Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Comp
Case Comp
her signature.16
WHEREFORE, premise
Cruz claimed that ever since she inherited the
property, she tolerated Susan's occupancy of the
property. However, due to Susan's failure and refusal Susan Christensen and all premises considered, the
to pay rentals of ₱l,000.00 per month, she was lower court's decision is hereby REVERSED.
constrained to demand that Susan vacate the
property and pay all unpaid rentals. 7 Susan Christensen and all persons claiming rights
under her are hereby ordered:
The matter was referred to barangay conciliation in
Barangay Balong Bato, San Juan, despite the parties 1. To vacate the premises A. Santos Street,
being residents of different cities. The parties, Balong Bato, San Juan City, Metro Manila,
however, were unable to settle into a compromise. As and to surrender possession thereof to
a result, the Punong Barangay issued a Certificate to plaintiff;
File Action on August 11, 2005.
8 9
fees; and receiving the demand letter, the matter was already
the subject of a barangay conciliation proceeding,
4. The costs of suit. leading to the ejectment suit as the reasonable
consequence of respondents' non-compliance with
the demand to pay rentals and to vacate the
Costs against appellee.
property. 37
So ordered. 22
Decision and reinstating the Metropolitan Trial Court [the] owner-lessor to allow [the lessees] to stay
Decision. According to the Court of Appeals, the filing forever in the leased property without paying any
of a memorandum of appeal within 15 days from the reasonable compensation or rental." 39
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING[,] the instant Petition to vacate is a jurisdictional requirement that must be
for Review is GRANTED. The assailed Decision complied with before an ejectment suit may be
dated 29 December 2010 of the Regional Trial Court, brought. 41
nonetheless opted to resolve her appeal on its merits, The issues for resolution before this Court are the
showing that the issues and arguments raised in the following:
appeal outweigh its procedural defect. Petitioner
34
submits that other than respondent Susan's bare First, whether or not the Regional Trial Court should
denial of signing the registry return card, respondents have dismissed the appeal considering that petitioner
did not deny receipt of the demand letter at their
Velia J. Cruz's Memorandum of Appeals was not filed The rule requiring the filing of the memorandum within
within the required period; and the period provided is mandatory. Failure to comply
will result in the dismissal of the
Finally, whether or not petitioner Velia J. Cruz was appeal. Enriquez v. Court of Appeals explained:
45 46
which shall briefly discuss the errors imputed to the are premised on the non-filing of the memorandum. A
lower court, a copy of which shall be furnished by him trial court does not acquire jurisdiction over an appeal
to the adverse party. Within fifteen (15) days from where the errors have not been specifically assigned.
receipt of the appellant's memorandum, the appellee
may file his memorandum. In this instance, a Memorandum of Appeal was filed
late but was nonetheless given due course by the
Failure of the appellant to file a memorandum shall be Regional Trial Court. Thus, the jurisdictional defect
a ground for dismissal of the appeal. was cured since petitioner was able to specifically
assign the Municipal Trial Court's errors, which the
(c) Upon the filing of the memorandum of the Regional Trial Court was able to address and resolve.
appellee, or the expiration of the period to do so, the This Court also notes that all substantial issues have
case shall be considered submitted for decision. The already been fully litigated before the Municipal Trial
Regional Trial Court shall decide the case on the Court, the Regional Trial Court, and the Court of
basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in Appeals.
the court of origin and such memoranda as are filed.
(Emphasis supplied) Procedural defects should not be relied on to defeat
the substantive rights of litigants. Even procedural
49
Section 2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires that by the lessor to vacate since the lessor needed the
there must first be a prior demand to pay or comply property. In Labastida v. Court of Appeals, the month-
58
with the conditions of the lease and to vacate before to-month lease was deemed to have expired upon
an action can be filed: receipt of the notice to vacate at the end of the month.
