Rule 68 to 70 (Full Cases)

7/23/2019 Rule 68 to 70 (Full Cases)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rule-68-to-70-full-cases 1/128

RULE 68

FORECLOSURE OFREAL ESTATEMORTGAGE

G.R. No. 183984 April 13, 2011

ARTURO SARTE FLORES, Petitioner,vs.SPOUSES ENRICO L. LINO, !R. "#$ ENA C.LINO, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

T%& C"'&

Before the Court is a petition for review1 assailingthe ! "a# $!!% De&ision$ and the ' (ugust $!!%Resolutionof the Court of (ppeals in C()*.R. SPNo. +'!!.

T%& A#(&)&$&#( F")('

he fa&ts, as gleaned fro- the Court of (ppealsDe&ision, are as follows/

On 1 O&to0er 1++, Edna 2indo 3Edna4 o0tained aloan fro- (rturo 5lores 3petitioner4 a-ounting

to P'!!,!!! pa#a0le on 1 De&e-0er 1++ with 6&o-pounded -onthl# interest and 6 sur&harge in&ase of late pa#-ent. o se&ure the loan, Ednae7e&uted a Deed of Real Estate "ortgage' 3theDeed4 &overing a propert# in the na-e of Edna andher hus0and Enri&o 3Enri&o4 2indo, 8r. 3&olle&tivel#,respondents4. Edna also signed a Pro-issor#Note and the Deed for herself and for Enri&o as hisattorne#)in)fa&t.

Edna issued three &he&9s as partial pa#-ents forthe loan. (ll &he&9s were dishonored forinsu:&ien&# of funds, pro-pting petitioner to ;le a

Co-plaint for 5ore&losure of "ortgage withDa-ages against respondents. he &ase wasra<ed to the Regional rial Court of "anila, Bran&h 3RC, Bran&h 4 and do&9eted as Civil Case No.!!)+=+'$.

In its ! Septe-0er $!! De&ision,> the RC,Bran&h ruled that petitioner was not entitled to ?udi&ial fore&losure of the -ortgage. he RC,Bran&h found that the Deed was e7e&uted 0#Edna without the &onsent and authorit# of Enri&o. he RC, Bran&h noted that the Deed wase7e&uted on 1 O&to0er 1++ while the Spe&ialPower of (ttorne# 3SP(4 e7e&uted 0# Enri&o wasonl# dated ' Nove-0er 1++.

he RC, Bran&h further ruled that petitionerwas not pre&luded fro- re&overing the loan fro-Edna as he &ould ;le a personal a&tion against her.@owever, the RC, Bran&h ruled that it had no ?urisdi&tion over the personal a&tion whi&h should0e ;led in the pla&e where the plaintiA or thedefendant resides in a&&ordan&e with Se&tion $,Rule ' of the Revised Rules on Civil Pro&edure.

Petitioner ;led a -otion for re&onsideration. In its

Order= dated % 8anuar# $!!', the RC, Bran&h denied the -otion for la&9 of -erit.

On % Septe-0er $!!', petitioner ;led a Co-plaintfor Su- of "one# with Da-ages againstrespondents. It was ra<ed to Bran&h '$ 3RC,Bran&h '$4 of the Regional rial Court of "anila,and do&9eted as Civil Case No. !')11!%%.

Respondents ;led their (nswer with (:r-ativeDefenses and Counter&lai-s where the# ad-ittedthe loan 0ut stated that it onl# a-ountedto P'!,!!!. Respondents further alleged that

Enri&o was not a part# to the loan 0e&ause it was&ontra&ted 0# Edna without Enri&os signature.Respondents pra#ed for the dis-issal of the &aseon the grounds of i-proper venue, res ?udi&ata andforu-)shopping, invo9ing the De&ision of the RC,Bran&h . On = "ar&h $!!, respondents also;led a "otion to Dis-iss on the grounds of res ?udi&ata and la&9 of &ause of a&tion.

T%& &)i'io# o* (%& Tri"l Co+r(

On $$ 8ul# $!!, the RC, Bran&h '$ issued anOrder% den#ing the -otion to dis-iss. he RC,

Bran&h '$ ruled that res ?udi&ata will not appl# torights, &lai-s or de-ands whi&h, although growingout of the sa-e su0?e&t -atter, &onstitute separateor distin&t &auses of a&tion and were not put inissue in the for-er a&tion. Respondents ;led a-otion for re&onsideration. In its Order+ dated %5e0ruar# $!!>, the RC, Bran&h '$ deniedrespondents -otion. he RC, Bran&h '$ ruledthat the RC, Bran&h e7pressl# stated that itsde&ision did not -ean that petitioner &ould nolonger re&over the loan petitioner e7tended toEdna.

Respondents ;led a Petition for Certiorari and"anda-us with Pra#er for a rit of Preli-inar#In?un&tion andor e-porar# Restraining Order0efore the Court of (ppeals.

T%& &)i'io# o* (%& Co+r( o* App&"l'

In its ! "a# $!!% De&ision, the Court of (ppealsset aside the $$ 8ul# $!! and % 5e0ruar# $!!>Orders of the RC, Bran&h '$ for having 0eenissued with grave a0use of dis&retion.

he Court of (ppeals ruled that while the general

rule is that a -otion to dis-iss is interlo&utor# andnot appeala0le, the rule ad-its of e7&eptions. heCourt of (ppeals ruled that the RC, Bran&h '$

1

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/apr2011/gr_183984_2011.html#fnt1




















a&ted with grave a0use of dis&retion in den#ingrespondents -otion to dis-iss.

he Court of (ppeals ruled that under Se&tion ,Rule $ of the 1++= Rules of Civil Pro&edure, a part#-a# not institute -ore than one suit for a single&ause of a&tion. If two or -ore suits are institutedon the 0asis of the sa-e &ause of a&tion, the ;lingof one on a ?udg-ent upon the -erits in an# one isavaila0le ground for the dis-issal of the others.

he Court of (ppeals ruled that on a nonpa#-entof a note se&ured 0# a -ortgage, the &reditor has asingle &ause of a&tion against the de0tor, that isre&over# of the &redit with e7e&ution of the suit. hus, the &reditor -a# institute two alternativere-edies/ either a personal a&tion for the &olle&tionof de0t or a real a&tion to fore&lose the -ortgage,0ut not 0oth. he Court of (ppeals ruled thatpetitioner had onl# one &ause of a&tion againstEdna for her failure to pa# her o0ligation and he&ould not split the single &ause of a&tion 0# ;lingseparatel# a fore&losure pro&eeding and a&olle&tion &ase. B# ;ling a petition for fore&losure

of the real estate -ortgage, the Court of (ppealsheld that petitioner had alread# waived hispersonal a&tion to re&over the a-ount &overed 0#the pro-issor# note.

Petitioner ;led a -otion for re&onsideration. In its '(ugust $!!% Resolution, the Court of (ppealsdenied the -otion.

@en&e, the petition 0efore this Court.

T%& I''+&

he sole issue in this &ase is whether the Court of(ppeals &o--itted a reversi0le error in dis-issingthe &o-plaint for &olle&tion of su- of -one# onthe ground of -ultipli&it# of suits.

T%& R+li# o* (%i' Co+r(

he petition has -erit.

he rule is that a -ortgage)&reditor has a single&ause of a&tion against a -ortgagor)de0tor, that is,to re&over the de0t.1! he -ortgage)&reditor hasthe option of either ;ling a personal a&tion for

&olle&tion of su- of -one# or instituting a reala&tion to fore&lose on the -ortgage se&urit#.11 (nele&tion of the ;rst 0ars re&ourse to the se&ond,otherwise there would 0e -ultipli&it# of suits inwhi&h the de0tor would 0e tossed fro- one venueto another depending on the lo&ation of the-ortgaged properties and the residen&e of theparties.1$

he two re-edies are alternative and ea&h re-ed#is &o-plete 0# itself.1 If the -ortgagee opts tofore&lose the real estate -ortgage, he waives thea&tion for the &olle&tion of the de0t, and vice

versa.1'

he Court e7plained/

7 7 7 in the a0sen&e of e7press statutor#provisions, a -ortgage &reditor -a# instituteagainst the -ortgage de0tor either a personala&tion for de0t or a real a&tion to fore&lose the-ortgage. In other words, he -a# pursue either ofthe two re-edies, 0ut not 0oth. B# su&h ele&tion,his &ause of a&tion &an 0# no -eans 0e i-paired,for ea&h of the two re-edies is &o-plete in itself. hus, an ele&tion to 0ring a personal a&tion willleave open to hi- all the properties of the de0tor

for atta&h-ent and e7e&ution, even in&luding the-ortgaged propert# itself. (nd, if he waives su&hpersonal a&tion and pursues his re-ed# againstthe -ortgaged propert#, an unsatis;ed ?udg-entthereon would still give hi- the right to sue forde;&ien&# ?udg-ent, in whi&h &ase, all theproperties of the defendant, other than the-ortgaged propert#, are again open to hi- for thesatisfa&tion of the de;&ien&#. In either &ase, hisre-ed# is &o-plete, his &ause of a&tionundi-inished, and an# advantages attendant tothe pursuit of one or the other re-ed# are purel#a&&idental and are all under his right of ele&tion.On the other hand, a rule that would authorie theplaintiA to 0ring a personal a&tion against thede0tor and si-ultaneousl# or su&&essivel# anothera&tion against the -ortgaged propert#, wouldresult not onl# in -ultipli&it# of suits so oAensive to ?usti&e 3Soriano v. Enriques, $' Phil. %'4 ando0no7ious to law and euit# 3Osorio v. San Agustin,$ Phil. '!'4, 0ut also in su0?e&ting the defendantto the ve7ation of 0eing sued in the pla&e of hisresiden&e or of the residen&e of the plaintiA, andthen again in the pla&e where the propert# lies.1

he Court has ruled that if a &reditor is allowed to;le his separate &o-plaints si-ultaneousl# or

su&&essivel#, one to re&over his &redit and anotherto fore&lose his -ortgage, he will, in eAe&t, 0eauthoried plural redress for a single 0rea&h of&ontra&t at so -u&h &osts to the &ourt and with so-u&h ve7ation and oppressiveness to the de0tor.1>

In this &ase, however, there are &ir&u-stan&es thatthe Court ta9es into &onsideration.

Petitioner ;led an a&tion for fore&losure of-ortgage. he RC, Bran&h ruled that petitionerwas not entitled to ?udi&ial fore&losure 0e&ause theDeed of Real Estate "ortgage was e7e&uted

without Enri&os &onsent. he RC, Bran&h stated/

(ll these &ir&u-stan&es &ertainl# &onspired againstthe plaintiA who has the 0urden of proving his&ause of a&tion. On the other hand, said&ir&u-stan&es tend to support the &lai- ofdefendant Edna 2indo that her hus0and did not&onsent to the -ortgage of their &on?ugal propert#and that the loan appli&ation was her personalde&ision.

