er ,2, ?e
*ct5*334 re>2,e t?ere2+. #e>2,e>, ?e *3re*,4 o6+> * re>2,e+t2*3
3ot 2+ M*C*t2 C2t4 6?ere ?e ?*, bee+ re>2,2+A *33 t?2>
t2;e. +ence &e cannot be considered a bona)de resident of t&e sub@ect
lot# +e li:ewise failed to )le &is -#1#"#3#, a$$lication for t&e lot# -nstead
w&at &e &ad )led on Banuary 20 <9'' was a *iscellaneous 3ales
,$$lication# ,t t&at time &owever t&e area of !arangay 2ower !icutan
w&ere t&e sub@ect lot is located was still $art of t&e Fort !onifacio
*ilitary Reservation and t&e same &ad not yet been segregated and
declared to be alienable and dis$osable# -e+ce, +o :o>>e>>or4 r2A?t>
co53, ?*@e bee+ *cG52re, b4 ?2> o@er t?e >5bEect 3ot.
Furt&ermore t&e *odestos &ave a valid -nsular 1overnment "atent 3ales
,$$lication over t&e $ro$erty $ending wit& t&e 2*! w&ic& t&ey )led on Banuary 27 2009#
L2EM
-n contrast Urbina &as a *iscellaneous 3ales ,$$lication )led in <9'' w&ic& t&e 2*!
considered invalid since it was )led w&en t&e $ro$erty still formed $art of a military
reservation#
,s for t&e Certi)cation from t&e City %reasurer of %aguig t&at t&e res$ondents
$resented
L2DM
w&ic& certi)ed t&at Carlos Urbina &ad $aid real estate ta?es on real $ro$erty
NdescribeLdM in t&e name of Carlos Urbina wit& $ro$erty located at 2ower !icutan %aguig
CityO from 2009 and $rior years we note t&at t&e certi)cation contains no descri$tion of t&e
$ro$erty sub@ect of t&e ta? declaration leaving us to wonder on t&e identity of t&e $ro$erty
covered by t&e declaration#
-n any case even if we consider t&is certi)cation as su8cient $roof t&at Urbina
declared t&e sub@ect $ro$erty for ta? declaration $ur$oses it must be stressed t&at t&e ;ere
,ec3*r*t2o+ o1 3*+, 1or t*H*t2o+ :5r:o>e> ,oe> +ot co+>t2t5te :o>>e>>2o+ t?ereo1
+or 2> 2t :roo1 o1 o6+er>?2: 2+ t?e *b>e+ce o1 t?e c3*2;*+tI> *ct5*3 :o>>e>>2o+#
L2'M
,nd in lig&t of our categorical )nding t&at t&e *odestos actually occu$ied t&e $ro$erty in
RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 70: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer || Castro !oco !ato
=uestion from t&e time t&at it was declared alienable and dis$osable until t&e $resent time
t&e ta? declaration fails to convince us t&at Urbina &as a rig&t to legally $ossess it#
For t&ese reasons we )nd t&at Urbina utterly failed to $rove t&at &e &as a better
rig&t to $ossess t&e $ro$erty# %&us we cannot sustain &is com$laint for e@ectment against
t&e *odestos and $erforce must dismiss t&e same for lac: of merit#
G.R. No. 1FF83F J534 28, 2010
DR. DIOSCORO CAR#ONIA, "etitioner vs#MARCEO A#IERA *+, MARICRIS A#IERA
$AREDES, S!#STIT!TED #) -ER -EIRS, Res$ondents#
%ACTS0
"etitioner Dr# Dioscoro Carbonilla )led a com$laint for e@ectment against res$ondents
*arcelo ,biera and *aricris ,biera "aredes wit& t&e *unici$al %rial Court in Cities .*%CC/
*aasin City# %&e com$laint alleged t&at $etitioner is t&e registered owner of a $arcel of land
located in !arangay Canturing *aasin City# "etitioner furt&er claimed t&at &e is also t&e
owner of t&e residential building standing on t&e land w&ic& building &e ac=uired t&roug& a
Deed of E?tra@udicial 3ettlement of Estate .Residential !uilding/ wit& 0aiver and Puitclaim of
4wners&i$# +e maintained t&at t&e building was being occu$ied by res$ondents by mere
tolerance of t&e $revious owners# "etitioner asserted t&at &e intends to use t&e $ro$erty as
&is residence t&us &e sent a demand letter to res$ondents as:ing t&em to leave t&e
$remises wit&in <D days from recei$t of t&e letter but t&ey failed and refused to do so#
Conciliation eGorts wit& t&e !arangay $roved futile#
-n t&eir defense res$ondents ve&emently denied $etitioner;s allegation t&at t&ey $ossessed
t&e building by mere tolerance of t&e $revious owners# -nstead t&ey asserted t&at t&ey
occu$ied t&e building as owners &aving in&erited t&e same from ,lfredo ,biera and
%eodorica Ca$istrano res$ondent *arcelo;s $arents and res$ondent *aricris; grand$arents#
%&ey maintained t&at t&ey &ave been in $ossession of t&e building since <9'0 but it &as not
been declared for ta?ation $ur$oses# ,s for t&e sub@ect land res$ondents claimed t&at t&ey
in&erited t&e same from Francisco "lasabas grandfat&er of ,lfredo ,biera# %&ey $ointed out
t&at t&e land &ad in fact been declared for ta?ation $ur$oses in t&e name of Francisco
"lasabas# Res$ondents averred t&at t&e building was $reviously a garage>li:e structure but
in <977 ,lfredo ,biera and %eodorica Ca$istrano re$aired and remodeled it for w&ic& reason
t&ey obtained a building $ermit on ,$ril << <977 from t&e t&en *unici$ality of *aasin#
