5 October 2016

RURAL BANK OF LIPA, INC.

Mariano P. Gomez
Lipa City, Batangas

Dear Mr. Gomez:

This legal opinion seeks to answer your question as to whether or not

you have the cause of action to file a case for Unlawful Detainer against the
rightful lessees of a certain property subsequent to a foreclosure proceeding
you instituted therein considering also, that the Court is now faced with two
conflicting Loan Agreements, one presented by the lessees and the other,
presented by your party for the first time during the pre-trial.

The Facts

Per our discussion and the documents you have shown me, the
following are the pertinent facts:

Rural Bank of Lipa, Inc. is the registered owner of a land located at

Brgy. Pulong Bato West, Lipa City, Batangas covered by Transfer Certificate
of Title No. 888-009182 and the residential compound erected therein. It
acquired the property through the foreclosed Real Estate Mortgage it
entered into with the property’s then owner, Ms. Kelly N. Grimaldo.

Rural Bank of Lipa, Inc. through your representative, Mariano P. Gomez,

continuously sent demand letters to the lessees, however, your requests were
not heeded to by the lessees herein.

Thus, after the pre-trial ensued, the Court is now faced with two
contracts – one, presented by the Rural Bank of Lipa, Inc. and the other,
presented by the lessees of the subject property.

The Applicable Law

 The applicable law is Section 1 of Rule 70 under the Rules of Court. It
provides that:

“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.”
 On its face, the foregoing provision does not appear to directly govern
your situation. It only seems to apply to cases where there was indeed an
unlawful deprivation and unlawful withholding of possession of a certain
property.
 In your case, you failed to allege and attach a copy of the loan
agreement, from which your legal right arose. You only rectified this error
during the pre-trial when you attempted to cure it by presenting for the first
time, your own version of the said agreement. Thus, the question now posed
before the Court is not whether you have a cause of action to file the case
but relates to which among the two versions of the Loan Agreement
presented before the Court is true, and consequently, who between you
and the lessees has a better and legal right to the property.

Consequently, when you disputed the validity and due execution of

the lessees version of the Loan Agreement, the ground you relied upon is no
longer among those for unlawful detainer. Thus, the action is no longer that
of an accion interdictal but an accion publiciana.

The Applicable Jurisprudence

Jurisprudence dictates that where the defendant refuses to vacate the

land on the ground that he is the lessee of the plaintiff’s predecessor-in-
interest, the court will have to determine who has the better right of
possession and/or whether said lease contract is binding on the plaintiff.
Hence, the case becomes one of an accion publiciana and within the
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court even if said action was brought within
one year from demand on the defendant to vacate the premises. (BERNABE
VS. DAYRIT, ET AL., G.R. NO. 58399, OCTOBER 27, 1983).

Accion publiciana or plenaria de posesion is also used to refer to an

ejectment suit which is filed after the expiration of one year from the accrual
of the cause of action or from the date the lessee began to withhold
unlawfully the possession of the realty. In such a case, the Regional Trial Court
would have jurisdiction. (Ledesma vs. Marcos, 9 Phil. 618) It is a plenary action
to determine the better right of possession. (AGUILON VS. BOHOL, L-27169,
OCTOBER 20, 1977).

Besides, it must be emphasized that this case is one for recovery of

possession, also known as accion publiciana, which is a plenary action for
recovery of possession in an ordinary civil proceeding, in order to determine
the better and legal right to possess, independently of title. The objective of
the plaintiff in an accion publiciana is to recover possession only, not
ownership. (BEJAR VS. CALUAG, G.R. NO. 171277, FEBRUARY 17, 2007)

Analysis and Conclusion

Thus, taking into consideration the foregoing discussions and applying

the rule of reason, Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court would not apply to
your case because it should be interpreted to apply only in cases of unlawful
deprivation and unlawful withholding of possession of property. However, this
appears to be inapplicable in the present case. Further, there appears to be
no cause of action on your part to file a case for Unlawful Detainer against
the lessees, hence, the case should have been dismissed by the Municipal
Trial Court for lack of jurisdiction.

What you should have been done instead was to file for an Accion
Publiciana before the Regional Trial Court of Lipa City as provided under
Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Regional Trial Courts shall exercise
exclusive original jurisidction “in all civil actions which involve the title to, or
possessions of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of
the property involved exceeds twenty thousand pesos (P20, 000.00) or, for civil
actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,
000.00)..”

Article 434 of the New Civil Code provides that, “In an action to recover,
the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his
title and not on the weakness of the defendant’s claim.” In addition, the burden
of proof to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish a claim
or defense by the amount of evidence required by law should be on the
plaintiff.

Finally, in case the Court is faced with two conflicting documents as in the
case you filed before the Municipal Trial Court, the Rules on Evidence shall
govern in relation to the interpretation of documents. Thus, the following rules
shall be considered:

Section 17. Of Two constructions, which preferred. — When the terms of an

agreement have been intended in a different sense by the different parties to it,
that sense is to prevail against either party in which he supposed the other
understood it, and when different constructions of a provision are otherwise
equally proper, that is to be taken which is the most favorable to the party in
whose favor the provision was made.

Section 18. Construction in favor of natural right. — When an instrument is equally

susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the other
against it, the former is to be adopted.

Section 19. Interpretation according to usage. — An instrument may be

construed according to usage, in order to determine its true character.

I appreciate the opportunity to advise you regarding this matter. Please
let me know if you wish to discuss any of these issues further. Thank you.

Yours
truly,

Eissel J. Malabanan
LEGAL COUNSEL