(&&ordingl#, sin&e the Deed of Real Estate

"ortgage was e7e&uted 0# defendant Edna 2indola&9s the &onsent or authorit# of her hus0and

$




















Enri&o 2indo, the Deed of Real Estate "ortgage isvoid pursuant to (rti&le +> of the 5a-il# Code.

his does not -ean, however, that the plaintiA&annot re&over the P'!!,!!! loan plus interestwhi&h he e7tended to defendant Edna 2indo. @e&an institute a personal a&tion against thedefendant for the a-ount due whi&h should 0e;led in the pla&e where the plaintiA resides, orwhere the defendant or an# of the prin&ipal

defendants resides at the ele&tion of the plaintiA ina&&ordan&e with Se&tion $, Rule ' of the RevisedRules on Civil Pro&edure. his Court has no ?urisdi&tion to tr# su&h personal a&tion.1=

Edna did not den# 0efore the RC, Bran&h thatshe o0tained the loan. She &lai-ed, however, thather hus0and did not give his &onsent and that hewas not aware of the transa&tion.1% @en&e, the RC,Bran&h held that petitioner &ould still re&overthe a-ount due fro- Edna through a personala&tion over whi&h it had no ?urisdi&tion.

Edna also ;led an a&tion for de&larator# relief0efore the RC, Bran&h + of San Pedro 2aguna3RC, Bran&h +4, whi&h ruled/

(t issue in this &ase is the validit# of thepro-issor# note and the Real Estate "ortgagee7e&uted 0# Edna 2indo without the &onsent of herhus0and.

he real estate -ortgage e7e&uted 0# petitionEdna 2indo over their &on?ugal propert# isundou0tedl# an a&t of stri&t do-inion and -ust 0e&onsented to 0# her hus0and to 0e eAe&tive. In the

instant &ase, the real estate -ortgage, a0sent theauthorit# or &onsent of the hus0and, is ne&essaril#void. Indeed, the real estate -ortgage is this &asewas e7e&uted on O&to0er 1, 1++ and thesu0seuent spe&ial power of attorne# datedNove-0er ', 1++ &annot 0e -ade to retroa&t toO&to0er 1, 1++ to validate the -ortgagepreviousl# -ade 0# petitioner.

he lia0ilit# of Edna 2indo on the prin&ipal &ontra&tof the loan however su0sists notwithstanding theillegalit# of the -ortgage. Indeed, where a-ortgage is not valid, the prin&ipal o0ligation

whi&h it guarantees is not there0# rendered nulland void. hat o0ligation -atures and 0e&o-esde-anda0le in a&&ordan&e with the stipulationpertaining to it. Fnder the foregoing &ir&u-stan&es,what is lost is -erel# the right to fore&lose the-ortgage as a spe&ial re-ed# for satisf#ing orsettling the inde0tedness whi&h is the prin&ipalo0ligation. In &ase of nullit#, the -ortgage deedre-ains as eviden&e or proof of a personalo0ligation of the de0tor and the a-ount due to the&reditor -a# 0e enfor&ed in an ordinar# a&tion.

In view of the foregoing, ?udg-ent is here0#rendered de&laring the deed of real estate

-ortgage as void in the a0sen&e of the authorit# or&onsent of petitioners spouse therein. he lia0ilit#of petitioner on the prin&ipal &ontra&t of loan

however su0sists notwithstanding the illegalit# ofthe real estate -ortgage.1+

he RC, Bran&h + also ruled that Ednas lia0ilit#is not aAe&ted 0# the illegalit# of the real estate-ortgage.

Both the RC, Bran&h and the RC, Bran&h +-isapplied the rules.

(rti&le 1$' of the 5a-il# Code provides/

(rt. 1$'. he ad-inistration and en?o#-ent of the&on?ugal partnership propert# shall 0elong to 0othspouses ?ointl#. In &ase of disagree-ent, thehus0ands de&ision shall prevail, su0?e&t tore&ourse to the &ourt 0# the wife for properre-ed#, whi&h -ust 0e availed of within ;ve #earsfro- the date of &ontra&t i-ple-enting su&hde&ision.

In the event that one spouse is in&apa&itated or

otherwise una0le to parti&ipate in thead-inistration of the &on?ugal properties, the otherspouse -a# assu-e sole powers of ad-inistration. hese powers do not in&lude disposition oren&u-0ran&e without authorit# of the &ourt or thewritten &onsent of the other spouse. In the a0sen&eof su&h authorit# or &onsent the disposition oren&u-0ran&e shall 0e void. -o&/&r, (%&(r"#'")(io# '%"ll & )o#'(r+&$ "' ")o#(i#+i# o&r o# (%& p"r( o* (%& )o#'&#(i#'po+'& "#$ (%& (%ir$ p&r'o#, "#$ " &p&r*&)(&$ "' " i#$i# )o#(r")( +po# (%&"))&p("#)& (%& o(%&r 'po+'& or"+(%ori"(io# (%& )o+r( &*or& (%& o&r i'

i(%$r"# &i(%&r or o(%o&ror'. 3E-phasis supplied4

(rti&le 1$' of the 5a-il# Code of whi&h applies to&on?ugal partnership propert#, is a reprodu&tion of(rti&le +> of the 5a-il# Code whi&h applies to&o--unit# propert#.

Both (rti&le +> and (rti&le 1$= of the 5a-il# Codeprovide that the powers do not in&lude dispositionor en&u-0ran&e without the written &onsent of theother spouse. (n# disposition or en&u-0ran&ewithout the written &onsent shall 0e void. @owever,

0oth provisions also state that Gthe transa&tionshall 0e &onstrued as a &ontinuing oAer on the partof the &onsenting spouse and the third person, "#$" & p&r*&)(&$ "' " i#$i# )o#(r")( +po#(%& "))&p("#)& (%& o(%&r 'po+'& 7 7 70efore the oAer is withdrawn 0# either or 0othoAerors.G

In this &ase, the Pro-issor# Note and the Deed ofReal Estate "ortgage were e7e&uted on 1 O&to0er1++. he Spe&ial Power of (ttorne# was e7e&utedon ' Nove-0er 1++. T%& &5&)+(io# o* (%& SPAi' (%& "))&p("#)& (%& o(%&r 'po+'& (%"(p&r*&)(&$ (%& )o#(i#+i# o&r "' " i#$i#)o#(r")( &(&&# (%& p"r(i&', "i# (%&










&&$ o* R&"l E'("(& Mor("& " /"li$)o#(r")(.

@owever, as the Court of (ppeals noted, petitionerallowed the de&isions of the RC, Bran&h andthe RC, Bran&h + to 0e&o-e ;nal and e7e&utor#without as9ing the &ourts for an alternative relief. he Court of (ppeals stated that petitioner -erel#relied on the de&larations of these &ourts that he&ould ;le a separate personal a&tion and thus

failed to o0serve the rules and settled ?urispruden&e on -ultipli&it# of suits, &losingpetitioners avenue for re&over# of the loan.

Nevertheless, petitioner still has a re-ed# underthe law.

In Chieng v. Santos,$! this Court ruled that a-ortgage)&reditor -a# institute against the-ortgage)de0tor either a personal a&tion for de0tor a real a&tion to fore&lose the -ortgage. heCourt ruled that the re-edies are alternative andnot &u-ulative and held that the ;ling of a &ri-inal

a&tion for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. $$ wasin eAe&t a &olle&tion suit or a suit for the re&over#of the -ortgage)de0t.$1 In that &ase, however, thisCourt pro hac vice, ruled that respondents &ouldstill 0e held lia0le for the 0alan&e of the loan,appl#ing the prin&iple that no person -a# un?ustl#enri&h hi-self at the e7pense of another.$$

he prin&iple of un?ust enri&h-ent is providedunder (rti&le $$ of the Civil Code whi&h provides/

(rt. $$. Ever# person who through an a&t ofperfor-an&e 0# another, or an# other -eans,

a&uires or &o-es into possession of so-ething atthe e7pense of the latter without ?ust or legalground, shall return the sa-e to hi-.

here is un?ust enri&h-ent Gwhen a person un?ustl#retains a 0ene;t to the loss of another, or when aperson retains -one# or propert# of anotheragainst the funda-ental prin&iples of ?usti&e,euit# and good &ons&ien&e.G$ he prin&iple ofun?ust enri&h-ent reuires two &onditions/ 314 thata person is 0ene;ted without a valid 0asis or ?usti;&ation, and 3$4 that su&h 0ene;t is derived atthe e7pense of another.$'1avvphi1

he -ain o0?e&tive of the prin&iple against un?ustenri&h-ent is to prevent one fro- enri&hinghi-self at the e7pense of another without ?ust&ause or &onsideration.$ he prin&iple is appli&a0lein this &ase &onsidering that Edna ad-ittedo0taining a loan fro- petitioners, and the sa-ehas not 0een full# paid without ?ust &ause. heDeed was de&lared void erroneousl# at theinstan&e of Edna, ;rst when she raised it as adefense 0efore the RC, Bran&h and se&ond,when she ;led an a&tion for de&larator# relief0efore the RC, Bran&h +. Petitioner &ould not 0ee7pe&ted to as9 the RC, Bran&h for an

alternative re-ed#, as what the Court of (ppealsruled that he should have done, 0e&ause the RC,Bran&h alread# stated that it had no ?urisdi&tion

over an# personal a&tion that petitioner -ight haveagainst Edna.

Considering the &ir&u-stan&es of this &ase, theprin&iple against un?ust enri&h-ent, 0eing asu0stantive law, should prevail over the pro&eduralrule on -ultipli&it# of suits. he Court of (ppeals,in the assailed de&ision, found that Edna ad-ittedthe loan, e7&ept that she &lai-ed it onl# a-ountedto P'!,!!!. Edna should not 0e allowed to

un?ustl# enri&h herself 0e&ause of the erroneousde&isions of the two trial &ourts when sheuestioned the validit# of the Deed. "oreover,Edna still has an opportunit# to su0-it herdefenses 0efore the RC, Bran&h '$ on her &lai- asto the a-ount of her inde0tedness.

7-EREFORE, the ! "a# $!!% De&ision and the '(ugust $!!% Resolution of the Court of (ppeals inC()*.R. SP No. +'!! are SET ASIE. heRegional rial Court of "anila, Bran&h '$ is dire&tedto pro&eed with the trial of Civil Case No. !')11!%%.

G.R. No. 1366 F&r+"r 28, 2001

RO:ERTO G. ROSALES, "' '+))&''or;i#;i#(&r&'( o* NAPOLEON S. ROSALES "#$ LUIS:USTILLO,petitioners,vs.T-E -ON. COURT OF APPEALS "#$ NATIONALE<ELOMENT CORPORATION, "' '+'(i(+(&$pl"i#(i "#$ (%& '+))&''or;i#;i#(&r&'( o*CONTINENTAL :AN=, respondents.

>NARES;SANTIAGO, J.?

his is a petition for review assailing the de&ision of the Court of (ppeals dated 8anuar# >, 1+++, andthe resolution dated 5e0ruar# 1%, 1+++, in C()*.R.SP No. '>+1.