In Tubiano v. Razo, the lessee was explicitly
59
Section 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when. informed that her month-to-month lease would not be
- Subject to the provisions· of the next succeeding renewed.
section, a person deprived of the possession of any
land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, Admittedly, the Complaint in this case alleges that
60
or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee or other person petitioner's verbal consent and tolerance was
against whom the possession of any land or building withdrawn due to respondents' ''continuous failure
is unlawfully withheld after the expiration 'or ~nd adamant refusal to pay rentals" and allegations
61
te1mination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of accn1ed unpaid rentals from June 1989 to
of any contract, express or implied, or the legal February 2009. The demand letter dated August 5,
62
representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, 2008 also specifies that it was premised on
vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one respondents' non-payment of the "reasonable
(1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding compensation verbally agreed upon." This would
63
of possession, bring an action in the proper Municipal have been enough to categorize the complaint for
Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully unlawful detainer as one for non-payment of rentals,
withholding or depriving of possession, or any person not one for expiration of lease.
However, respondents' Answer to the Complaint is
64
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 181368 February 22, 2012 payment of unearned income, attorney's fees and
costs of suit.
GEORGE S. TOLENTINO, MONICA S. TOLENTINO,
GUSTAVO S. TOLENTINO, JR., MA. MARJORIE S. Petitioners, as defendants in the trial court, averred in
TOLENTINO, MARILYN S. TOLENTINO, MICHAEL their Answer that the subject property is owned by the
GLEN S. TOLENTINO, MYLENE S. TOLENTINO, Republic and they are occupying the same by virtue
MILAGROS M. GUEVARRA, MA. VICTORIA T. of a Fishpond Lease Agreement entered with the
RAMIREZ, LORENZA T. ANDES, MICHAEL T. Department of Agriculture. Thus, their stay over the
MEDRANO and JACINTO T. property is lawful.
MEDRANO, Petitioners,
vs. On August 27, 1996, petitioners were declared in
PACIFICO S. LAUREL, HEIRS OF ILUMINADA default, for failure to appear at the pre-trial
LAUREL-ASCALON, CONSUELO T. LAUREL, conference. However, the trial court set aside the
BIENVENIDO LAUREL, HEIRS OF ARCHIMEDES default order and reset the pre-trial conference.
LAUREL, TEODORO LAUREL, FE LAUREL- Despite several resetting of the pre-trial conference of
LIMJUCO and CLARO LAUREL, Respondents. which petitioners were notified, petitioners failed to
appear. Hence, on March 21, 2000, the trial court
DECISION issued an Order allowing respondents to present their
evidence ex parte, instead of declaring petitioners in
PERALTA, J.: default.
3
Before this Court is a petition for review After the ex parte hearing for the reception of
on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, evidence, the RTC ruled in favor of respondents, thus:
seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision and 1
Sections 4 and 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court cannot be taken for granted. It is not a mere
provides: technicality in court proceedings for it serves a vital
objective: the simplification, abbreviation and
Section 4. Appearance of parties. − It shall be the expedition of the trial, if not indeed its dispensation.
duty of the parties and their counsel to appear at the The Court said that:
pre-trial. The non-appearance of a party may be
excused only if a valid cause is shown therefor, or if a
The importance of pre-trial in civil actions cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. Basic
overemphasized. In Balatico v. Rodriguez, the Court, considerations of due process impel this rule. 13
(d) The possibility of obtaining stipulations or Section 48. Certificate not Subject to Collateral
admissions of facts and of documents to avoid Attack. - A certificate of title shall not be subject to
unnecessary proof; collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or
canceled, except in a direct proceeding in accordance
(e) The limitation of the number of witnesses; with law.
