Rem2 Case Digests Rule 70

8/11/2019 Rem2 Case Digests Rule 70

1/10

RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 70: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer || Castro !oco !ato

G.R. No. 182953 October 11, 2010

CORAZON D. SARMIENTA, JOSE DERAMA, CATES RAMA, JOSIE MIWA, TOTONOASCO, JES!S OI"!INO, NOR#ERTO O$EZ, R!#EN ES$OSO, #ERNARDO%ORESCA, MARINA DIMATAO, RO#E DIMANDA&O, RICARDO $E'A, ED!ARDOES$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#

%ACTS

%&e case stemmed from a com$laint' for (Forcible Entry/Unlawful Detainer( )led byres$ondent *analite +omeowners ,ssociation -nc# .*,+,/ against ,*,R, C-1E3,4,ssociation .,*,R,/ and its members# %&e com$laint was ra5ed to t&e *%CC of ,nti$oloCity !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#%&roug& force intimidation t&reatstrategy and stealt& $etitioners entered t&e $remises and constructed t&eir tem$orary&ouses and an o8ce building#9"etitioners liewise even )led a civil case to annul *,+,;stitle on 3e$tember 2


2/10


$etitioners to leave $etitioners became deforciants illegally occu$ying t&e land#2A ellsettled 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 $romiset&at &e will vacate u$on demand failing w&ic& a summary action for e@ectment is t&e $ro$erremedy against &im#2%&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. 1539 Se:te;ber 29, 2010com$laint for violation of "#D# 97 instituted on 2 ,$ril


3/10


wit& an administrative tribunal of s$ecial com$etence and w&en a uniformity of ruling isessential 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 damagesto $etitioners#

ISS!E

%+E +4H4R,!E C4UR% 4F ,""E,3 ERRED -H DEC,R-H1 %+,% %+E *UH-C-", %R-,C4UR% +,3 H4 BUR-3D-C%-4H 4JER %+E 3U!BEC% C4*",-H% F4R EBEC%*EH%UH,FUDE%,-HER F-ED !K "E%-%-4HER CE*EHC-, C,,R, ,1,-H3% RE3"4HDEH%3 %ERE3-%, ,HD

BE3U3 FR,HC-3C4

-ED

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 LAM e@ectment cases concededly fall wit&in t&e originaland e?clusive @urisdiction of )rst level courts by e?$ress $rovision of 3ection AA of "atas#ambansa "lg! $%&,in relation to 3ection $erformance of t&e foregoing $restations res$ondents wereguilty of bad fait& in constructing a &ouse of strong materials on t&e ot 2A and t&atres$ondents stubborn refusal to &eed t&e 20 *arc& 0'02>


4/10


G.R. No. 189859 October 18, 2010

$IO MODESTO *+ CIRIA RI(ERA=MODESTO, "etitioners vs#CAROS !R#INA,>b>ttte b4 t?e ?er> o O)M$IA MIG!E (DA. DE !R#INA Sr@@+ S:o>e/*+ c?re+, +*;e4 ESCOASTICA M. !R#INA, ET A.,Res$ondents#

%ACTS

%&is case stems from a com$laint for recovery of $ossession )led by res$ondent CarlosUrbina .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 ower

!icutan %aguig designated as ot ' "3 272# ,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 designatedas ot A' "3 272# %&ereafter t&e *odestos negotiated wit& Urbina for t&e sale of t&is lot#+owever before t&e $arties could )nali6e t&e sale t&e *odestos allegedly cancelled t&etransaction and began claiming owners&i$ 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 Buly22 >e>>o+of t&e $ro$erty# %&ey also =uestioned t&e legality of Urbina;s *iscellaneous3ales ,$$lication and &is ta? declarations over t&e $ro$erty arguing t&at since t&ese wereobtained w&en t&e land was still not alienable and dis$osable t&ey could not be t&e sourceof any legal rig&ts#

*emorandum Ho# !rb+* ?*> bee+ * re>e+t o $*>*4 Ro*or 929 $o De $*r, M**t Ct4.,$$lying t&e =uali)cations$rovided for in *emorandum 4rder Ho# $o *+ Cr* Moe>to ?*@e*>o e *+ ++;bere I.G.$.S.A. A::c*to+ or t?e >bectot o+ J*+*r4 2F, 2009.C*ro> !rb+*, ?o6e@er, +e@erco+>trcte *+4 ?o>e o+ t?e >bect ot *+ +et?er ?e*ct*4 re>e t?ere+. #e>e>, ?e *re*4 o6+> * re>e+t*ot + M**t Ct46?ere ?e ?* bee+ re>+ * t?>t;e.+ence &e cannot be considered a bona)de resident of t&e sub@ectlot# +e liewise failed to )le &is -#1#"#3#, a$$lication for t&e lot# -nsteadw&at &e &ad )led on Banuary 20 >e>>or4 r?t>co ?*@e bee+ *cre b4 ?> o@er t?e >bect ot.

Furt&ermore t&e *odestos &ave a valid -nsular 1overnment "atent 3ales,$$lication over t&e $ro$erty $ending wit& t&e *! w&ic& t&ey )led on Banuary 27 2009#L2M-n contrast Urbina &as a *iscellaneous 3ales ,$$lication )led in e> oe> +ot co+>ttte :o>>e>>o+ t?ereo+or > t :roo o o6+er>?: + t?e *b>e+ce o t?e c*;*+t> *ct* :o>>e>>o+ #L2'M,nd in lig&t of our categorical )nding t&at t&e *odestos actually occu$ied t&e $ro$erty in
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/189859.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/189859.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/189859.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/189859.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/189859.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/189859.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/189859.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/189859.htm#_ftn27


5/10


=uestion from t&e time t&at it was declared alienable and dis$osable until t&e $resent timet&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 betterrig&t to $ossess t&e $ro$erty# %&us we cannot sustain &is com$laint for e@ectment againstt&e *odestos and $erforce must dismiss t&e same for lac of merit#

G.R. No. 1FF3F J4 2, 2010

DR. DIOSCORO CAR#ONIA,"etitioner vs#MARCEO A#IERA *+ MARICRIS A#IERA$AREDES, S!#STIT!TED #) -ER -EIRS,Res$ondents#

%ACTS

"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 $arcel of landlocated in !arangay Canturing *aasin City# "etitioner furt&er claimed t&at &e is also t&eowner of t&e residential building standing on t&e land w&ic& building &e ac=uired t&roug& aDeed of E?tra@udicial 3ettlement of Estate .Residential !uilding/ wit& aiver and Puitclaim of4wners&i$# +e maintained t&at t&e building was being occu$ied by res$ondents by meretolerance 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$ondents asing t&em to leave t&e$remises wit&in


6/10


-ED

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 ast&ere can be no ot&er $iece of evidence more wort&y of credence t&an a %orrens certi)cate oftitle &e failed to $resent any evidence to substantiate &is claim of owners&i$ or rig&t to t&e$ossession of t&e building# ie t&e C, we cannot acce$t t&e Deed of E?tra@udicial3ettlement of Estate .Residential !uilding/ wit& aiver and Puitclaim of 4wners&i$ e?ecutedby t&e 1arcianos as $roof t&at $etitioner ac=uired owners&i$ of t&e building# %&ere is nos&owing t&at t&e 1arcianos were t&e owners of t&e building or t&at t&ey &ad any $ro$rietaryrig&t over it# Ranged against res$ondents; $roof of $ossession of t&e building since


7/10


A.M. No. MTJ=05=1580 October , 20107%or;er4 OCA I$I No. 0=108=MTJ

Documents

Rem2 Case Digests Rule 70