XVII.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

Quo warranto

Q: Relator

A: Rule 66 Sec. 3

Foreclosure of real estate mortgage

Q. Mortgagee extrajudicially foreclosed a real estate mortgage bidded for and purchased the
property at the auction sale and obtained a new TCT in his name after the lapse of one year from
the registration of the certificate of sale which was issued to him at the foreclosure sale.
Mortgagor now brings an action to annul the extrajudicial sale and to cancel the mortgagee's new
TCT on the following grounds:

a.) That the notice of sale was not posted at the place where the mortgaged property was located;
b.) That no personal notice of the extrajudicial foreclosure was furnished the mortgagor; and
c.) That the purchase price was grossly inadequate.

Q. Is the plaintiff's complaint well-grounded? (10%) [1999 Midterm XIX]

A. No. Under Act No. 3135, as amended which is the law governing extrajudicial foreclosure of real
estate mortgages, there is no requirement of personal notice to the mortgagor, and as far as notice is
concerned, it is enough that it be posted in at least 3 public places of the municipality or city where the
property is situated and it is not required that the notice be posted at the site of the property itself. The
supposed inadequacy of the purchase price is immaterial since there is a right to redeem and therefore a
lower bid price would make it easier for the property owner to effect the redemption or sell his right to
redeem and thus recover his loss. (See Abrina vs. PNB, 95 O.G. p. 4068 [CA; 1995], citing DBP vs. Vda.
De Moll, 43 SCRA 82 [1972])


Forcible entry and detainer

Q: May an inferior court grant a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in an unlawful detainer
case?

A: Yes. See R70 S15.

Q: In an ejectment case, the MTC ordered the defendant to vacate the leased premises and to pay
a monthly rental plus atty's fees. On appeal, defendant deposited the current rentals with the
RTC. But the RTC granted plaintiff's motion for execution on the ground of defendant's failure to
file a supersedeas bond. Is the order of execution correct?

A: No. R70 S19 requires a supersedeas bond only if there are rentals in arrears. The atty's fees need
not be covered by a supersedeas bond. [De Laureano v. Adil; 72 SCRA 148 (1976)]


Q: A and B inherited from their father, C, a parcel of land in 1985. In 1992, D forcibly entered into
and took possession of the property. May A by himself and without including B as his co-plaintiff
bring an action for ejectment against D?

A: Yes. Anyone of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment. (Art. 487, CC)

Q: Can a MTC award moral and exemplary damages in an unlawful detainer case?

A: No. The only damages that can be recovered in an unlawful detainer suit are the fair rental value or
the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the real property. Other damages must be
claimed in an ordinary action. [Felisilda v. Villanueva; 139 SCRA 431 (1985)]

Q: Unlawful detainer action by P against D was decided in favor of P by the MTC. On P's motion,
MTC granted execution pending appeal for D's failure to post a supersedeas bond. D challenged
the validity of the immediate execution for having been issued without any previous notice to him.
Rule on the validity of the order of execution.

A: Order of immediate execution is proper. MTC is not duty-bound to notify D of immediate enforcement
of the appealed decision. It is the prevailing party moving for execution pending appeal who is obliged to
serve a copy of such motion on the adverse party's counsel. [Delos Santos v. Montesa; 221 SCRA 15
(1993)]

Q: P filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against D in the MTC. In his complaint, P prayed for
judgment ordering D to vacate the leased premises and to surrender them to P, declaring the
residential building constructed on the lot by D as forfeited in favor of P and adjudging D liable to
pay accrued rentals and P5,000 atty's fees to P. After D filed his answer, the MTC rendered a
judgment on the pleadings granting all the reliefs prayed for in P's complaint. Is this judgment
assailable on any jurisdictional ground?

A: (No clear answer. Note on pencil says: ownership)

Q. When and under what conditions may a court issue a demolition order? (5%)

Q. T was leasing his apartment from L at P5,000/month under a written contract for 1 year. One
month before the expiration of the lease, L served a demand upon T to vacate the premises upon
its expiry because he was going to demolish the building and erect in its place a new building. T
refused to vacate. In consequence, L's building plans were delayed. So, L brought an action for
unlawful detainer against T and obtained judgment therein directing T to pay him the P5,000
stipulated rental and P500 a day for every day of delay as damages until he finally vacates the
premises plus P10,000 atty's fees. Is the decision objectionable in any way? (10%)

A. Yes. The award of P500 a day for damages cannot properly be made in an unlawful detainer
action where the only damages recoverable are those which are caused by the loss of the use and
occupation of the property and not such damages as may be recovered only by the plaintiff if he were the
owner and he cannot be declared as such in an unlawful detainer action. The award of atty's fees is
proper. [See Reyes v. CA; 38 SCRA 138 (1971)]

Q. May a person not in possession of the premises bring an action for unlawful detainer of
these premises? (5%)

A. Yes, as where the action is brought by a vendee or other person against whom the possession is
unlawfully withheld after the expiration of termination of the right to hold possession. [See Pangilinan v.
Aguilar; 43 SCRA 136 (1972)]