%&e *%CC decided t&e case in favor of res$ondents# -t o$ined t&at $etitioner;s claim of
owners&i$ over t&e sub@ect $arcel of land was not successfully rebutted by res$ondentsF
&ence $etitioner;s owners&i$ of t&e same was deemed establis&ed#
E
+owever wit& res$ect
to t&e building t&e court declared res$ondents as &aving t&e better rig&t to its material
$ossession in lig&t of $etitioner;s failure to refute res$ondents; claim t&at t&eir $redecessors
&ad been in $rior $ossession of t&e building since <9'0 and t&at t&ey &ave continued suc&
$ossession u$ to t&e $resent#
D
-n so ruling t&e court a$$lied ,rt# DE'
'
of t&e Civil Code w&ic&
allows t&e $ossessor in good fait& to retain t&e $ro$erty until &e is reimbursed for necessary
e?$enses#
"etitioner elevated t&e case to t&e Regional %rial Court .R%C/# 4n Buly <2 200E t&e R%C
reversed t&e *%CC decision# %&e R%C agreed wit& t&e *%CC t&at t&e land is owned by
$etitioner# %&e two courts diGered &owever in t&eir conclusion wit& res$ect to t&e building#
%&e R%C $laced t&e burden u$on res$ondents to $rove t&eir claim t&at t&ey built it $rior to
$etitioner;s ac=uisition of t&e land w&ic& burden t&e court found res$ondents failed to
disc&arge# %&e R%C &eld t&at eit&er wayQw&et&er t&e building was constructed before or
after $etitioner ac=uired owners&i$ of t&e landQ$etitioner as owner of t&e land would &ave
every rig&t to evict res$ondents from t&e land# ,s t&eori6ed by t&e R%C if t&e building was
erected before $etitioner or &is $redecessors ac=uired owners&i$ of t&e land t&en ,rticle
EED
7
of t&e Civil Code would a$$ly# %&us $etitioner as owner of t&e land would be deemed
t&e owner of t&e building standing t&ereon considering t&at w&en owners&i$ of t&e land was
transferred to &im t&ere was no reservation by t&e original owner t&at t&e building was not
included in t&e transfer# 4n t&e ot&er &and if t&e building was constructed after $etitioner
became t&e owner of t&e land it is wit& more reason t&at $etitioner &as t&e rig&t to evict
res$ondents from t&e land#
"etitioner soug&t reconsideration of t&e Decision but t&e C, denied $etitioner;s motion for
lac: of merit#
<<
+ence $etitioner came to t&is Court t&roug& a $etition for review on
certiorari#
ISS!E0
0&et&er $etitioner &as su8ciently establis&ed &is owners&i$ of t&e sub@ect $ro$ertiesF
conse=uently &e asserts t&e rig&t to recover $ossession t&ereof#
RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 70: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer || Castro !oco !ato
-ED0
Ho# %&e $etition &as no merit#
%o set t&e record straig&t w&ile $etitioner may &ave $roven &is owners&i$ of t&e land as
t&ere can be no ot&er $iece of evidence more wort&y of credence t&an a %orrens certi)cate of
title &e failed to $resent any evidence to substantiate &is claim of owners&i$ or rig&t to t&e
$ossession of t&e building# 2i:e t&e C, we cannot acce$t t&e Deed of E?tra@udicial
3ettlement of Estate .Residential !uilding/ wit& 0aiver and Puitclaim of 4wners&i$ e?ecuted
by t&e 1arcianos as $roof t&at $etitioner ac=uired owners&i$ of t&e building# %&ere is no
s&owing t&at t&e 1arcianos were t&e owners of t&e building or t&at t&ey &ad any $ro$rietary
rig&t over it# Ranged against res$ondents; $roof of $ossession of t&e building since <977
$etitioner;s evidence $ales in com$arison and leaves us totally unconvinced#
0it&out a doubt t&e registered owner of real $ro$erty is entitled to its $ossession# +owever
t&e owner cannot sim$ly wrest $ossession t&ereof from w&oever is in actual occu$ation of
t&e $ro$erty# %o recover $ossession &e must resort to t&e $ro$er @udicial remedy and once
&e c&ooses w&at action to )le &e is re=uired to satisfy t&e conditions necessary for suc&
action to $ros$er#
-n t&e $resent case $etitioner o$ted to )le an e@ectment case against res$ondents#
E@ectment casesQforcible entry and unlawful detainerQare summary $roceedings designed
to $rovide e?$editious means to $rotect actual $ossession or t&e rig&t to $ossession of t&e
$ro$erty involved#
<E
%&e only =uestion t&at t&e courts resolve in e@ectment $roceedings is:
w&o is entitled to t&e $&ysical $ossession of t&e $remises t&at is to t&e $ossession de facto
and not to t&e $ossession de @ure# -t does not even matter if a $arty;s title to t&e $ro$erty is
=uestionable#
<D
For t&is reason an e@ectment case will not necessarily be decided in favor of
one w&o &as $resented $roof of owners&i$ of t&e sub@ect $ro$erty# Rey @urisdictional facts
constitutive of t&e $articular e@ectment case )led must be averred in t&e com$laint and