(f) The advisability of a preliminary reference Petitioners' attack on the legality of TCT No. T-43927,
of issues to a commissioner; issued in the name of respondents, is incidental to
their quest to defend their possession of the property
in an accion publiciana, not in a direct action whose
(g) The propriety of rendering judgment on the
main objective is to impugn the validity of the
pleadings, or summary judgment, or of
judgment granting the title. To permit a collateral
14
the government, through the Department of is reverted to the State by virtue of a judgment of a
Agriculture, as a party to the case, in order to have a court of law in a direct proceeding for reversion, the
complete determination of the case, is specious, as Torrens certificate of title thereto remains valid and
the same was never raised before the RTC and the binding against the whole world. 17
resolving the issue of possession, where the issue of grounds for the award thereof must be set forth in the
ownership is inseparably linked to the issue of decision of the court. The discretion of the court to
27
possession. The adjudication of the issue of award attorney's fees under Article 2208 of the Civil
ownership, being provisional, is not a bar to an action Code demands factual, legal, and equitable
between the same parties involving title to the justification, without which the award is a conclusion
property. 19
without a premise, its basis being improperly left to
speculation and conjecture. 28
held that the age-old rule is that the person who has a
Torrens title over a land is entitled to possession
thereof. 23
Accion Publiciana: its nature and purpose At any rate, petitioners, as private individuals, are not the
proper parties to question the status of the respondent’s
Also known as accion plenaria de posesion, accion registered titles. Section 6 of P.D. No. 1271 14 expressly
publiciana is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the states that the “Solicitor General shall institute such
better right of possession of realty independently of title. actions or suits as may be necessary to recover
It refers to an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of possession of lands covered by all void titles not validated
one year from the accrual of the cause of action or from under this Decree.”
the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty.
The respondent’s certificates of title
The objective of the plaintiffs in accion publiciana is to give her the better right to possess
recover possession only, not ownership. When parties, the subject parcels of land
however, raise the issue of ownership, the court may pass
upon the issue to determine who between the parties has It is settled that a Torrens title is evidence of indefeasible
the right to possess the property. This adjudication, title to property in favor of the person in whose name the
nonetheless, is not a final and binding determination of title appears. It is conclusive evidence with respect to the
the issue of ownership; it is only for the purpose of ownership of the land described therein. It is also settled
resolving the issue of possession, where the issue of that the titleholder is entitled to all the attributes of
ownership is inseparably linked to the issue of possession. ownership of the property, including possession. Thus,
The adjudication of the issue of ownership, being in Arambulo v. Gungab,15 this Court declared that the
provisional, is not a bar to an action between the same “age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens title
parties involving title to the property. The adjudication, in over a land is entitled to possession thereof.” 16
short, is not conclusive on the issue of ownership. 12
The records show that TCT No. T-13935 17 and TCT No. T-
In her complaint, Crisologo prayed that she be declared in 1393618 bear the name of Carmeling P. Crisologo, as the
prior actual possession of the properties in dispute and registered owner. Petitioners do not dispute the fact that
that petitioners vacate the same and demolish their she has a Torrens title over the subject parcels of land.
houses therein. She alleged, among others, that she was
The respondent’s Torrens certificates of title be denied that she bought the subject properties
are immune from a collateral attack. from the previous owner in 1967, which was why
the transfer certificates of title were subsequently
As a holder of a Torrens certificate of title, the law issued in her name. Records further show that
protects Crisologo from a collateral attack on the same. she has been paying the realty taxes on the said
Section 48 of P.D. No. 1529, otherwise known as the properties since 1969. She likewise appointed
Property Registration Decree, provides that a certificate of Isican as administrator of the disputed lands.