On (pril 1$, 1+>>, the Continental Ban9 institutedCivil Case No. >1$ with the then Court of 5irstInstan&e of Bala#an, Batangas, Bran&h =,entitled, "Continental Bank, Plainti versus Atlas!imber Compan, #apoleon S. $osales an% &uisBustillo, 'e(en%ants." he &o-plaint1 alleged that(tlas i-0er Co-pan#, through its "anaging

Partner Napoleon Rosales, and 2uis Bustillo in hispersonal &apa&it#, e7e&uted in favor of ContinentalBan9 a pro-issor# note dated (ugust 11, 1+>, inthe a-ount of P1,!!!,!!!.!!H that as se&urit# forthe pa#-ent of the note, Bustillo e7e&uted in favorof the 0an9 a real estate -ortgage over fort#)four3''4 par&els of land registered in his na-e under ransfer Certi;&ate of itle No. )11=, situated inNasug0u, BatangasH that li9ewise as se&urit# forthe pa#-ent of the note, Rosales e7e&uted a realestate -ortgage over fort#)nine 3'+4 par&els ofland registered in his na-e under C Nos. )11%$% and )11%+, also in Nasug0u, BatangasHthat defendants failed and refused to pa# the ;rst

a-ortiation on the loan of P+!,!!!.!!, thusrendering the whole prin&ipal a-ount thereof dueand de-anda0le. PlaintiA 0an9 pra#ed that

'

















defendants 0e ordered to pa# the a-ount of One"illion Pesos 3P1,!!!,!!!.!!4 with interest thereonat %6 per annu- and attorne#s fees euivalent to1!6 thereof, and, in default thereof, that the realestate -ortgages e7e&uted 0# defendants Rosalesand Bustillo in favor of the 0an9 0e ?udi&iall#fore&losed.1)*phi1.n+t

In their (nswer with Counter&lai-,$ defendantsad-itted the e7e&ution of the pro-issor# note and

real estate -ortgages. B# wa# of a:r-ativedefenses, the# averred that the loan was appliedfor under the Industrial *uarant# 2oan 5und 3I*254of the Central Ban9, through Continental Ban9, andwas intended for the &o-pletion of the veneerplant of (tlas i-0er Co-pan#, then 0eing&onstru&ted in Butuan Cit#. Pursuant to the ter-sof the 5und, the pro&eeds of the loan in the a-ountof P1,!!!,!!!.!! were deposited 0# the CentralBan9 with Continental Ban9. Fpon the assuran&e0# Continental Ban9 that the full a-ount ofP1,!!!,!!!.!! will 0e released to the-, defendantse7e&uted the pro-issor# note and real estate

-ortgages. @owever, instead of delivering to the-the entire a-ount of P1,!!!,!!!.!!, ContinentalBan9 delivered onl# P'$',!!!.!! and retained the0alan&e of P=>,!!!.!!, despite repeated de-andsfor the turn)over thereof. Conseuentl#, defendantswere una0le to &o-plete the &onstru&tion of theplant and to -anufa&ture veneer for e7portation tothe Fnited States. Defendants, therefore, set up a&ounter&lai- for pe&uniar#, -oral and e7e-plar#da-ages and for attorne#s fees.

Continental Ban9 ;led its answer to the&ounter&lai-, alleging that out of the net pro&eedsof the loan, in the a-ount of P+++,=!.!!, the su-

of P=,.%$ was applied to previous loanso0tained 0# (tlas i-0er for the initial &onstru&tionof the veneer plant.

On De&e-0er 1>, 1+=', the trial &ourt rendered itsde&ision, the dispositive portion of whi&h reads/

@ERE5ORE, ?udg-ent is here0# renderedas follows/

314 Ordering the defendants (tlas i-0erCo-pan# and Napoleon S. Rosales, ?ointl#and severall#, to pa# plaintiA 0an9 the su-of P1 -illion with interest at the rate of %6per annu- fro- (ugust 11, 1+> until full#paid and the further su- euivalent to 1!6of the total a-ount due, as and forattorne#s fees, plus &osts of suit, andwhi&h defendants shall pa# within ninet#3+!4 da#s fro- date of re&eipt of thisde&isionH

3$4 In default of su&h pa#-ent, the-ortgaged properties in&luding thei-prove-ents e7isting thereon &overed 0#OC sic- No. )11= and C No. 11$%$,

0oth of the 2and Re&ords of Batangas, shall0e sold at pu0li& au&tion to satisf# the ?udg-ent herein, without pre?udi&e to the

issuan&e of writ of e7e&ution againstdefendants (tlas i-0er Co-pan# andNapoleon S. Rosales in the event that thepro&eeds of the fore&losure sale 0einsu:&ient to satisf# the entire ?udg-ent.

SO ORDERED.'

Su0seuentl#, the trial &ourt issued an Order dated(pril $$, 1+=, a-ending the aforesaid de&ision asfollows/

5inding plaintiAs -otion to a-end thede&ision dated De&e-0er 1>, 1+=' to 0ewell)founded, sa-e is here0# granted, andthe dispositive part of the de&isionspe&i;&all# paragraph $ thereof, is here0#a-ended in the sense that Original ransfer Certi;&ate of itle No. )11=should read as ransfer Certi;&ate of itleNo. )11= and that ransfer Certi;&ate of itle No. )11%+ registered in the na-e ofNapoleon S. Rosales given as se&urit# for

the o0ligation -entioned in the &o-plaintshould 0e in&luded in the pu0li& au&tionsale to satisf# the ?udg-ent in &ase ofdefault in the pa#-ent of the o0ligation.

SO ORDERED.

On 8ul# 1', 1+=, after as&ertaining thatdefendants have failed to pa# the ?udg-ent de0twithin ninet# 3+!4 da#s fro- 8anuar# $, 1+=,when servi&e of the de&ision on the- was dee-ed&o-pleted, the &ourt issued the rit ofE7e&ution,> &o--anding the Bran&h Deput# SheriA

to sell at pu0li& au&tion the lands &overed 0# CNos. )11=, )11%$%, and )11%+.

(t the fore&losure sale, Continental Ban9 wasawarded the lands as the highest 0idder for thepri&e of P1$!,!!.!!. (&&ordingl#, the Bran&hDeput# SheriA of the C5I, Bran&h JII, Bala#an,Batangas, e7e&uted the O:&ers Deed of Sale= onSepte-0er $, 1+=, &onve#ing to ConsolidatedBan9 the -ortgaged par&els of land.

On O&to0er !, 1+=, Continental Ban9 ;led a"otion for Con;r-ation of O:&ers Deed of Sale

and o Order Issuan&e of Certi;&ate of 5inalRe&ord.% he hearing on the -otion was set onDe&e-0er , 1+=, and later reset to 5e0ruar# $!,1+=>. In the -eanti-e, (tt#. Santiago 5. (lidio,&olla0orating &ounsel for defendants, ;led a"anifestation and "otion,+ alleging that he had0een designated as the Cit# 2egal O:&er of theCit# of "anila sin&e De&e-0er $!, 1+='H and thaton 5e0ruar# $!, 1+=>, he was dire&ted 0# the"a#or of "anila to attend a &onferen&e at"ala&aKang Pala&e with Presidential (ssistant 8uanC. uvera. @en&e, he -oved that his appearan&e atthe hearing on said date 0e dispensed with andthat defendants and their lead &ounsel, (tt#.

agalo, 0e served noti&e of hearing.



he lower &ourt issued an Order dated 8une 1,1+=>,1! den#ing (tt#. (lidios pra#er for defer-entof the hearing and granting the &on;r-ation andapproval of sheriAs sale.

On Septe-0er 1+, 1++>, petitioners Ro0erto *.Rosales, as su&&essor)in)interest of Napoleon S.Rosales, and 2uis Bustillo, ;led with the lower&ourt, then designated as the Regional rial Courtof Bala#an, Batangas, Bran&h +, a "otion to

Reopen the &ase, on the ground that defendantsand their lead &ounsel never re&eived the de&isiondated De&e-0er 1>, 1+='H that the# were nevernoti;ed of an# hearing for the &on;r-ation of theSheriAs Deed of SaleH and that the lower &ourt didnot &ondu&t a hearing prior to the issuan&e of itsOrder dated 8une 1, 1+=>, &on;r-ing the SheriAsDeed of Sale. Petitioners pra#ed, a-ong others,that the sheriAs sale and order of &on;r-ation 0eset asideH and that another ninet#)da# period 0e;7ed within whi&h the# shall pa# the ?udg-entde0t.

In an Order dated "ar&h 1=, 1++=,11

the trial &ourtdenied petitioners -otion to reopen the &ase.

"eanwhile, on 8une !, 1++=, the lower &ourt,resolving an E/Parte "otion to Order the Issuan&eof 5inal Deed of Sale ;led 0# National Develop-entCorporation, the su&&essor)in)interest ofContinental Ban9, ruled as follows/

Perfor&e, the SheriA does not have an#option 0ut to e7e&ute the 5inal Deed ofSale as -andated 0# Se&tion > 3a4 of P.D.1$+ and there is no need for the Courts

intervention in order for the sheriA todis&harge his -andated fun&tion. 5or to doso, it would leave into the hands of theSheriA the power to deter-ine when totransfer the propert# to the pur&haser ashe wishes to.

(CCORDIN*2L, the e7)parte -otion ishere0# DENIED.1$

On that sa-e date of 8une !, 1++=, the E7)O:&ioSheriA of the Regional rial Court of Bala#an,Batangas, e7e&uted the 5inal Deed of Sale in favor

of Continental Ban9.

1

Petitioners ;led a -otion for re&onsideration of thedenial of their -otion to reopen the &ase, 0ut thesa-e was denied on Nove-0er ', 1++=.1' hus, on 8anuar# $, 1++%, petitioners ;led with the Court of(ppeals a petition forcertiorari, do&9eted as C()*.R. SP No. '>+1, entitled, "$oberto 0. $osales,as successor/in/interest o( #apoleon S. $osales an%&uis . Bustillo, Petitioners versus 2on. Elihu A.3ba4e5 as Presi%ing 6u%ge o( the $egional !rialCourt o( Balaan, Batangas, Branch 78 #ational'evelopment Corporation, as substitute% plaintian% successors in interest o( Continental Bank8

an%, Arturo 0. 9atibag, as E/O:cio Sheri o(Balaan, Batangas, $espon%ents."1

Petitioners argued, in ;ne, that the lower &ourta-ended the de&ision in its Order dated (pril $$,1+=, 0# adding C No. )11%+ to the propertiesto 0e sold at pu0li& au&tion, without prior noti&e topetitioners 3defendants therein4. he a-end-entwas su0stantial 0e&ause it in&luded propert# whi&hwas not stated in the original de&isionH hen&e, theninet#)da# period for petitioners to pa# the ?udg-ent de0t should 0e re&9oned not fro- thedate of servi&e of the original de&ision 0ut fro- the

date of servi&e of the a-end-ent thereto.Conseuentl#, plaintiAs -otion for e7e&ution ;ledon "a# , 1+=, or 0arel# eleven da#s after theOrder a-ending the de&ision, was pre-atureinas-u&h as the thirt#)da# regle-entar# period toappeal had not #et elapsed. "ore i-portantl#, thelower &ourts Order dated 8une !, 1+= for theissuan&e of a rit of E7e&ution was null and void,sin&e this was done 0efore the e7piration of theninet#)da# period for defendants to pa# the ?udg-ent de0t. herefore, petitioners &ontend thatthe# should 0e allowed another period of ninet#3+!4 da#s within whi&h to pa# the ?udg-ent de0t.