su8ciently $roven#
%&e statements in t&e com$laint t&at res$ondents; $ossession of t&e building was by mere
tolerance of $etitioner clearly ma:e out a case for unlawful detainer# Unlawful detainer
involves t&e $erson;s wit&&olding from anot&er of t&e $ossession of t&e real $ro$erty to
w&ic& t&e latter is entitled after t&e e?$iration or termination of t&e former;s rig&t to &old
$ossession under t&e contract eit&er e?$ressed or im$lied#
<'
, re=uisite for a valid cause of action in an unlawful detainer case is t&at $ossession must be
originally lawful and suc& $ossession must &ave turned unlawful only u$on t&e e?$iration of
t&e rig&t to $ossess#
<7
-t must be s&own t&at t&e $ossession was initially lawfulF &ence t&e
basis of suc& lawful $ossession must be establis&ed# -f as in t&is case t&e claim is t&at suc&
$ossession is by mere tolerance of t&e $laintiG t&e acts of tolerance must be $roved#
"etitioner failed to $rove t&at res$ondents; $ossession was based on &is alleged tolerance#
+e did not oGer any evidence or even only an a8davit of t&e 1arcianos attesting t&at t&ey
tolerated res$ondents; entry to and occu$ation of t&e sub@ect $ro$erties# , bare allegation of
tolerance will not su8ce# "laintiG must at least s&ow overt acts indicative of &is or &is
$redecessor;s $ermission to occu$y t&e sub@ect $ro$erty# %&us we must agree wit& t&e C,
w&en it said:
, careful scrutiny of t&e records revealed t&at &erein res$ondent miserably failed to $rove &is
claim t&at $etitioners; $ossession of t&e sub@ect building was by mere tolerance as alleged in
t&e com$laint# %olerance must be L$resentM rig&t from t&e start of $ossession soug&t to be
recovered to be wit&in t&e $urview of unlawful detainer# *ere tolerance always carries wit& it
($ermission( and not merely silence or inaction for silence or inaction is negligence not
tolerance#
<7
-n addition $laintiG must also s&ow t&at t&e su$$osed acts of tolerance &ave been $resent
rig&t from t&e very start of t&e $ossessionQfrom entry to t&e $ro$erty# 4t&erwise if t&e
$ossession was unlawful from t&e start an action for unlawful detainer would be an im$ro$er
remedy#
<9
Hotably no mention was made in t&e com$laint of &ow entry by res$ondents was
eGected or &ow and w&en dis$ossession started# Heit&er was t&ere any evidence s&owing
suc& details#$aphi$
-n any event $etitioner &as some ot&er recourse# +e may $ursue recovering $ossession of
&is $ro$erty by )ling an accion publiciana w&ic& is a $lenary action intended to recover t&e
better rig&t to $ossessF or an accion reiindicatoria, a suit to recover owners&i$ of real
$ro$erty# 0e stress &owever t&at t&e $ronouncement in t&is case as to t&e owners&i$ of t&e
land s&ould be regarded as merely $rovisional and t&erefore would not bar or $re@udice an
action between t&e same $arties involving title to t&e land#
RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 70: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer || Castro !oco !ato
A.M. No. MTJ=05=1580 October 8, 20107%or;er34 OCA I$I No. 09=1808=MTJ<
O!RDES #. %ERRER *+, $ROS$ERIDAD M. ARANDEZ, Com$lainants vs#J!DGE
ROMEO A. RA#ACA, Metro:o32t*+ Tr2*3 Co5rt, #r*+c? 25, M*+23*, Res$ondent#
%ACTS0
%&is is an administrative case against +on# Romeo ,# Rabaca "residing Budge of !ranc& 2D of
t&e *e%C of *anila wit& ignorance of t&e law disregard of t&e law dereliction of duty
:nowingly rendering an un@ust interlocutory order and violation of t&e Code of Conduct for
1overnment 48cial
Com$lainants were t&e $laintiGs in an e@ectment case decided by Res$ondent Budge# -n said
case res$ondentIs decision was in favor of t&e com$lainant>$laintiGs# Com$lainants t&en
t&roug& counsel )led a motion for immediate e?ecution $raying t&at a writ of e?ecution be
issued for t&e immediate e?ecution of t&e aforesaid Budgment#
Des$ite t&e motion for immediate e?ecution res$ondent @udge granted and gave due course
to t&e notice of a$$eal )led by t&e defendants in t&e e@ectment case# %&e Hotice of ,$$eal
was )led one day after $laintiGIs )ling of *otion for -mmediate E?ecution# ,ggrieved by t&e
action of res$ondent com$lainants )led a motion for reconsideration but res$ondent denied
t&e same#
Com$lainants t&en )led an administrative case against Budge Rabaca#
%&e case was doc:eted as a regular administrative case and t&e C4UR% ,D*-H-3%R,%4R
re=uired t&e res$ondent to submit &is comment on t&e com$laint#
-n defense res$ondent alleged t&at &e &ad &onestly t&oug&t t&at &is court &ad lost
@urisdiction over t&e case $ursuant to t&e $rovision of 3ection 9 Rule E< of t&e Rules of Court