title cannot be the subject of a collateral attack. Thus: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary More importantly, there is no question that she
offered to sell to petitioners the portions of the
SEC. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral subject properties occupied by them. Hence, she
attack. – A certificate of title shall not be deserves to be respected and restored to her
subject to collateral attack. It cannot be lawful possession as provided in Article 539 of the
altered, modified, or canceled except in a direct New Civil Code.20
proceeding in accordance with law.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The In this case, Spouses Gumallaoi presented
January 21, 2010 Decision of Regional Trial Court, sufficient evidence to show that the Heirs of
Branch 19, Bangui, Ilocos Norte in Civil Case No. Cascayan obtained their title through fraud and
944-19 is hereby AFFIRMED.33 misrepresentation. We quote with approval the
following observations of the RTC, viz.:
In a Resolution34 dated February 25, 2014, the Court of
Appeals also denied the Cascayan Heirs' motion for At this juncture, it is noteworthy that Tax
reconsideration for lack of merit. Declaration No. 03-006-00652, series of
2003 in the name of the Heirs of
On April 10, 2014, the Cascayan Heirs filed a petition Cayetano Cascayan who obviously
before this Court assailing the Court of Appeals Decision secured the same for purposes (of) their
and Resolution. Petitioners argue that regardless of any application for free patent, was not also
application for free patent that may have been filed, Lot earlier declared in the name of either
No. 20028 had long been owned by Cayetano since Marcelino Alupay or Cayetano Cascayan.
1925.35 This is shown by evidence submitted to the A perusal of the evidences [sic] of the
Regional Trial Court, namely, a Tax Declaration for the defendants spouses . . . show that the
year 1925 and the presence of the debris of his residence, owner was unknown. In fact, as shown in
still intact on Lot No. 20028.36 Moreover, petitioners insist Tax Declaration No. 97-006-00654, it
that it has been proven that they have possessed Lot No. preceded Tax Declaration No. 03-006-
20028 since time immemorial.37 They also claim that none 00652 which is the same tax declaration
issued to the plaintiffs in 2003 before patent stating that there was mistake in
they applied for the free patent. It is thus placing his name as survey claimant and
clear that, the lot being declared then to that the lot applied for is in the actual
an unknown person, plaintiffs took it possession and cultivation of the heirs of
upon themselves and claimed it, secured Cayetano Cascayan. Thus, in another
a tax declaration in their name in 2003 Affidavit he executed on September 19,
and applied thereafter for a free patent 2007, he alleged that he had no
therefor the following year. knowledge of the contents of what he
signed and that it was not explained to
In other words, plaintiffs obviously him.44
applied for a free patent without any
basis. It is clear from their evidence that
However, petitioners ask that this Court reverse the Court
they were never in possession of the
of Appeals' determination, insisting that regardless of any
property in suit before they applied for
impropriety in the filing of an application for a free patent,
the free patent. While plaintiffs submitted
they have proven that they owned Lot No. 20028. They
affidavits to show that they have
assert that they have established that Lot No. 20028 had
occupied and cultivated Lot No. 20028
long been owned by Cayetano since 192545 and that they
and that it was declared in the name of
have possessed it since time immemorial,46 whereas none
the heirs of Cayetano Cascayan in
of the evidence shows that respondents ever owned it.
support of their application for free
Petitioners also insist that the affidavits of waiver should
patent, it appears that such evidences
not have been given weight by the Court of Appeals,
(sic) have been manipulated. It appears
considering that affidavits retracting the affidavits of
that while they were not in fact
waiver have been submitted to it. 47
cultivating the property and that it was
declared in the name of the heirs of
These issues require this Court to review the Court of
Cayetano Cascayan only in 2003, they
Appeals' appreciation of evidence. The Court of Appeals
were able to present false information
found that the evidence did not sufficiently prove
about their true status as claimants. In
petitioners' claims of possession or ownership over Lot No.
fact, Estrelita Balbag and Jalibert Malapit,
20028:
who then in the year 2004 attested in
support of plaintiffs' application for free
patent that plaintiffs and their The records are also bereft of evidence showing
predecessor have been in continuous that the Heirs of Cascayan or their predecessor-
possession of Lot No. 20028 since 1944 in-interest had been in possession of Lot No.