Petitioners further argue that the sale to privaterespondent of the lands, &onsisting of a total of$=1.!> he&tares, for the -easl# su- ofP1$!,!!.!!, -ust 0e stri&9en down as null andvoid for 0eing grossl# inadeuate andun&ons&iona0le as to sho&9 the -oral sense."oreover, the in&lusion at the au&tion sale of thepropert# of 2uis Bustillo, &overed 0# C No. )11=, was li9ewise null and void in view of thelower &ourts ;nding in its de&ision that G2uisBustillo did not sign the pro-issor# note andtherefore should not 0e held lia0le for the sa-e.G1>

2i9ewise, petitioners assail the validit# of the orderof &on;r-ation issued 0# the lower &ourt for having0een issued without aAording the- noti&e andhearing, as shown 0# the Certi;&ation of the Cler9of Court of the Regional rial Court of Bala#an,Batangas, dated "ar&h 11, 1+++,1= to the eAe&tthat &ounsel for Napoleon S. Rosales was notfurnished a &op# of the Order of the &ourt dated 8une 1, 1+=>. (s -ortgagors, the# should have0een aAorded a hearing and an opportunit# toshow &ause wh# the sale should not 0e &on;r-ed,as 0# proof of irregularities therein or grossinadeua&# of the pri&e. he la&9 of su&h a noti&e

vitiates the &on;r-ation sale, whi&h -a# 0e setaside an#ti-e.

5inall#, petitioners a&&used Consolidated Ban9 ofla&hes and pres&ription for its failure to &onsolidateits title for twent# 3$!4 #ears.

On 8anuar# >, 1+++, the Court of (ppeals dis-issedthe petition.1% Petitioners -otion forre&onsideration was denied in its Resolution dated5e0ruar# 1%, 1+++.1+ @en&e, this petition for review.

In its &o--ent,$! private respondent National

Develop-ent Corporation, su&&essor)in)interest ofContinental Ban9, -aintained that NapoleonRosales was dul# noti;ed of all Orders of the trial

>



&ourt. In fa&t, petitioners wrote several letters toprivate respondent wherein the# reuested thatthe# 0e allowed to repur&hase the properties, andthat the# failed to pa# the real estate ta7es on thelands or perfor- an# a&t &onsistent with ownershipthereof. Based on these, petitioners are estoppedfro- &lai-ing ownership over the properties

On (ugust $, 1+++, the petition was given due&ourse and the parties were reuired to su0-it

their respe&tive -e-oranda.$1

here is -erit in the petition.

he Court of (ppeals dis-issed the petitionfor certiorari on the -ain ground that servi&e onpetitioners of the de&ision dated De&e-0er 1>,1+=' as well as the orders of the lower &ourt weredee-ed &o-pletedH and that petitioners, 0# theirsu0seuent a&ts, should 0e dee-ed to have&onstru&tive noti&e of the de&ision of the &ase aquo. @owever, the Court of (ppeals failed toaddress petitioners pri-ar# argu-ent in their

petition for certiorari M that the issuan&e of the writof e7e&ution was null and void for failure to aAordpetitioners the full ninet#)da# period within whi&hto pa# the ?udg-ent de0t and avoid the sale oftheir properties at pu0li& au&tion.

e agree with petitioners that their period ofappeal and the ninet# da#s gra&e period withinwhi&h the# &ould have paid the ?udg-ent de0tshould have 0een &ounted fro- servi&e of theOrder dated (pril $$, 1+=, whi&h su0stantiall#a-ended the de&ision. he a-endator# Orderadded C No. )11%+ to the properties that were

to 0e ?udi&iall# fore&losed and sold at pu0li&au&tion in the event that defendants therein fail topa# the ?udg-ent de0t within the ninet#)da#period.

(s su&h, the period to appeal should 0e re&9onedfro- servi&e of the said a-endator# Order. herea ?udg-ent is a-ended, the date of thea-end-ent should 0e &onsidered the date of thede&ision in the &o-putation of the period forperfe&ting the appeal.$$ 5or all intents andpurposes, the lower &ourt rendered a new ?udg-ent fro- whi&h the ti-e to appeal -ust 0ere&9oned.$

In the &ase at 0ar, the re&ords ree&t that a &op# of the a-endator# Order was sent to defense &ounsel0# registered -ail on (pril $, 1+=. (ssu-ingthere was &onstru&tive noti&e, servi&e thereof -usthave 0een dee-ed &o-pleted so-eti-ethereafter. Conseuentl#, the -otion for e7e&ution;led 0# Continental Ban9 on "a# , 1+= waspre-ature, inas-u&h as it was still within theregle-entar# period for petitioners to appeal,whi&h under the Rules in for&e at that ti-e was;7ed at thirt# da#s.$'

34he rule is that a ?udg-ent -a# 0e-odi;ed prior to the perfe&tion of theappeal while the lower &ourt still has

&ontrol over said ?udg-ent. In the &aseinvolved, there was an a&tual -ateriala-end-ent of the dispositive portion ofthe original de&ision 0efore an appeal wasperfe&ted 0# the defendant. It is li9ewisesettled that, in su&h a situation and for allintents and purposes, a new ?udg-ent has0een pro-ulgated and it is fro- re&eiptthereof that the period to appeal -ust 0ere&9oned.$

"ore i-portantl#, the writ of e7e&ution issued 0#the trial &ourt on 8ul# 1', 1+=, whi&h states thatGdefendants (tlas i-0er Co-pan#, Napoleon S.Rosales and 2uis Bustillo failed to -a9e an#pa#-ent even after the ninet# 3+!4 da# periodfro- 8anuar# $, 1+=, when servi&e of theDe&ision upon the- is dee-ed &o-pleted,G$> and&o--anding the Bran&h Deput# SheriA to sell atpu0li& au&tion all the fore&losed properties, wasnull and void. he ninet#)da# period within whi&hpetitioners &ould have paid the ?udg-ent de0t andthus avoided the sale of their properties at pu0li&

au&tion should have &o--en&ed a few da#s fro-(pril $, 1+=. hen the rit of E7e&ution wasissued on 8ul# 1', 1+=, the said ninet#)da# periodhad not #et e7pired.

Sin&e petitioners were deprived of the full use ofthe ninet#)da# period within whi&h to pa# the ?udg-ent de0t, the writ of e7e&ution and the orderto sell the properties at pu0li& au&tion were nulland void. ( ?udg-ent in an a&tion for fore&losure of -ortgage &ould onl# 0e e7e&uted in a -annerpres&ri0ed in the Rules. here the order ofe7e&ution was not in &onfor-it# with the Rules, thesa-e is null and void.$= he order for defendants to

pa# the ?udg-ent de0t within ninet# da#s, prior tothe sale of the fore&losed properties at pu0li&au&tion, is a su0stantive reuire-ent whi&h &annot0e o-itted.$%

his +!)da# period given in the rule is not apro&edural reuire-ent -erel#H it is asu0stantive right granted to the -ortgagede0tor as the last opportunit# to pa# thede0t and save his -ortgaged propert# fro-;nal disposition at the fore&losure sale. It isone of the two steps ne&essar# to destro#what in law is 9nown as the -ortgagors

Geuit# of rede-ption,G the other 0eing thesale. It -a# not 0e o-itted. (s the writ ofe7e&ution or the order allowing the sale ofthe -ortgaged propert# was issued withoutgranting the -ortgage de0tor said +!)da#period, the order for the sale of thepropert# would 0e a denial of a su0stantialright and void.$+

Conseuentl#, the sale to Continental Ban9 of thesu0?e&t real properties is li9ewise null and void.Ne&essaril#, respondents &ontention thatpetitioners right of a&tion has pres&ri0ed -ustperfor&e fail. he a&tion or defense for thede&laration of ine7isten&e of a &ontra&t does notpres&ri0e.! ( &ontra&t whi&h is null and void is

=



su0?e&t to atta&9 at an# ti-e.1 Being null and void,the sale of the properties to Continental Ban9produ&ed no legal eAe&ts whatsoever. ;uo% nullumest, nullum pro%ucit eectum.$

(part fro- the foregoing, there e7ists in this &ase a-ore &o-pelling reason to nullif# the au&tion sale,whi&h is the gross inadeua&# of the pri&e at whi&hrespondent a&uired the lands. If it is to 0epresu-ed that private transa&tions were fair and

regular, and the ordinar# &ourse of 0usiness wasfollowed,' then the properties had a -ar9et valueof, at the ver# least, One "illion Pesos3P1,!!!,!!!.!!4, whi&h was the a-ount of the loanse&ured 0# the real estate -ortgages e7e&uted onthe land. "oreover, it is also presu-ed that therewas su:&ient &onsideration for a&ontra&t. Parentheti&all#, it is worth# to note thatthe totalit# of the -ortgaged properties &onsistedof ninet#)three lots, with an aggregate area of$=1.!> he&tares. hese vast tra&ts of land,however, were sold to Continental Ban9 for onl#P1$!,!!.!!, or roughl# twelve per&ent 31$64 of

the esti-ated -ar9et value of the propert#.

here is no dispute that -ere inadeua&# of thepri&e per se will not set aside a ?udi&ial sale of realpropert#. Nevertheless, where the inadeua&# ofthe pri&e is purel# sho&9ing to the &ons&ien&e, su&hthat the -ind revolts at it and su&h that areasona0le -an would neither dire&tl# norindire&tl# 0e li9el# to &onsent to it,> the sale shall0e de&lared null and void.= In the earl# &aseof 'irector o( &an%s v. Abarca,% we ruled/

In dis-issing the &lai- of Sarenas andBragana, the lower &ourt held that thesale 0# the sheriA of the propert# inuestion in favor of said &lai-ants was nulland void, 0e&ause it was not -ade ina&&ordan&e with the reuire-ents of thelaw, and also 0e&ause the a-ount ofP%==.$ paid 0# Sarenas and Bragana wasa0solutel# inadeuate. In de&iding thisappeal we do not dee- it ne&essar# todis&uss all the uestions raised 0# theparties in their 0riefs. 7& &li&/& (%"((%& lo&r )o+r( "' ri%( i# $&)l"ri#(%& '%&ri@' '"l& #+ll "#$ /oi$ o# (%&ro+#$ o* (%& i#"$&+") o* (%& pri)&

p"i$. It appears that in 1+$= the assessedvalue of the &ontested propert# was -orethan P>!,!!!. A B+$i)i"l '"l& o* r&"lprop&r( ill & '&( "'i$& %&# (%&pri)& i' 'o i#"$&+"(& "' (o '%o) (%&)o#')i&#)& o* (%& )o+r(. 3NationalBan9 vs. *onale, ' Phil., >+.4+

Respondents allege that petitioners should 0e heldguilt# of la&hes. e do not agree. here is noa0solute rule as to what &onstitutes la&hes orstaleness of de-andH ea&h &ase is to 0edeter-ined a&&ording to its parti&ular&ir&u-stan&es. he uestion of la&hes is addressedto the sound dis&retion of the &ourt and sin&ela&hes is an euita0le do&trine, its appli&ation is

&ontrolled 0# euita0le &onsiderations. It &annot 0ewor9ed to defeat ?usti&e or to perpetrate fraud andin?usti&e.'! In Santiago v. Court o( Appeals,'1 weheld/