>w&ic& $rovides t&at in a$$eals by notice of a$$eal t&e court loses @urisdiction over t&e case
u$on t&e $erfection of t&e a$$eals )led in due time and t&e e?$iration of t&e time to a$$eal
of t&e ot&er $arties> once &e &ad given due course to t&e defendant;s notice of a$$eal# +e
claimed t&at &e &ad issued t&e orders in good fait& and wit& no malice after a fair and
im$artial evaluation of t&e facts a$$licable rules and @uris$rudenceF and t&at if &e &ad
t&ereby committed la$ses in t&e issuance of t&e orders &is doing so s&ould be considered as
error of @udgment on &is $art#
-n t&eir re$ly com$lainants reiterated t&at res$ondent s&ould :now t&e law# %&e $rovision
w&om res$ondent relied on is a$$licable only in a$$eals made from t&e R%C to t&e &ig&er
courts# %&e a$$licable $rovision in t&is case is Rule E< in relation to3ection <9 Rule 70 of t&e
<997 Revised Rules on Civil "rocedure $rovides: (3EC# <9# -f @udgment is rendered against t&e
defendant e?ecution shall issue immediatelyu$on motion unless an a$$eal &as been
$erfected and the defendant to stay e+ecution -les a supersedeas bond a$$roved by t&e
*unici$al %rial Court and e?ecuted in favor of t&e $laintiG to $ay t&e rents damages and
costs accruing down to t&e time of t&e @udgment a$$ealed from and unless during t&e
$endency of t&e a$$eal &e de$osits wit& t&e a$$ellate court t&e amount of rent due from
time to time under t&e contract if any as determined by t&e @udgment of t&e *unici$al %rial
Court# SSSS#(
%&e Court ,dministrator agreed wit& t&e com$lainants t&at res$ondent erred w&en &e did not
act on com$lainants; motion for immediate e?ecution and im$osed a )ne of D000#00#
ISS!E0
0&et&er or not t&e act of res$ondent is an error of @udgment or an error amounting to
incom$etence t&at calls for administrative disci$line#
-ED0
%&e act of res$ondent is ine?cusable# -t is clear from t&e $rovisions of t&e Rules t&at t&e
$erfection of an a$$eal by itself is not su8cient to stay t&e e?ecution of t&e @udgment in an
e@ectment case# %&e losing $arty s&ould li:ewise )le a su$ersedeas bond e?ecuted in favor of
t&e $laintiG to answer for rents damages and costs and if t&e @udgment of t&e court
re=uires it &e s&ould li:ewise de$osit t&e amount of t&e rent before t&e a$$ellate court from
t&e time during t&e $endency of t&e a$$eal# 4t&erwise e?ecution becomes ministerial and
im$erative# .#hilippine .olding Corporation s! ,alen/uela, $01 *C(A 10$ as cited in .ualam
Construction and Deelopment Corporation s! Court of Appeals, %$1 *C(A 2$%, 2%23!
Res$ondent erred in denying t&e motion for immediate e?ecution and granting t&e a$$eal
wit&out any su$ersedeas bond#
*oreover res$ondentIs claim t&at &e cannot act on t&e motion since &e lost @urisdiction over
t&e case w&en all t&e records were forwarded to t&e R%C does not &old water# %&e court loses
@urisdiction only after an a$$eal was $erfected and t&e $eriod to a$$eal of bot& t&e $arties
&ad la$sed# -n t&is case t&e motion for immediate e?ecution was )led "R-4R to t&e )ling of
t&e notice of ,$$eal# %&ese acts of res$ondent constitute ignorance of t&e law#
%&us as ruled by t&e 3C> Under ,#*# Ho# 0<>7><0>3C T1ross -gnorance of t&e 2aw or
"rocedure; is classi)ed as serious oGense for w&ic& t&e im$osable $enalty ranges from a )ne
to dismissal# +owever we )nd res$ondent;s acts not ingrained wit& malice or bad fait&# -t is a
matter of $ublic $olicy t&at in t&e absence of fraud dis&onesty or corru$t motive t&e acts of
a @udge in &is @udicial ca$acity are not sub@ect to disci$linary action even t&oug& suc& acts
are erroneous# -n Domingo s! 4udge #agayatan, A!5! 6o! (T47087$'9$, $0 4une %008 t&e
$enalty of )ne in t&e amount of )ve t&ousand $esos was deemed su8cient w&ere it was &eld
t&at res$ondent;s lac: of malice or bad fait& frees &im from administrative liability but not for
gross ignorance of t&e law#
0e concur wit& t&e rationali6ation of t&e Court ,dministrator# Jerily even if res$ondent
Budge;s omission would &ave easily amounted to gross ignorance of t&e law and $rocedure a
serious oGense under 3ection 7 Rule <E0 of t&e Rules of Court as amended t&e fact t&at
t&e com$lainants did not establis& t&at malice or bad fait& im$elled &is omission to act or
t&at fraud dis&onesty or a corru$t motive attended &is omission to act demands a
downgrading of t&e liability#
RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 70: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer || Castro !oco !ato
G.R. No. 192893 J5+e 5, 2013
MANIA EECTRIC COM$AN), "etitioner vs#-EIRS O% S$O!SES DIONISIO DEO) *+,