or 1945, have retracted their said 20028. There was not even an allegation on how
Affidavits. Thus, in the subsequent Cayetano took possession of the land and in what
Affidavits they have executed on way he derived his title thereto. Interestingly, the
September 19, 2007 which defendants Heirs of Cascayan merely based their claim of
spouses submitted in support of their possession on a series of tax declarations
claim, Estrelita Balbag on her part alleged purportedly showing that Cayetano, their
that she has no knowledge about the predecessor-in-interest, had been religiously
contents of her earlier affidavit which was paying the taxes thereof and even built a
not explained to her and that she is not residential house thereon. However, and as aptly
aware of the matters concerning Lot No. noted by the RTC, these tax declarations are full
20028 while Jalibert Malapit stated that of inconsistent entries that were never explained
his signature on the Affidavit is not his and only cast doubt as to the identity of the land
real signature. being claimed by the Heirs of Cascayan. 48
Likewise, Barangay Chairman Christopher The Court of Appeals noted that the only basis for the
Malapit also retracted the Certification he petitioners' claim of possession was tax declarations,
issued on March 24, 2004 in support [of] which the Court of Appeals scrutinized:
the application of the plaintiffs for free
patent by stating in his subsequent A careful perusal of the tax declarations bearing
Affidavit dated September 19, 2007 also the name of Cayetano and having similar
submitted by defendants spouses that boundaries reveal that TD No. 601683 (series of
there was no posting made of the notice 1985) covered 1,940 sq. m. It cancelled TD No.
of application for free patent and that 501883, not TD No. 005179. On the other hand,
when he was asked to sign by Elsa TD No. 005179 (series of 1949), stating an area
Martinez, daughter of La Paz Martine[z], of 1,950 sq. m., cancelled TD No. 28278-B (series
he was not aware of the contents of the of 1932) that has an area of 1,600 sq. m. TD No.
Certification and that he was made to 28278-B cancelled TD No. 28278-A (series of
believe that it will be used for another 1926) which bore the same dimension and had
purpose than an application for free cancelled TD No. 28278. We emphasize that TD
patent.. . No. 03-006-00652 (series of 2003) in the name
of the Heirs of Cascayan covers an area of 1,083
Also, Marcelino Alupay retracted the sq. m. and was not earlier declared in the name
Affidavit which he executed on March 24, of either Cayetano or even Marcelino who
2004 in favor of the plaintiffs in allegedly applied, though erroneously, a patent
connection with their application for free for Lot No. 20028. Obviously, its area is
substantially different from that originally The Court of Appeals also considered the waivers
declared in the name of Cayetano . . . submitted in evidence by the parties:
.... The Court cannot also close its eyes to the Waiver
of Rights executed by some of the Heirs of
However, TD No. 97-006-00654 was declared to Cascayan, particularly Virginia Abida, Irineo
an unknown owner in 1997 and it cancelled TD Tolentino, Nena Valiente Alupay, Orlino Valinete
No. 94-006-00651 which was likewise declared to and Eden Jacinto, recognizing Jose and Spouses
an unknown owner in 1994, and both covered an Gumallaoi's ownership over Lot No. 20028 and
area of 1,803 sq. m. The Heirs of Cascayan never admitting that it was erroneous on their part to
bothered to explain why Lot No. 20028 was apply for a free patent over the said lot. Also
declared to an unknown owner despite their claim worthy of note is the statement by the Heirs of
that they had been in possession of the same Cascayan in their application alleging that the
since 1942. It is also intriguing that despite the land was public and that no person was claiming
resurvey of the land in 1982, which was used by or occupying the same notwithstanding that
the Heirs of Cascayan in their free patent Spouses Gumallaoi's house was already visibly
application, showing an area of 1,083 sq. m., the erected therein even before the application was
land was allegedly declared in the name of filed in 2003. With these striking
Cayetano in 1985 but still bearing an area of misrepresentations, We uphold the court a quo's
1,940 sq. m. The 1985 tax declaration in the findings that the application for free patent by the
name of Cayetano was likewise silent as to the lot Heirs of Cascayan was not supported by any valid
number of the land being declared for tax basis warranting the cancellation of their title
purposes and it appears therefrom that said lot over the subject property.51
was bounded on the south and west by the land
owned by Pedro and on the east by the land
owned by Bernardo Acido. In contrast thereto, the Petitioners insist that the Court of Appeals should have
survey conducted in 1982 showed that Lot No. considered the new affidavits submitted by petitioners,
20028 is bounded on the east by an alley and not retracting the affidavits of waiver it previously
by any private land. It is quite plain from the appreciated.52 Again, this is a matter of appreciation of
foregoing observations, and as correctly pointed evidence, not a question of law, and not a proper subject
out by the court a quo, that "there is clear and of review.