(s for la&hes, its essen&e is the failure ornegle&t, for an unreasona0le andune7plained length of ti-e to do thatwhi&h, 0# the e7er&ise of due diligen&e,&ould or should have 0een done earlierH it

is the negligen&e or o-ission to assert aright within a reasona0le ti-e, warrantinga presu-ption that the part# entitled toassert it either has a0andoned it orde&lined to assert it eli v. Buenase%a,<=> SC$A 1?7, 1@< 177@, citing Cristobalv. 9elchor, D SC$A 1@, 1D< 17-. Butthere is, to 0e sure, no a0solute rule as towhat &onstitutes la&hes or staleness ofde-andH ea&h &ase is to 0e deter-ineda&&ording to its parti&ular &ir&u-stan&es. he uestion of la&hes is addressed to thesound dis&retion of the &ourt and sin&e

la&hes is an euita0le do&trine, itsappli&ation is &ontrolled 0# euita0le&onsiderations. It &annot 0e wor9ed todefeat ?usti&e or to perpetrate fraud andin?usti&e 6imene5 v. ernan%e5, 1D= SC$A17>, 17 177>-. In the &ase under&onsideration, it would not onl# 0ei-pra&ti&al 0ut well)nigh un?ust andpatentl# iniuitous to appl# la&hes againstprivate respondent and vest ownershipover a valua0le pie&e of real propert# infavor of petitioners 0# virtue of ana0solutel# si-ulated deed of sale never, inthe ;rst pla&e, -eant to &onve# an# right

over the su0?e&t propert#. It is the 0etterrule that &ourts, under the prin&iple ofeuit#, will not 0e guided or 0ound stri&tl#0# the statute of li-itations or the do&trineof la&hes when to do so, -anifest wrong orin?usti&e would result $a4eses v.nterme%iate Appellate Court, 1D SC$A?7, =>= 177>, citing Cristobal v. 9elchor,supra-.'$

Respondent argues that petitioners should li9ewise0e de&lared estopped fro- see9ing the de&larationof nullit# of the au&tion sale 0e&ause the# oAered

to repur&hase the lands fro- the 0an9. It appearsthat these proposals were -ade 0etween theperiods Septe-0er $, 1++ and 8ul# !,1++>,' whi&h was prior to the ;ling 0# petitionersof their -otion to reopen the &ase on Septe-0er1>, 1++>. Rather than &onstruing this oAer againstpetitioners, this gesture -ust 0e ta9en as anintention to avoid further litigation and, thus,partoo9 of the nature of an oAer to &o-pro-ise. (ssu&h, the sa-e &annot 0e ta9en as an ad-issionthat petitioners were lia0le for the ?udg-entde0t.'' Ne&essaril#, and with -ore reason, the oAershould not 0e ta9en as a waiver of their right toassail the validit# of the sale. Jeril#, 0# oAering to

redee- the properties, petitioners would attaintheir ulti-ate o0?e&tive, i.e., to pa# oA the ?udg-ent de0t and regain ownership of their lands.

%



hen respondent refused this last)dit&h proposal,as it were, petitioners were &onstrained to resort tolegal -eans to a&hieve their goal, and thus ;ledwith the trial &ourt their -otion to reopen the&ase.1)*phi1.n+t

"oreover, we ;nd that, insofar as petitionerBustillos land is &on&erned, the dispositive portionof the de&ision was not in a&&ord with the ;ndingsas &ontained in the 0od# thereof. hile the

dispositive portion prevails over the 0od# of thede&ision in &ase of &oni&t, this rule does not appl#where it is &lear fro- the 0od# of the de&ision thatthere was a glaring error -ade in the dispositiveportion, in whi&h &ase the 0od# of the de&ision will&ontrol.

he general rule is, where there is a&oni&t 0etween the dispositive portion orthe (allo and the 0od# of the de&ision,the (allo &ontrols. his rule rests on thetheor# that the (allo is the ;nal order whilethe opinion in the 0od# is -erel# a

state-ent ordering nothing.@owever, *here the inevitable conclusion(rom the bo% o( the %ecision is so clear asto sho* that there *as a mistake in the%ispositive portion, the bo% o( the%ecision *ill prevail.'

In the &ase 0elow, the trial &ourt &learl# found thatBustillo did not -a9e or sign the pro-issor# note,and thus de&lared that he should not 0e held lia0lefor the loan and his propert# should not 0e sold atpu0li& au&tion, unless the properties in&luded inpetitioner Rosales -ortgage was not su:&ient tosatisf# the entire -one# ?udg-ent. In thedispositive portion, however, the trial &ourt orderedthat C No. )11=, in the na-e of petitionerBustillo, was to 0e sold at pu0li& au&tion,a0solutel# and without uali;&ation. his part ofthe ?udg-ent, whi&h su0?e&ted Bustillos propert#pri-aril# lia0le for the ?udg-ent de0tnotwithstanding the ;nding that the sa-e shouldonl# 0e -ade to answer for the de0t in a su0sidiar#-anner, violated Bustillos right against thedeprivation of propert# without due pro&ess of law.@en&e, the 0od# of the de&ision should haveprevailed over the dispositive portion, andBustillos propert# should not have 0een sold at

pu0li& au&tion unless it was shown that the lands0elonging to Napoleon Rosales were insu:&ient tosatisf# the ?udg-ent de0t.

herefore, the sheriAs sale of C Nos. )11=, )11%$% and )11%+ to Continental Ban9 is here0#de&lared null and void. It should 0e stressed thatwe are not here &alled upon to resolve the -eritsof Civil Case No. >1$, as &ontained in the de&isionof the Court of 5irst Instan&e of Bala#an, Batangasdated De&e-0er 1>, 1+='. In their petitionfor certiorari 0efore the Court of (ppeals as well asin the petition for review 0efore us, petitionersuestion Continental Ban9s a&t of de0iting thesu- of P=>,!!!.!! fro- the pro&eeds of theirloan, purportedl# to satisf# previous o0ligations

in&urred 0# (tlas i-0er Co-pan#. @owever, the;ndings of fa&t of the trial &ourt on this -atterwere not appealed 0# petitioners, albeit for reasonsnot attri0uta0le to the-.

@en&e, the de&ision of De&e-0er 1>, 1+=', asa-ended 0# the Order dated (pril $$, 1+=, shouldnot 0e distur0ed, e7&ept onl# to delete C No.11= in the na-e of 2uis Bustillo fro- the landsto 0e ?udi&iall# fore&losed, in view of our ;nding as

a0ove)stated. Petitioners, therefore, re-ain lia0leto pa# respondent the a-ount of the loan ofP1,!!!,!!!.!!, with interest thereon at the rate of%6 per annu-, and an a-ount euivalent to 1!6thereof as attorne#s fees, as stipulated in thepro-issor# note. Petitioners are here0# granted anew period of one hundred twent# 31$!4 da#swithin whi&h to pa# the sa-e, otherwise the lands&overed 0# C Nos. 11%$% and 11%+ shall 0esold at pu0li& au&tion to satisf# the de0t. Fnder the1++= Rules of Civil Pro&edure, the periodpres&ri0ed for that purpose in &ases of ?udi&ialfore&losure is not less than ninet# 3+!4 da#s nor

-ore than one hundred twent# 31$!4 da#s,&ounted fro- entr# of ?udg-ent.'>

7-EREFORE, in view of the foregoing, theDe&ision of the Court of (ppeals dated 8anuar# >,1+++, and the Resolution dated 5e0ruar# 1%, 1+++,in C()*.R. SP No. '>+1, are RE<ERSE "#$ SETASIE. he sale of petitioners lands &overed 0# C Nos. )11=, )11%$% and )11%+ toContinental Ban9 is de&lared NULL "#$ <OI. (n#transfers -ade and an# and all &erti;&ates of titleissued in lieu of C Nos. )11=, )11%$% and )11%+, are ORERE CANCELLE.

Petitioners are ordered to pa# to respondentNational Develop-ent Corporation, as su&&essor)in)interest of Continental Ban9, the su- of One"illion Pesos 3P1,!!!,!!!.!!4, with interest thereonat the rate of eight per&ent 3%64 per annu-&o-puted fro- (ugust 11, 1+> until the date offull pa#-ent, and an a-ount euivalent to tenper&ent 31!64 of the total a-ount due, as and forattorne#s fees, plus &osts of suit, within a period of one hundred twent# 31$!4 da#s fro- the entr# of ?udg-ent. In default of su&h pa#-ent, the propert#in&luded in C Nos. )11%$% and )11%+ in thena-e of Napoleon S. Rosales shall 0e sold at pu0li&

au&tion to satisf# the ?udg-ent.

G.R. No. L;4322 !+l , 1989

GO<ERNMENT SER<ICE INSURANCE S>STEMGSISD, petitioner,vs.T-E COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO,:RANC- III, ILOILO CIT> "#$ NELITA M. <A.E :ACALING MARIA TERESA INTEGRATEE<ELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.

6. !. Barrera an% Associates (or respon%ent 9A!'O.

$amon A. 0on5ales (or #enita Bacaling.

+



GRIO;AUINO, J.?

he legal issue presented in this appeal0# certiorari is whether, after the ?udi&ialfore&losure of a real estate -ortgage and the&on;r-ation of the sale, the trial &ourt -a# grantor ;7 another period for the rede-ption of thefore&losed propert# 0# the assignee of the-ortgagors euit# of rede-ption.

In 1+=, a real estate loan of P>!!,!!! pa#a0le in-onthl# install-ents within a period of ten 31!4#ears with =6 interest per annu-, was granted tothe spouses Ra-on and Nelita Ba&aling 0# thepetitioner, *overn-ent Servi&e Insuran&e S#ste-3hereafter *SIS4 for the develop-ent of theBa&aling)"oreno su0division. o se&ure therepa#-ent of the loan, the Ba&alings e7e&uted infavor of the *SIS a real estate -ortgage on four 3'4lots owned 0# the-. Out of the approved loan ofP>!!,!!!, onl# P$'!,!!! had 0een released to

the- 0# the *SIS as of Nove-0er 11, 1+=.

he Ba&alings failed to ;nish the su0divisionpro?e&t and pa# the a-ortiations on the loan sothe *SIS, on "a# $$, 1++, ;led in the Court of5irst Instan&e of Iloilo a &o-plaint for ?udi&ialfore&losure of the -ortgage 3Civil Case No. $4.During the penden&# of the &ase, Ra-on Ba&alingpassed awa#.

In a de&ision dated O&to0er , 1+>!, the &ourtordered the widow, for herself and asad-inistratri7 of the estate of Ra-on Ba&aling, to

pa# the *SIS/

314 P$'!,!!! with interest at =6per annu- fro- "a# $$, 1++ untilthe a-ount was full# paidH

3$4 to pa# the su- of P$1,%=+.>as a&&u-ulated interests on thede0t up to 5e0ruar# 11, 1++ plus=6 interest per annu-, fro-5e0ruar# 1$,1++ until full# paidH

34 to pa# l!6 of the ?udg-ent as

attorne#s fees and &ostsH and

3'4 should she fail to pa#, ordeposit with the Cler9 of Court, thea0ove a-ounts within a period ofninet# 3+!4 da#s fro- re&eipt of a&op# of the de&ision, the four-ortgaged lots would 0e sold atpu0li& au&tion to satisf# the-ortgage de0t, and the surplus ifan# should 0e delivered to thedefendant Nelita Jda. de Ba&aling.3pp. 1$)1, Re&ord on (ppeal,4

"rs. Ba&aling failed to pa# the ?udg-ent de0twithin +! da#s after re&eipt of the de&ision of the

&ourt. Conseuentl#, the -ortgaged lots were soldat pu0li& au&tion on 5e0ruar# $%, 1+>1. he *SISwas the highest 0idder at the sale.

On "ar&h 1, 1+>1, the *SIS ;led a -otion for&on;r-ation of the sale of the propert# to it 3p. $,Re&ord on (ppeal4. On O&to0er 1!, 1+>1, itreiterated said -otion and further as9ed for ade;&ien&# ?udg-ent against the -ortgagor, its 0idof P=',%.$ 0eing inadeuate to &over the

?udg-ent de0t whi&h had swelled to P+,!$.%as of (ugust 1, 1+>1 3p. !, Re&ord on (ppeal4.