$RAJEDES MARTONITO, re:re>e+te, b4 $OICAR$IO DEO), Res$ondents#
%ACTS0
4n Buly 7 200A Res$ondents t&e &eirs of 3$ouses D2o+2>2o De3o4 .D2o+2>2o/ and "ra?edes
*artonito>Deloy re$resented by "olicar$io Deloy instituted t&e Com$laint for Unlawful
Detainer against *anila Electric Com$any .*ER,2C4/ before t&e *%CC#
Res$ondents are t&e owners by way of succession of a $arcel of land consisting of 7DD0
s=uare meters located in %rece *artires City# 4n Hovember <2 <9'D Dionisio donated a
'70>s=uare meter $ortion of t&e 7DD0 s=uare meter $ro$erty to t&e Communications and
Electricity Develo$ment ,ut&ority .CED,/ for t&e latter to $rovide c&ea$ and aGordable
electric su$$ly to t&e $rovince of Cavite# , deed of donation was e?ecuted to reUect and
formali6e t&e transfer#
3ometime in <97D CED, oGered for sale to *ER,2C4 its electric distribution system
consisting of transformers and accessories $oles and &ardware wires service dro$s and
customer meters and all rig&ts and $rivileges necessary for $roviding electrical service in
Cavite# %&is was embodied in a memorandum of agreement .*4,/
dated Bune 27 <97D
signed by t&e $arties# 4n t&e same date Bune 27 <97D after t&e a$$roval of t&e *4, CED,
and *ER,2C4 e?ecuted t&e Deed of ,bsolute 3ale# %&ereafter *ER,2C4 occu$ied t&e
sub@ect land#
4n 4ctober << <97D *ER,2C4 wrote a letter to Dionisio re=uesting t&e latter;s $ermission
for t&e continued use of t&e sub@ect land as a substation site#
%&e $arties were not able to reac& any agreement# -n an internal memorandum
9
dated
December <' <97D it was stated t&at one of t&e conditions made by Dionisio was t&at a
member of t&e Deloy family be em$loyed by *ER,2C4 &owever Dionisio died before t&ey
could )nali6e t&e agreement# ,nd u$on as:ing &is &eir t&ey unfortunately did not reac& any
agreement#
3ometime after Hovember 200< res$ondents oGered to sell t&e sub@ect land to *ER,2C4
but t&eir oGer was re@ected# For said reason in t&eir letter
dated *ay <9 200A res$ondents
demanded t&at *ER,2C4 vacate t&e sub@ect land on or before Bune <D 200A# Des$ite t&e
written demand *ER,2C4 did not move out of t&e sub@ect land# %&us on Buly 7 200A
res$ondents were constrained to )le t&e com$laint for unlawful detainer#
%raversing res$ondents; com$laint *ER,2C4 countered t&at CED, as t&e owner of t&e
sub@ect land by virtue of t&e deed of donation e?ecuted by Dionisio lawfully sold to it all
rig&ts necessary for t&e o$eration of t&e electric service in Cavite by way of a deed of sale on
Bune 27 <97D#
*ER,2C4 stressed t&at t&e condition of $roviding aGordable electricity to t&e $eo$le of
Cavite
im$osed in t&e deed of donation between Dionisio and CED, was still being observed
and com$lied wit&# %&us *ER,2C4 claimed t&at being CED,;s successor>in>interest it &ad
legal @usti)cation to occu$y t&e sub@ect land#
4n 3e$tember <D 200D t&e *%CC rendered t&e decision dismissing res$ondents; com$laint
for unlawful detainer against *ER,2C4# %&e *%CC ruled t&at it &ad no @urisdiction over t&e
case because it would re=uire an inter$retation of t&e deed of donation ma:ing it one not
ca$able of $ecuniary estimation# Hevert&eless it o$ined t&at *ER,2C4 was entitled to t&e
$ossession of t&e sub@ect land# -t was of t&e view t&at it would only be w&en t&e deed of
donation would be revo:ed or t&e deed of sale nulli)ed t&at *ER,2C4;s $ossession of t&e
sub@ect land would become unlawful#
,ggrieved res$ondents a$$ealed t&e *%CC ruling to t&e R%C# -n its *ay E 200' Resolution
t&e R%C sustained t&e *%CC decision# %&eir motion for reconsideration was also denied by t&e
R%C#
Hot satis)ed wit& t&e adverse ruling res$ondents elevated t&e case before t&e C, w&erein
t&e R%C ruling was set aside# -n $artially granting t&e a$$eal t&e C, e?$lained t&at an
e@ectment case based on t&e allegation of $ossession by tolerance would fall under t&e
category of unlawful detainer# ,s to t&e issue of $ossession t&e C, stated t&at by see:ing
Dionisio;s $ermission to continuously occu$y t&e sub@ect land *ER,2C4 e?$ressly
ac:nowledged &is $aramount rig&t of $ossession# *ER,2C4 t&ru its re$resentative ,tty#
%orres would not &ave as:ed $ermission from Dionisio if it &ad an unconditional or su$erior
rig&t to $ossess t&e sub@ect land#
*ER,2C4 moved for reconsideration but its motion was denied by t&e C, in its Buly D 20<0
Resolution# +ence t&is $etition for review#
ISS!ES0
0&et&er an action for unlawful detainer is t&e $ro$er remedy in t&is caseF and if it is w&o
&as a better rig&t of $&ysical $ossession of t&e dis$uted $ro$erty#
-ED0