serious disconnect in their claim that the parcel of
land declared earlier in the name of Cayetano, is The Court of Appeals found that respondents, on the other
the same as Lot No. 20028".49 hand, sufficiently identified Lot No. 20028 and proved
their title thereto:
The Court of Appeals thoroughly examined the evidence In contrast, the right to possession of Spouses
submitted by petitioners and found it lacking in probative Gumallaoi of the subject property is hinged on
value to prove petitioners' ownership over Lot No. 20028. the "Recibo Ti Pinaglako Ti Daga" (Receipt for the
Rather than prove their ownership, it cast doubt on the Sale of Land) dated January 3, 2002. The
title over Lot No. 20028. boundaries stated in the said receipt are more in
accord with TD Nos. 97-006-00654 and 94-006-
Petitioners attempt to address the foregoing 00651 as well as with the resurvey of the lot as it
inconsistencies: appears in the description stated in OCT No. P-
78399. Also bolstering Spouses Gumallaoi's claim
As to the discrepancy of the area, and which also of ownership over the subject property pursuant
bothered the Honorable Court of Appeals, it must to the said sale are the waiver of rights and the
be noted that indeed the survey was conducted in acknowledgment of Spouses Gumallaoi's
the year 1982 (November 2-25, 1982), but it was ownership by the grandchildren of Cayetano
only approved in October 12, 1984. There was as earlier mentioned, and the Affidavit of Barangay
yet no ROAD then, as it could be seen in the Chairman Christopher stating that Spouses
boundaries of the earlier issued Tax Declarations, Gumallaoi's predecessor-in-interest, Raymundo,
but it is still within the allowable area of relevance was the actual possessor and occupant of Lot No.
and proximity. The present area could be properly 20028 since 1940 up to the time that Jose
explained with the existence of a road therein as questioned the legality of his possession. The
shown in the Survey Plan submitted by the Heirs of Cascayan did not bother to rebut these
Commissioner of the case, but the debris of the allegations and during the March 8, 2008 hearing,
improvements – "House and Kitchen" having been their lawyer brought to the attention of the RTC
put up by Cayetano Cascayan in his lifetime, Raymundo's possession of the subject lot, thus:
could not be denied, which serves as a monument
of ownership in fee simple.50
The Court: That's why the Court is
The assertions that a road may explain the inconsistencies asking the plaintiffs to
are mere factual allegations, not well-substantiated or submit the complete
adequately discussed fact. They are insufficient to compel
this Court to review the Court of Appeals' appreciation of records of the
the evidence as to the identity of the property covered by application for
the tax declarations in relation to Lot No. 20028.
registration and for the
defendants to show
documents of
Atty. Yes[,] your Honor. And
ownership of their
Garvida: he is already tilling a
predecessors-in-
portion of said lot, the
interest, meaning Jose
subject of this case
Corpuz and Pedro
since Jose Corpuz . . .
Corpuz.
It's been a long time[,]
your [H]onor[,] that he
has been tilling the said
Arty. Yes[,] your honor. And
parcel of land. So he
Guillermo: this controversy arisen
knows very well that it
(Counsel for (sic) when Mr.
belongs to Jose Corpuz.
the Heirs of Raymundo Garcia left
....