On De&e-0er 1%, 1+=$, respondent "aria eresaIntegrated Develop-ent Corporation 3"IDC4, asalleged assignee of the -ortgagors Gright ofrede-ption,G ;led a G"otion to E7er&ise the Rightof Rede-ptionG 3p. ', Re&ord on (ppeal4. he-otion was granted 0# the trial &ourt in an orderdated De&e-0er $!, 1+=$. Che&9 No. ")'+' ofthe China Ban9ing Corporation in the a-ount of Pl,1!!,!!! was delivered 0# "IDC to the *SIS aspa#-ent of the rede-ption pri&e. @owever, the

&he&9 was dishonored 0# the drawee 0an9 0e&auseit was drawn against a &losed a&&ount.

On -otion of the *SIS the &ourt issued on 5e0ruar#, 1+= an order de&laring null and void therede-ption of the propert# 0# respondent "IDC.

hereafter, written proposals were sent 0# saidrespondent to the *SIS for the rede-ption of thefore&losed propert#, 0ut the *SIS reuired &ashpa#-ent of the rede-ption pri&e.

On O&to0er $, 1+=, respondent Nelita Ba&aling

;led a -otion to re)open the &ase so she &ouldprove the inadeua&# of the pri&e of the sale of the-ortgaged propert# 3p. >, Re&ord on (ppeal4. he*SIS ;led an opposition. In an order datedDe&e-0er %, 1+=, respondent &ourt deniedNelitas -otion, &on;r-ed the sale of the-ortgaged propert#, and rendered a de;&ien&# ?udg-ent in favor of *SIS 3p. =>, Re&ord on(ppeal4.

On De&e-0er 1+, 1+=, fourteen 31'4 #ears afterthe fore&losure sale on 5e0ruar# $%, 1+>1 andal-ost three 34 #ears after the &ourt had annulled

on 5e0ruar# , 1+= its rede-ption of thefore&losed propert#, respondent "IDC ;led a-otion for re&onsideration of the &ourts order andsought the restoration of its right of rede-ption. he &ourt, over the strong opposition of the *SIS,re&onsidered on 8anuar# 1+, 1+=> its order ofDe&e-0er %, 1+= and granted "IDC a period ofone #ear after the ;nalit# of its order of 8anuar# 1+,1+=> to redee- the Ba&aling properties 3p. +',Re&ord on (ppeal4.

he *SIS sought a re&onsideration of that order onthe ground that the &ourt -a# not e7tend theperiod for the rede-ption of the propert# 3p. +,

Re&ord on (ppeal4.

1!



On 5e0ruar# 1$,1+=>, the &ourt -odi;ed its orderof 8anuar# 1+, 1+=> 0# giving "IDC one 314 #earfro- 8anuar# 1+, 1+=> within whi&h to redee- theBa&aling propert#, instead of one #ear fro- the;nalit# of the 8anuar# 1+, 1+=> order 3p. 1!1,Re&ord on (ppeal4. Petitioner re&eived a &op# ofthis last order on 5e0ruar# 1$,1+=>.

On "ar&h 1, 1+=>, the *SIS appealed 0# &ertiorarito this Court raising purel# legal uestions 3p. 1!$,

Re&ord on (ppeal4.

In her Co--ent on the petition for review, NelitaJda. de Ba&aling as9ed for the dis-issal of *SISpetition on the grounds that/ 314 the appeal has0e&o-e -oot and a&ade-i& 0e&ause the one)#earrede-ption period ;7ed 0# the trial &ourt hade7pired without the properties 0eing redee-edHand 3$4 the uestioned order 3dated 5e0ruar# 1$,1+=>4 is also pending appeal in the Court of(ppeals 3C()*.R. No. >!%'$4 hen&e, this &aseshould 0e re-anded to that Court.

he respondent "IDC, in its Co--ent, alleged thesa-e grounds for the dis-issal of the appeal, andfurther argued the legalit# of the lower &ourtsorder 0e&ause an#wa# the *SIS entertained anden&ouraged its overtures for the rede-ption of thefore&losed propert#.

On "a# !,1+==, this Court, through the 5irstDivision, gave due &ourse to the petition.

On O&to0er $1, 1+==, e denied the -otion tore-and this appeal to the Court of (ppeals.

(fter the respondents had ;led their Co--ents,the &ase was de&lared su0-itted for de&ision on 8anuar# $=, 1+=%.

Considering the long lapse of the ti-e that this&ase has 0een awaiting ad?udi&ation, andapprehensive that supervening events -a# haverendered the issues -oot and a&ade-i&, this Courton Septe-0er $1, 1+%% gave the parties ten 31!4da#s fro- noti&e to -anifest whether the# are stillinterested in prose&uting the &ase. In a"anifestation ;led Nove-0er 1>, 1+%%, the *SISde&lared that it is still interested in prose&uting its

appeal.

e ;nd -erit in the appeal. Se&tions $ and , Rule>% of the Rules of Court provide/

SEC. $. 6u%gment on (oreclosure (or pament or sale. F if upon the trialin su&h a&tion the &ourt shall ;ndthe fa&ts set forth in the &o-plaintto 0e true, it shall as&ertain thea-ount due to the plaintiA uponthe -ortgage de0t or o0ligation,in&luding interest and &osts, and

shall render ?udg-ent for the su-so found due and order that thesa-e 0e paid into &ourt within a

period of not less than ninet# 3+!4da#s fro- the date of the servi&e of su&h order, and that in default ofsu&h pa#-ent the propert# 0e soldto realie the -ortgage de0t and&osts.

SEC. . Sale o( mortgage% propert8 eect. F hen thedefendant, after 0eing dire&ted to

do so as provided in the lastpre&eding se&tion, fails to pa# theprin&ipal, interest, and &osts at theti-e dire&ted in the order, the&ourt shall order the propert# to 0esold in the -anner and under theregulations that govern sales ofreal estate under e7e&ution. Su&hsale shall not aAe&t the rights ofpersons holding prioren&u-0ran&es upon the propert#or a part thereof, and *henconGrme% b an or%er o( the court,

it shall operate to %ivest the rightso( all the parties to the action an%to vest their rights in the purchaser, su0?e&t to su&h rights ofrede-ption as -a# 0e allowed 0#law. 3E-phasis supplied.4

here is no right of rede-ption fro- a ?udi&ialfore&losure sale after the &on;r-ation of the sale,e7&ept those granted 0# 0an9s or 0an9inginstitutions as provided 0# the *eneral Ban9ing (&t32i-pin vs. Inter-ediate (ppellate Court, *.R. No.=!+%=, Sept. $+,1+%%4. his has 0een the&onsistent interpretation of Rule >% in a long line of

de&isions of this Court.

e -a# sa#, further-ore, that thisCourt has alread# held that in-ortgage fore&losures the rights o( the mortgagee an% personshol%ing un%er him are cut o bthe sale *hen %ul conGrme%, an%*ith them the equit o(re%emption. !he reason (or thathol%ing is that the right o(re%emption being purel statutor,an% there being no statute

con(erring that right, it %oes noteist . 3Benedi&to vs. Lulo, $> Phil.1>>H E-phasis supplied.4

... hen the fore&losure sale isvalidl# &on;r-ed 0# the &ourt titlevests upon the pur&haser in thefore&losure sale, an% theconGrmation retroacts to the %ateo( the sale 3Binal0agan Estate, In&.vs. *atuslao, et al., =' Phil.1$%4. Onl (oreclosure o(mortgages to banking institutionsinclu%ing the $ehabilitationinance Corporation- an% thosema%e etraHu%iciall are subHect to

11



legal re%emption, b epress provision o( statute, an% the present case %oes not come un%ereceptions. 3Jillar vs. 8avier dePaderanga, += Phil. >!%)>!+HE-phasis ours.4

here the fore&losure is Hu%icialleecte%, however, no euivalentright of rede-ption e7ists. he law

3Se&. , Rule >%, Rules of Court4de&lares that a ?udi&ial fore&losuresale, when &on;r-ed 0# an orderof the &ourt, ... shall operate todivest the rights of all the partiesto the a&tion and to vest theirrights in the pur&haser, subHect tosuch rights o( re%emption as mabe allo*e% b la*. Su&h rightse7&eptionall# allowed 0# law 3i.e.,even after &on;r-ation 0# an orderof the &ourt4 are those granted 0#the &harter of the Philippine

National Ban9 3(&ts No. $='= and$+%4, and the *eneral Ban9ing (&t3R.(. =4 3See "oran, Co--entson the Rules, 1+=! Ed., Jol. , p.$=, &iting *onales vs. PNB, '%Phil. %$',%$%H and "artin, Rules ofCourt, et&., rd Ed., Jol. , p. $%+,&iting Jillar vs. 8avier dePaderanga, += Phil. >'H Piano vs.Ca#anong = SCR( +=4. hese laws&onfer on the -ortgagor, hissu&&essors in interest or an# ?udg-ent &reditor of the-ortgagor, the right to redee- the

propert# sold on the fore&losure)a(ter conGrmation b the court o(the (oreclosure sale F whi&h right-a# 0e e7er&ised within a period of one 314 #ear, &ounted fro- thedate of registration of the&erti;&ate of sale in the Registr# ofPropert#.

But, to repeat, no su&h right ofrede-ption e7ists in &ase of ?udi&ialfore&losure of a -ortgage if the-ortgagee is not the PNB or a 0an9

or 0an9ing institution. In su&h a&ase, the fore&losure sale when&on;r-ed 0# an order of the&ourt, ... shall operate to divest therights of all the parties to thea&tion and to vest their rights inthe pur&haser. here then e7istsonl# what is 9nown as the equit o( re%emption. his is si-pl# the rightof the defendant -ortgagor toe7tinguish the -ortgage and retainownership of the propert# 0#pa#ing the se&ured de0t within the+!)da# period after the ?udg-ent

0e&o-es ;nal, in a&&ordan&e withRule >%, or even after thefore&losure sale 0ut prior to its

&on;r-ation. 32i-pin vs.Inter-ediate (ppellate Court, *.R.No. =!+%=, Septe-0er $+, 1+%%.4

Sin&e the *SIS is not a 0an9 or 0an9ing institution,its -ortgage is &overed 0# the general rule thatthere is no right of rede-ption after the ?udi&ialfore&losure sale has 0een &on;r-ed. @en&e, 8udgeNu-eriano Esteno e7&eeded his ?urisdi&tion anda&ted with grave a0use of dis&retion in granting

the respondent, "IDC, another one)#ear period toredee- the Ba&aling properties over the oppositionof petitioner *SIS as -ortgagee) pur&haser thereofat the pu0li& sale. @is orders dated 8anuar# 1+,1+=> and 5e0ruar# 1$, 1+=> are null and void.

@ERE5ORE, the petition for &ertiorari is granted. he appealed orders dated 8anuar# 1+, 1+=> and5e0ruar# 1$, 1+=> of 8udge Nu-eriano Esteno inCivil Case No. $ are here0# annulled and setaside.

Costs against the private respondents.

G.R. No. L;262 M"r)% 19, 191

PATERNO SANTOS, ET AL., p&(i(io#&r',LEONILA POLICARPIO, petitioner)appellant,vs.REGISTER OF EES OF MANILA "#$ PA:LOLUCAS, respondents)appellees.

&umen Policarpio (or petitioner/appellant.

'aniel 9. &ucas, 6r. an% Enrique 9. Ia(ra (orrespon%ents/appellees.