Unlawful detainer is the proper remedy: the heirs of Dionisio has better right to the
possession of the property
Unlawful detainer is an action to recover $ossession of real $ro$erty from one w&o illegally
wit&&olds $ossession after t&e e?$iration or termination of &is rig&t to &old $ossession under
any contract e?$ress or im$lied# %&e $ossession of t&e defendant in unlawful detainer is
originally legal but became illegal due to t&e e?$iration or termination of t&e rig&t to $ossess#
%&e only issue to be resolved in an unlawful detainer case is $&ysical or material $ossession
of t&e $ro$erty involved inde$endent of any claim of owners&i$ by any of t&e $arties
involved#
<9
,n e@ectment case based on t&e allegation of $ossession by tolerance falls under t&e
category of unlawful detainer# 0&ere t&e $laintiG allows t&e defendant to use &isC&er
$ro$erty by tolerance wit&out any contract t&e defendant is necessarily bound by an im$lied
$romise t&at &eCs&e will vacate on demand failing w&ic& an action for unlawful detainer will
lie#
4n t&e issue of $ossession t&e C, o$ined t&at by see:ing Dionisio;s $ermission to occu$y
t&e sub@ect land *ER,2C4 e?$ressly ac:nowledged &is $aramount rig&t of $ossession#
+owever *ER,2C4 $osits t&at e?trinsic evidence suc& as t&e letter re=uest dated 4ctober
<< <97D and t&e -nternal *emorandum dated December ' <97D cannot contradict t&e
terms of t&e deed of sale between CED, and *ER,2C4 $ursuant to 3ection 9 Rule <A0
22
of
t&e Rules of Court#
%&e Court &as combed t&e records and is not convinced#
-t is undis$uted t&at on 4ctober << <97D or four .E/ mont&s after t&e a$$roval of t&e *4,
and t&e corres$onding Deed of ,bsolute 3ale *ER,2C4 sent a letter to Dionisio see:ing &is
$ermission for t&e continued use of t&e sub@ect land# Relative t&ereto 2#1# De 2a "a6 of t&e
%rece *artires 3ubstation of *ER,2C4 sent t&e December <' <97D -nternal *emorandum
addressed to ,tty# 1#R# 1on6ales and ,tty# %orres informing t&em of some obstacles in
reac&ing a lease agreement wit& t&e Deloys#
Evidently by t&ese two documents *ER,2C4 ac:nowledged t&at t&e owners of t&e sub@ect
land were t&e Deloys# -t is clear as daylig&t# %&e )rst letter was written barely four .E/ mont&s
after t&e deed of sale was accom$lis&ed# ,s observed by t&e C, *ER,2C4 never dis$uted
t&e declarations contained in t&ese letters w&ic& were even mar:ed as its own e?&ibits#
"ursuant to 3ection 2' Rule <A0 of t&e Rules of Evidence t&ese admissions andCor
declarations are admissible against *ER,2C4#
Hevert&eless in t&is $etition *ER,2C4 insists t&at e?trinsic evidence suc& as t&e two
documents even if t&ese were t&eir own cannot contradict t&e terms of t&e deed of sale
between CED, and *ER,2C4 $ursuant to 3ection 9 Rule <A0
2D
of t&e Rules of Court#
%&e Court &as read t&e *4, and t&e Deed of ,bsolute 3ale but found not&ing t&at clearly
stated t&at t&e sub@ect land was included t&erein# 0&at were sold transferred and conveyed
were (its electric distribution facilities service dro$s and customersI electric meters e?ce$t
t&ose owned by t&e JEHD4RI3 customers ? ? ? and all t&e rig&ts and $rivileges necessary
for t&e o$eration of t&e electric service ? ? ?#(
2'
Ho mention was made of any land# Rig&ts
and $rivileges could only refer to franc&ises $ermits and aut&ori6ations necessary for t&e
o$eration of t&e electric service# %&e land on w&ic& t&e substation was erected was not
included ot&erwise it would &ave been so stated in t&e two documents# 4t&erwise also
*ER,2C4 would not &ave written Dionisio to as: $ermission for t&e continued use of t&e
sub@ect land#
RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 70: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer || Castro !oco !ato
,t any rate it is fundamental t&at a certi)cate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible
and incontrovertible title to t&e $ro$erty in favor of t&e $erson w&ose name a$$ears t&erein#
-t bears to em$&asi6e t&at t&e title&older is entitled to all t&e attributes of owners&i$ of t&e
$ro$erty including $ossession# %&us t&e Court must u$&old t&e age>old rule t&at t&e $erson
w&o &as a %orrens title over a land is entitled to its $ossession#
4n a )nal note t&e Court must stress t&at t&e ruling in t&is case is limited only to t&e
determination as to w&o between t&e $arties &as a better rig&t to $ossession# %&is
ad@udication is not a )nal determination on t&e issue of owners&i$ and t&us will not bar any
$arty from )ling an action raising t&e matter of owners&i$#
G.R. No. 159152 A5A5>t 25, 2010
A CAM$ANA DE(EO$MENT COR$ORATION, $et2t2o+er,
@>.