Cascayan) for Hawaii and the son-
in-law came in and Hence, considering the foregoing, it behooves Us
to concur with the declaration of the court a
possessed the property quo that Spouses Gumallaoi are the lawful
in 1997 and a owners of the subject property.53 (Citations
residential . . . omitted)
The one-year prescriptive period, The presence of fraud is a factual question. It must be
however, does not apply when the established through clear and convincing evidence, though
person seeking annulment of title or the circumstances showing fraud may be varied:61
reconveyance is in possession of the
lot. This is because the action partakes We begin our resolution of this issue with the
of a suit to quiet title which is well-settled rule that the party alleging fraud or
imprescriptible. In David v. Malay, we mistake in a transaction bears the burden of
held that a person in actual possession of proof. The circumstances evidencing fraud are as
a piece of land under claim of ownership varied as the people who perpetrate it in each
may wait until his possession is disturbed case. It may assume different shapes and forms;
or his title is attacked before taking steps it may be committed in as many different ways.
to vindicate his right, and his undisturbed Thus, the law requires that it be established by
possession gives him the continuing right clear and convincing evidence.62
to seek the aid of a court of equity to
ascertain and determine the nature of the
In Republic v. Heirs of Alejaga, Sr.,63 this Court considered
adverse claim of a third party and its
several circumstances as evidence that a free patent had
effect on his title.
been obtained through fraud. It noted the discrepancy
between the date the application was filed and the date
....
the investigation and verification were done. Also, the
verification and investigation report supposedly conducted
Section 48 of P.D. 1529, the Property
by the Land Inspector was not signed. Finally, a special
Registration Decree, provides that a
investigator testified that the Land Inspector admitted to
certificate of title shall not be subject to
not actually conducting an investigation or an ocular
collateral attack and cannot be altered,
inspection of the land, and this testimony remained
unrebutted.64
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 202448 subsequently waived his rights and interests on the
same properties to petitioner. Petitioner claimed that
10
PENA, JOHANNA DE LA PENA, JOSE DE LA Thereafter, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the
11
PENA, JESSICA DE LA PENA, and JAIME ground, among others, that the RTC has no
ANTONIO DE LA PENA, Respondents. jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
Petitioner posited that based on the allegations in the
DECISION Complaint, the action involved recovery of physical
possession of the properties in dispute; said
DEL CASTILLO, J.: Complaint was also filed within one year from the date
the parties had a confrontation before
the Barangay; and thus, the case was one for
This Petition for Review· on Certiorari seeks to
Ejectment and must be filed with the proper Municipal
reverse and set aside the May 28, 2012 Decision of3
Regional Trial Court (RIC) of Bacolod City, Branch 42 In their Reply, respondents alleged that the waiver of
12
in Civil Case No. 98-10187 for."Recovery of rights in favor of Jaime was conditioned on the
Possession and Damages with Injunction." payment of their ₱6.7 million loan with the Republic
Planters Bank (RPB) and Philippine National Bank
(PNB); and, in case the subject properties would be
Factual Antecedents
sold, its proceeds shall be equally distributed to
respondents. They further stated that such waiver
Emma, Jesusa, Johnny, Johanna, Jose, Jessica, and bestowed rights over the properties solely upon
Jaime Antonio (Jaime), all surnamed de la Pena Jaime. They added that the subsequent waiver
(respondents), are the registered owners of two executed by Jaime to petitioner should have been
parcels of land with a total area of 44 hectares located with conformity of the banks where the properties
in Murcia, Negros Occidental. These properties are were mortgaged; and conditioned on the payment of
referred to as Lot Nos. 138-D and 138-S, and are the ₱6.7 million loan. They pointed out that neither
respectively covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Jaime nor petitioner paid any amount to RPB or PNB;
No. T-103187 and T-103189 (subject properties).
5
and as a result, the waivers of rights in favor of Jaime,
and later to petitioner, were void.