CONCEPCION, C.J.:

(ppeal, ta9en 0# 2eonila Poli&arpio, fro- aresolution of the 2and Registration Co--ission.

he pertinent fa&ts are not disputed. In thelanguage of the resolution appealed fro-/

he fa&ts on re&ord are as follows/It appears that on "ar&h =, 1++,Natividad San&he and Pa0lo 2u&as0ought fro- I-elda Re#es and"aria Consuelo "endoa a par&elof land together with itsi-prove-ents, situated in the Cit#of "anila and &overed 0# C No.'$!!, with assu-ption of anP%,!!! real estate -ortgage infavor of the "onte de Piedad andSavings Ban9. B# virtue of the said

sale C No. =1' was issued inthe na-e of the a0ove)-entionedvendee. In view, however, of the

1$



violation of so-e ter-s in the-ortgage &ontra&t 0# the-ortgagors, the -ortgagee)0an9initiated fore&losure pro&eedingsand in the pu0li& au&tion sale2eonila Poli&arpio was ad?udged thehighest 0idder. On Septe-0er $,1+> Poli&arpio ;led the SheriAsCerti;&ate of Sale for registration inthe o:&e of the respondent

Register of Deeds and the sa-ewas entered under Pri-ar# Entr#No. 11%J)=. @owever, due to thefa&t that there were so-e defe&tsin the do&u-ent as pointed out 0#the said Register of Deeds, theregistrant withdrew the sa-e onthe following da#, Septe-0er ,1+>, and the# were not re)enteredfor registration until al-ost a #earafter (ugust $>, 1+>'.

On 8ul# =, 1+>, Poli&arpio assigned

all her right and interests in the&erti;&ate of sale in favor of "r.Paterno Santos who in turn had itregistered on 8ul# 1+, 1+>. On(ugust 1=, 1+>, one of the herein-ortgagors e7er&ised his right toredee- the propert# su0?e&t of theau&tion sale 0# pa#ing to theSheriA of "anila the a-ount ofP%,1+.!= representing thepur&hase pri&e and interests duethereon, and so was issued a&erti;&ate of rede-ption, dated(ugust $1, 1+>. he rede-ptioner

presented the said &erti;&ate ofrede-ption for registration in theo:&e of the "anila Registr# 0utwas withheld pending su0-issionof the owners dupli&ate &erti;&ateof title. On the other hand, the"onte de Piedad and Savings Ban9,as attorne#)in)fa&t of the vendee inthe au&tion sale, pro0a0l# not9nowing that the propert# wasalread# redee-ed, e7e&uted onSepte-0er >, 1+> a Deed of(0solute Sale in favor of 2eonilaPoli&arpio, who, in turn, &on;r-edher assign-ent of rights in favor ofPaterno Santos on Septe-0er %,1+>. he Deed of Con;r-ation of(ssign-ent as well as the a:davitof &onsolidation previousl#e7e&uted 0# Santos wereannotated on C No. =1', onSepte-0er 1!, 1+>, 0ut then, itwas dis&overed that the &erti;&ateof rede-ption whi&h was earlierpresented was still pendingregistration. 1

In view of the issue that had thus arisen, as towhether the &erti;&ate of rede-ption e7e&uted infavor of Pa0lo 2u&as should have preferen&e over

the deed of &on;r-ation petition of assign-ent infavor of Paterno Santos and the a:davit of&onsolidation previousl# e7e&uted 0# hi-, theRegister of Deeds of "anila although Gin&lined to0elieveG that the issue should 0e resolved in thea:r-ative su0-itted the -atter for &onsultationto the Co--issioner of 2and Registration who,after due hearing, issued a resolution, thedispositive part of whi&h reads/

(ll the foregoing &onsidered, thisCo--ission 0elieves and so ordersthat the &erti;&ate of rede-ptionshould 0e given preferen&e inregistration to the a:davit of&onsolidationH hen&e theregistration of the &erti;&ate ofrede-ption -a# 0e given due&ourse on&e the owners dupli&ate&erti;&ate of title is presented andthe &orresponding fees are dul#paid. 2et the Register of Deedstherefore, 0e guided a&&ordingl#.

( re&onsideration of this resolution having 0eendenied, 2eonila Poli&arpio interposed the presentappeal. he sa-e hinges on the uestion whetherthe rede-ption period of Gone #ear fro- and afterthe date of the sale,G pres&ri0ed in se&tion > of (&tNo. 1, as a-ended 0# (&t No. '11%, for therede-ption of propert# sold in e7tra?udi&ialfore&losure pro&eedings, should 0e &o-puted fro-the date of the au&tion sale, in Septe-0er 1+>, as&ontended 0# appellant, or fro- (ugust $>, 1+>',when the SheriAs Certi;&ate of Sale was registeredwith the O:&e of the Register of Deeds of "anila,as held 0# the Co--issioner of 2and Registration

in his appealed resolution.

his issue has long 0een settled in favor of theruling -ade in the &ontested resolution. (s earl# as 8une !, 1++, e have held that the period ofrede-ption G0egins to run not fro- the date of sale0ut fro- the ti-e of registration of the sale in theO:&e of the Register of Deeds.Ghis view,e7pressed in *ar&ia v. O&a-po, et al., 2wasreiterated in (g0ulos v. (l0erto. 3 (lthough these&ases referred to e7e&ution sales, the rule thereinlaid down was applied to fore&losure &ases inSalaar, et al. v. "eneses, et al., 4 Re#es v.

No0le?as, et al.,

Rosario, et al. v. a#ug RuralBan9, In&., 6 Ca-pillo v. Philippine NationalBan9 and Re#es v. "anas, et al. 8 In Re#es v.No0le?as, et al., 9 this Court even held/

But it is further argued 0# thepetitioner that the rule should not0e applied to this &ase where thereare no third parties involved. @e&ites a nu-0er of authorities, tothe eAe&t that as 0etween theparties, registration is notne&essar# to 0ind the i--ediateparties to a transa&tion involvingregistered land. @e would then&on&lude that sin&e the onl#

1



purpose of registration is to prote&tthe 0u#er fro- third part# &lai-s, itstands to reason that when, as inthis &ase, there are no third part#&lai-ants to the land, registrationis not ne&essar# and the sale0etween the parties should 0e-ade to ta9e eAe&t fro- the dateof the au&tion sale. e are noti-pressed 0# the argu-ent.

(pparentl#, herein petitioner failedto see the Gother side of the &oinGand overloo9ed the do&trine, alsowell settled, that the registrationreuired 0# Se&tion ! of the 2andRegistration 2aw is intendedpri-aril# for the prote&tion ofinno&ent third persons, i.e.,persons who, without 9nowledge of the sale and in good faith, havea&uired rights to thepropert#.l)*phJ1.4Kt he sa-eprote&tion to third parties iso0viousl# one of the o0?e&ts ofSe&tion $=, Rule + of the RevisedRules of Court in reuiring that the&erti;&ate of sale issued 0# thesheriA in an au&tion sale 0eregistered in the o:&e of theregister of deeds, for the purposeof the legislature in providing forour present s#ste- of registrationis to aAord so-e -eans of pu0li&it#so that persons dealing with realpropert# -a# rea&h the re&ordsand there0# a&uire se&urit#against instru-ents the e7e&ution

of whi&h has not 0een revealed.Rede-ption is not the &on&ern-erel# of the au&tion)vendee andthe -ortgagor, 0ut also of thelatters su&&essors in interest oran# ?udi&ial &reditor or ?udg-ent&reditor of said -ortgagor, or an#person having a lien on thepropert# su0seuent to the-ortgage under whi&h the propert#has 0een sold. It is pre&isel# forthis reason that the &erti;&ate ofsale should 0e registered, for onl#upon su&h registration -a# it

legall# 0e said that proper noti&e,though &onstru&tive, has 0eenserved unto possi0lerede-ptioners &onte-plated in thelaw. e have to &on&lude,therefore, that the date of sale-entioned in Se&tion > of (&t 1,as a-ended, should 0e &onstruedto -ean the date of registration ofthe &erti;&ate of sale in the o:&eof the register of deeds &on&erned.Onl# after the lapse of the twelve)-onth rede-ption period fro- thedate of registration of the&erti;&ate of sale and in thea0sen&e of an# rede-ptioner

within the said period, -a# thedeed of ;nal sale 0e e7e&uted infavor of the pur&haser who -a#then &onsolidate the title of thepropert# in his favor. Conseuentl#,e have to de&lare that the 2andRegistration Co--issioner wasright in ordering the Register ofDeeds of Rial to den# theregistration of the Deed of Sale and

the (:davit of Consolidation ofOwnership, the si-ultaneousregistration of whi&h do&u-entswas sought 0# herein petitionereven 0efore the &erti;&ate of saleissued 0# the sheriA wasregistered.

@ERE5ORE, the resolution appealed fro- ishere0# a:r-ed, with &osts against appellant2eonila Poli&arpio. It is so ordered.

G.R. No. 1286 S&p(&&r 1, 2000

-UERTA AL:A RESORT INC., petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEALS "#$ S>NICATEMANAGEMENT GROUP INC., respondents.

PURISIMA, J.?

2itigation -ust at so-e ti-e 0e ter-inated, evenat the ris9 of o&&asional errors. Pu0li& poli&#di&tates that on&e a ?udg-ent 0e&o-es ;nal,e7e&utor# and unappeala0le, the prevailing part#should not 0e denied the fruits of his vi&tor# 0#

so-e su0terfuge devised 0# the losing part#.Fn?usti;ed dela# in the enfor&e-ent of a ?udg-entsets at naught the role of &ourts in disposing ?usti&ia0le &ontroversies with ;nalit#.

!he Case

(t 0ar is a petition assailing the De&ision, datedNove-0er 1', 1++>, and Resolution, dated "ar&h11, 1++=, of the Court of (ppeals in C()*.R. No.%='=, whi&h set aside the Order, dated 8ul# $1,1++ and Order, dated Septe-0er ', 1++=, of theRegional rial Court of "a9ati Cit#, in Civil Case No.

%+)'$'. he aforesaid orders of the trial &ourtheld that petitioner had the right to redee- su0?e&tpie&es of propert# within the one)#ear periodpres&ri0ed 0# Se&tion =% of Repu0li& (&t No. =otherwise 9nown as the *eneral Ban9ing (&t.

Se&tion =% of R.(. No. = provides that Gin &ase ofa fore&losure of a -ortgage in favor of a 0an9,0an9ing or &redit institution, whether ?udi&iall# ore7tra?udi&iall#, the -ortgagor shall have the right,within one #ear after the sale of the real estate asa result of the fore&losure of the respe&tive-ortgage, to redee- the propert#.G

!he acts

1'



he fa&ts that -atter are undisputed/

In a &o-plaint for ?udi&ial fore&losure of -ortgagewith preli-inar# in?un&tion ;led on O&to0er 1+,1+%+, do&9eted as Civil Case No. %+)'$' 0eforethe Regional rial Court of "a9ati Cit#, the hereinprivate respondent sought the fore&losure of four3'4 par&els of land -ortgaged 0# petitioner toInter&on 5und Resour&e, In&. 3GInter&onG4.

Private respondent instituted Civil Case No. %+)'$' as -ortgagee)assignee of a loan a-ountingto P%. -illion o0tained 0# petitioner fro-Inter&on, in whose favor petitioner -ortgaged theaforesaid par&els of land as se&urit# for the saidloan.