ART!RO EDESMA, -ON. J!DGE ESTREA T. ESTRADA, 2+ ?er c*:*c2t4 *>
$RESIDING J!DGE, ReA2o+*3 Tr2*3 Co5rt, #r*+c? 83, "5eKo+ C2t4, *+, t?e -ON.
CO!RT O% A$$EAS, Re>:o+,e+t>.
%ACTS0
"etitioner )led an e@ectment case wit& t&e *etro$olitan %rial Court .*e%C/ against $rivate
res$ondent 2edesma alleging t&at des$ite e?$iration of t&e contract of lease e?ecuted
between t&em and demands to vacate sub@ect $remises and $ay rentals t&erefor t&e latter
failed to com$ly wit& suc& demands# "rivate res$ondent countered in &is ,nswer t&at &e &ad
$aid t&e rentals over sub@ect $remises and $etitioner no longer &ad t&e rig&t to $ossess t&e
$ro$erty as it &ad been foreclosed by t&e Develo$ment !an: of t&e "&ili$$ines .D!"/# "rivate
res$ondent furt&er $ointed out t&at sub@ect $remises &ad in fact been in t&e $ossession of
t&e D!" since *arc& or ,$ril of <997 so since t&at time it was wit& t&e D!" t&at &e made
arrangements for &is continued occu$ation of t&e sub@ect $remises#
%&e *e%C t&en rendered @udgment in favor of $etitioner ordering $rivate res$ondent to
surrender $ossession of sub@ect $remises to $etitioner# "rivate res$ondent a$$ealed to t&e
Regional %rial Court .R%C/ and to stay e?ecution of said @udgment $rivate res$ondent )led
a supersedeas bond wit& t&e *e%C#
%&e R%C a8rmed t&e *e%C @udgment# "etitioner t&en moved for t&e immediate e?ecution of
t&e R%C Decision w&ic& motion was granted by t&e R%C# *eanw&ile $rivate res$ondent
elevated t&e case to t&e C, ia a $etition for review oncertiorari wit& $rayer for t&e issuance
of a tem$orary restraining order or writ of $reliminary in@unction# , tem$orary restraining
order was issued by t&e C, eGectively staying im$lementation of t&e writ of e?ecution
issued by t&e R%C#
ISS!E0
0&et&er t&e C, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac: or e?cess of
@urisdiction w&en it ordered t&e issuance of a writ of $reliminary in@unction to stay t&e
immediate e?ecution of t&e R%C @udgment and w&et&er mandamus lies to com$el res$ondent
R%C Budge to issue a writ of e?ecution#
-ED0
-t is true t&at 3ection 2< Rule 70 of t&e Rules of Court $rovides t&at (LtM&e @udgment of t&e
Regional %rial Court against t&e defendant s&all be immediately e?ecutory wit&out $re@udice
to a furt&er a$$eal t&at may be ta:en t&erefrom#( +owever t&e Court ruled in "enedicto !