Purportedly, in 1994, without the knowledge and
consent of respondents, Joseph Regalado (petitioner) Subsequently, in their Opposition to Motion to
entered, took possession of, and planted sugar cane Dismiss, respondents contended that the RTC had
13
on the subject properties without paying rent to jurisdiction over the case because their demand for
respondents. In the crop year 1995-1996, petitioner to vacate the properties was made during
respondents discovered such illegal entry, which the crop year 1995- 1996, which was earlier than the
prompted them to verbally demand from petitioner to refe1Tal of the matter to Barangay Cansilayan.
vacate the properties but to no avail.
6
Both parties appealed to the CA. Petitioner also posits that even granting that this
action is considered a plenary action to recover right
On one hand, petitioner reiterated that the RTC had of possession, the RTC still had no jurisdiction
no jurisdiction over the case. He also maintained that because the tax declarations of the properties were
respondents already waived their shares and rights not submitted, and consequently, it cannot be
over the properties to Jaime, who, in turn, renounced determined whether it is the MTC or RTC which has
his rights to petitioner. jurisdiction over the case.
On the other hand, respondents assailed the RTC Moreover, petitioner argues that Jaime's waiver in his
Decision in so far as it failed to award them damages (petitioner's) favor was coupled with the following
as a result of petitioner's purported illegal entry and considerations: 1) ₱400,000.00 cash; 2) a car worth
possession of the subject properties. ₱350,000.00; and 3) a convenience store worth
₱1,500,000.00. He adds that the delivery of the
Ruling of the Court of Appeals properties to him confirms that he (petitioner) gave
said considerations to Jaime.
On May 28, 2012, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision
Later, in his Manifestation and Motion, petitioner
16
proper Metropolitan Trial Court (Me TC), MTC, or 5. A confrontation before the Brgy. Kapitan of Brgy[.]
Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) has exclusive Cansilayan, Murcia, Negros Occidental, and before
original jurisdiction over ejectment cases. Moreover, the Pangkat Tagapag[ka]sundo between herein
jurisdiction of the MeTC, MTC, and MCTC shall parties where plaintiffs again demanded orally for the
include civil actions involving title to or possession of defendant to vacate the premises but defendant
real property, or any interest therein where the refused to vacate the premises and no amicable
assessed value of the property does not exceed settlement was reached during the confrontation of
₱20,000.00 (or ₱50,000.00 in Metro Manila), On the
20
the parties, thus a certificate to file action has been
other hand, the RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction issued x x x;
over civil actions involving title to or possession of real
property, or any interest therein in case the assessed 6. That plaintiffs were barred by the defendant from
value of the property exceeds ₱20,000.00(or entering the prope1iy of the plaintiffs for the latter to
₱50,000.00 in Metro Manila). 21
take possession of the same and plant sugar cane
thereby causing damages to the plaintiffs;
Jurisdiction is thus determined not only by the type of
action filed but also by the assessed value of the 7. That because of the refusal of the defendant to
property. It follows that in accion allow the plaintiffs to take possession and control of
publiciana and reinvindicatoria, the assessed value of their own property, plaintiffs were constrained to seek
the real property is a jurisdictional element to the aid of counsel and consequently thereto this
determine the court that can take cognizance of the complaint. 24
action.22
In this case, petitioner consistently insists that a) the are special jurisdictional facts that must be set forth in
Complaint is one for ejectment; or b) if the same is the complaint to make a case for ejectment, which, as
deemed an accion publiciana, the RTC still lacks mentioned, may either be for forcible entry or unlawful
jurisdiction as the assessed value of the subject detainer.
properties was not alleged in the Complaint.
In particular, a complaint for forcible entry must allege
As such, to ascertain the proper court that has the plaintiff's prior physical possession of the property;
jurisdiction, reference must be made to the averments the fact that plaintiff was deprived of its possession by
in the complaint, and the law in force at the force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth; and the
commencement of the action. This is because only action must be filed within one year from the time the
the facts alleged in the complaint can be the basis for owner or the legal possessor learned of their
determining the nature of the action, and the court dispossession. On the other hand, a complaint for
26