Court of Appeals t&at (on a$$eal t&e a$$ellate court may stay t&e said writ s&ould
circumstances so re=uire#
,s a rule t&e issuance of a $reliminary in@unction rests entirely wit&in t&e discretion of t&e
court ta:ing cogni6ance of t&e case and will not be interfered wit& e?ce$t in cases of
manifest abuse#
!e it noted t&at for a writ of $reliminary in@unction to be issued t&e Rules of Court do not
re=uire t&at t&e act com$lained of be in clear violation of t&e rig&ts of t&e a$$licant# -ndeed
w&at t&e Rules re=uire is t&at t&e act com$lained of be $robably in violation of t&e rig&ts of
t&e a$$licant# Under t&e Rules $robability is enoug& basis for in@unction to issue as a
$rovisional remedy#
-n t&e afore>=uoted case t&e Court reiterated t&at w&en e?igencies in t&e case warrant it t&e
a$$ellate court may stay t&e writ of e?ecution issued by t&e R%C in an action for e@ectment if
t&ere are circumstances necessitating suc& action# ,n e?am$le of suc& e?ce$tional
circumstance can be seen in ;aurel ! Abalos#%&erein a defendant was ordered by t&e trial
court to vacate t&e $remises of t&e dis$uted $ro$erty and return $ossession t&ereof to t&e
$laintiGs but w&ile t&e e@ectment case was on a$$eal a @udgment was $romulgated in a
se$arate case w&ere t&e sale of t&e $ro$erty to said $laintiGs was declared null and void
RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 70: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer || Castro !oco !ato
ma:ing t&e $laintiGsI rig&t to $ossess t&e dis$uted $ro$erty inconclusive# %&e Court ruled in
said case t&at:
0&ere su$ervening events .occurring subse=uent to t&e @udgment/ bring about a material
c&ange in t&e situation of t&e $arties w&ic& ma:es t&e e?ecution ine=uitable or 6?ere
t?ere 2> +o co;:e332+A 5rAe+c4 1or t?e eHec5t2o+ bec*5>e 2t 2> +ot E5>t2De, b4 t?e
:re@*232+A c2rc5;>t*+ce>, t?e co5rt ;*4 >t*4 2;;e,2*te eHec5t2o+ o1 t?e
E5,A;e+t#
n t&e $resent case t&ere also e?ists a material c&ange in t&e situation of t&e $arties# %&e C,
$ro$erly too: into serious consideration t&e fact t&at in its Decision in C,>1#R# CJ Ho# AE7D'
entitled ;a Campana Food #roducts, <nc! ! Deelopment "ank of the #hilippines, w&ic& &as
become )nal and e?ecutory 2t or,ere, ?ere2+ :et2t2o+er, 1or;er34 C+o6+ *> *
C*;:*+* %oo, $ro,5ct>, I+c., to >5rre+,er :o>>e>>2o+ o1 >5bEect :ro:ert2e> to t?e
De@e3o:;e+t #*+C o1 t?e $?232::2+e># Evidently a serious cloud of doubt &as been cast
on $etitioner;s rig&t of $ossession ma:ing it =uestionable w&et&er t&e R%C Decision ordering
$rivate res$ondent to surrender $ossession of sub@ect $remises to $etitioner s&ould be
immediately im$lemented# %&erefore t&e C, did not gravely abuse its discretion in t&is caseF
rat&er it acted $rudently w&en it stayed e?ecution of t&e R%C Decision until suc& time t&at a
)nal resolution of t&e main case is reac&ed#
"etitionerIs contention t&at it was im$ro$er for t&e C, to &ave granted $rivate res$ondentIs
motion to consider t&esupersedeas bond it $osted wit& t&e *etro$olitan %rial Court as
su8cient to cover t&e bond re=uired for t&e issuance of t&e writ of $reliminary in@unction is
li:ewise incorrect# "etitioner argues t&at (said su$ersedeas bond is $osted solely and
$rimarily to answer for a s$eci)c $ur$ose w&ic& is for t&e $ayment of un$aid rentals accruing
u$ to t&e )nal @udgment# %&is cannot be &eld answerable for damages to $etitioner s&ould it
later be found out t&at t&e $rivate res$ondent is not entitled to t&e issuance Lof a writ of
$reliminary in@unctionM#(
Hote t&at 3ection E.b/ Rule D7 of t&e Rules of Court $rovides t&at:
.b/ Unless e?em$ted by t&e court t&e a$$licant )les wit& t&e court w&ere t&e action or
$roceeding is $ending a bond e?ecuted to t&e $arty or $erson en@oined in an amount to be
)?ed by t&e court to t&e eGect t&at t&e a$$licant will $ay to suc& $arty or $erson all
damages w&ic& &e may sustain by reason of t&e in@unction or tem$orary restraining order if
t&e court s&ould )nally decide t&at t&e a$$licant was not entitled t&ereto# U$on a$$roval of
t&e re=uisite bond a writ of $reliminary in@unction s&all be issuedF
+owever in .ualam Construction and De=t! Corp! ! Court of Appeals t&e Court e?$ounded
on w&at damages may be recovered in actions for forcible entry or unlawful detainer to wit:
,s to damages 0e &ave on several occasions ruled t&at since t&e only issue raised in
forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases is t&at of rig&tful $&ysical $ossession t&e
(damages( recoverable in t&ese cases are t&ose w&ic& t&e $laintiG could &ave sustained as a
mere $ossessor i!e# t&ose caused by t&e loss of t&e use and occu$ation of t&e $ro$erty and
not t&e damages w&ic& &e may &ave suGered but w&ic& &ave no direct relation to &is loss of
material $ossession# ? ? ? 3im$ly $ut (damages( in t&e conte?t of 3ection 7 of Rule 70 Lnow
3ection <9 Rule 70 of t&e Rules of CourtM is limited to (rent( or (fair rental value( for t&e use
and occu$ation of t&e $ro$erty#
<7
$>wphi$
3ince t&e only damages t&at $etitioner may be entitled to in an action for unlawful detainer
are t&ose arising from its loss of t&e use or occu$ation of sub@ect $remises t&e only damages
$etitioner can claim by reason of t&e stay of e?ecution of t&e R%C @udgment is also only for
t&e (rent( or (fair rental value( for t&e $ro$erty in =uestion# %&erefore t&e C, did not err in
considering t&e supersedeas bond )led wit& t&e *%C w&ic& answers for un$aid rentals as
su8cient bond for t&e issuance of a writ of $reliminary in@unction#