In its answer 0elow, petitioner uestioned theassign-ent 0# Inter&on of its -ortgage rightthereover to the private respondent, on the groundthat the sa-e was ultra vires. Petitioner alsouestioned during the trial the &orre&tness of the&harges and interest on the -ortgage de0t in

uestion.

On (pril !, 1++$, the trial &ourt, through the then 8udge now Court of (ppeals 8usti&e Buenaventura 8.*uerrero, &a-e out with its de&ision Ggrantingherein private respondent S"*Is &o-plaint for ?udi&ial fore&losure of -ortgageG, disposing asfollows/

G@ERE5ORE, ?udg-ent is here0#rendered ordering defendant to pa#plaintiA the following/

314 P%,!!,!!!.!! representing theprin&ipal of the a-ount dueH

3$4 P%!,!!!.!! as penalt# &hargeswith interest at >6 per annu-,until full# paidH

34 $$6 per annu- interest on thea0ove prin&ipal fro- Septe-0er >,1++%, until full# paidH

3'4 6 of the su- total of thea0ove a-ounts, as reasona0leattorne#s feesH and,

34 Costs.

(ll the a0ove -ust 0e paid within a periodof not less than 1! da#s fro- re&eipthereof 0# the defendant. In default of su&hpa#-ent, the four par&els of land su0?e&t-atter of the suit in&luding itsi-prove-ents shall 0e sold to realie the-ortgage de0t and &osts, in the -annerand under the regulations that governsales of real estate under e7e&ution.G1

Petitioner appealed the de&ision of the trial &ourt tothe Court of (ppeals, the appeal do&9eted as C()*.R. CJ No. +$' 0efore the Si7th Division of theappellate &ourt, whi&h dis-issed the &ase on 8une$+, 1++ on the ground of late pa#-ent of do&9etfees.

Dissatis;ed with the dis-issal of C()*.R. No.+$', petitioner &a-e to this Court via a petitionfor &ertiorari, do&9eted as *.R. No. 11$!'', whi&h

this &ourt resolved to dis-iss on De&e-0er 1,1++, on the ;nding that the Court of (ppealserred not in dis-issing the appeal of petitioner.

Petitioners -otion for re&onsideration of thedis-issal of its petition in *.R. No. 11$!'' wasdenied with ;nalit# in this Courts Resolutionpro-ulgated on 5e0ruar# 1>, 1++'. On "ar&h 1!,1++', leave to present a se&ond -otion forre&onsideration in *.R. No. 11$!'' or to su0-it the&ase for hearing 0# the Court en banc was ;led,0ut to no avail. he Court resolved to den# thesa-e on "a# 11, 1++'.

On "ar&h 1', 1++', the Resolution datedDe&e-0er 1, 1++, in *.R. No. 11$!'' 0e&a-e;nal and e7e&utor# and was entered in the Boo9 ofEntries of 8udg-ent.

On 8ul# ', 1++', private respondent ;led with thetrial &ourt of origin a -otion for e7e&ution of theDe&ision pro-ulgated on (pril !, 1++$ in CivilCase No. %+)'$'. he said -otion was granted on 8ul# 1, 1++'.

(&&ordingl#, on 8ul# 1, 1++' a writ of e7e&ution

issued and, on 8ul# $!, 1++', a Noti&e of 2ev# andE7e&ution was issued 0# the SheriA &on&erned,who issued on (ugust 1, 1++' a Noti&e of SheriAsSale for the au&tion of su0?e&t properties onSepte-0er >, 1++'.

On (ugust $, 1++', petitioner ;led with the sa-etrial &ourt an Frgent "otion to Quash and Set (siderit of E7e&ution as&ri0ing to it grave a0use ofdis&retion in issuing the uestioned rit ofE7e&ution. o support its -otion, petitioner invitedattention and argued that the re&ords of the &asewere still with the Court of (ppeals and therefore,

issuan&e of the writ of e7e&ution was pre-aturesin&e the 1!)da# period for petitioner to pa# the ?udg-ent o0ligation had not #et lapsed andpetitioner had not #et defaulted in the pa#-entthereof sin&e no de-and for its pa#-ent was -ade0# the private respondent. In petitioners ownwords, the dispute 0etween the parties wasGprin&ipall# on the issue as to when the 1!)da#period within whi&h @uerta (l0a -a# e7er&ise itseuit# of rede-ption should 0e &ounted.G

In its Order of Septe-0er $, 1++', the lower &ourtdenied petitioners urgent -otion to uash the writof e7e&ution in Civil Case No. %+)'$', opining that

su0?e&t ?udg-ent had 0e&o-e ;nal and e7e&utor#and &onseuentl#, e7e&ution thereof was a -atter

1

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_128567_2000.html#fnt1




of right and the issuan&e of the &orresponding writof e7e&ution 0e&a-e its -inisterial dut#.

Challenging the said order granting e7e&ution,petitioner ;led on&e -ore with the Court of(ppeals another petition for &ertiorari andprohi0ition with preli-inar# in?un&tion, do&9eted asC.(.)*.R. SP No. !%>, predi&ated on the sa-egrounds invo9ed for its "otion to Quash rit ofE7e&ution.

On Septe-0er >, 1++', the s&heduled au&tion saleof su0?e&t pie&es of properties pro&eeded and theprivate respondent was de&lared the highest0idder. hus, private respondent was awardedsu0?e&t 0idded pie&es of propert#. he &overingCerti;&ate of Sale issued in its favor was registeredwith the Registr# of Deeds on O&to0er $1, 1++'.

On Septe-0er =, 1++', petitioner presented an E7)Parte "otion for Clari;&ation as9ing the trial &ourtto G&larif#G whether or not the twelve 31$4 -onthperiod of rede-ption for ordinar# e7e&ution applied

in the &ase.

On Septe-0er $>, 1++', the trial &ourt ruled thatthe period of rede-ption of su0?e&t propert# should0e governed 0# the rule on the sale of ?udi&iall#fore&losed propert# under Rule >% of the Rules ofCourt.

hereafter, petitioner then ;led an E7&eption to theOrder dated Septe-0er $>, 1++' and "otion to Set(side Said Order, &ontending that the said Order-ateriall# altered the De&ision dated (pril !,1++$ Gwhi&h de&lared that the satisfa&tion of the

?udg-ent shall 0e in the -anner and under theregulation that govern sale of real estate undere7e&ution.G

"eanwhile, in its De&ision of Septe-0er !, 1++',the Court of (ppeals resolved the issues raised 0#the petitioner in C.(.)*.R. SP No. !%>, holdingthat the one hundred);ft# da# period within whi&hpetitioner -a# redee- su0?e&t properties should0e &o-puted fro- the date petitioner was noti;edof the Entr# of 8udg-ent in *.R. No. 11$!''H andthat the 1!)da# period within whi&h petitioner-a# e7er&ise its euit# of rede-ption e7pired on

Septe-0er 11, 1++'.

hus/

GPetitioner -ust have re&eived theresolution of the Supre-e Court dated5e0ruar# 1>, 1++' den#ing with ;nalit# its-otion for re&onsideration in *.R. No.11$!'' 0efore "ar&h 1', 1++', otherwisethe Supre-e Court would not have -adean entr# of ?udg-ent on "ar&h 1',1++'. Lhile, computing the 1@>/%a perio%. Petitioner ma have untilSeptember 11, 177=. *ithin *hich to pathe amounts covere% b the Hu%gment,such perio% has alrea% epire% b this

time, and therefore, this Court has no -orereason to pass upon the parties opposing&ontentions, the sa-e having 0e&o-e-oot and a&ade-i&.G$ 3E-phasis supplied4.

Petitioner -oved for re&onsideration of theDe&ision of the Court of (ppeals in C.(.)*.R. SP No.!%>. In its "otion for Re&onsideration datedO&to0er 1%, 1++', petitioner theoried that theperiod of one hundred ;ft# 31!4 da#s should not

0e re&9oned with fro- Entr# of 8udg-ent 0ut fro-re&eipt on or 0efore 8ul# $+, 1++' 0# the trial &ourtof the re&ords of Civil Case No. %+)'$' fro- theCourt of (ppeals. So also, petitioner -aintainedthat it -a# not 0e &onsidered in default, even afterthe e7piration of 1! da#s fro- 8ul# $+, 1++',0e&ause prior de-and to pa# was never -ade on it0# the private respondent. (&&ording to petitioner,it was therefore, pre-ature for the trial &ourt toissue a writ of e7e&ution to enfor&e the ?udg-ent.

he trial &ourt deferred a&tion on the "otion forCon;r-ation of the Certi;&ate of Sale in view of

the penden&# of petitioners "otion forRe&onsideration in C()*.R. SP No. !%>.

On De&e-0er $, 1++', the Court of (ppealsdenied petitioners -otion for re&onsideration inC()*.R. SP No. !%>. (0sent an# further a&tionwith respe&t to the denial of the su0?e&t -otion forre&onsideration, private respondent presented aSe&ond "otion for Con;r-ation of Certi;&ate ofSale 0efore the trial &ourt.

(s regards the De&ision rendered on Septe-0er!, 1++' 0# the Court of (ppeals in C( *.R. SP No.

!%> it 0e&a-e ;nal and e7e&utor# on 8anuar#$, 1++.

On 5e0ruar# 1!, 1++, the lower &ourt &on;r-edthe sale of su0?e&t properties to the privaterespondent. he pertinent Order de&lared that allpending in&idents relating to the Order datedSepte-0er $>, 1++' had 0e&o-e -oot anda&ade-i&. Confor-a0l#, the ransfer Certi;&ates of itle to su0?e&t pie&es of propert# were then issuedto the private respondent.

On 5e0ruar# $=, 1++, petitioner ;led with the

Court of (ppeals a "otion for Clari;&ation see9ingG&lari;&ationG of the date of &o--en&e-ent of theone 314 #ear period for the rede-ption of theproperties in uestion.

In its Resolution dated "ar&h $!, 1++, the Court of (ppeals -erel# noted su&h "otion for Clari;&ationsin&e its De&ision pro-ulgated on Septe-0er !,1++' had alread# 0e&o-e ;nal and e7e&utor#Hratio&inating thus/

Ge view the -otion for &lari;&ation ;led0# petitioner, purportedl# signed 0# itsproprietor, 0ut whi&h we 0elieve wasprepared 0# a law#er who wishes to hideunder the &loa9 of anon#-it#, as a veiled

1>





atte-pt to 0u# ti-e and to dela# furtherthe disposition of this &ase.

Our de&ision of Septe-0er !, 1++' neverdealt on the right and period of rede-ptionof petitioner, 0ut was -erel# &ir&u-s&ri0edto the uestion of whether respondent ?udge &ould issue a writ of e7e&ution in itsCivil Case No. %+)'$' . . .

e further ruled that the one)hundred ;ft#da# period within whi&h petitioner -a#e7er&ise its equit o( re%emption should 0e&ounted, not fro- the re&eipt ofrespondent &ourt of the re&ords of CivilCase No. %+)'$' 0ut fro- the datepetitioner was noti;ed of the entr o( Hu%gment -ade 0# the appellate &ourt.

But we never -ade an# pronoun&e-ent onthe one)#ear right of rede-ption ofpetitioner 0e&ause, in the ;rst pla&e,the (oreclosure in this case is Hu%icial. an%

as such the mortgagor has onl the equitnot the right o( re%emption . . . hile it-a# 0e true that under Se&tion =% of R.(.= as a-ended, otherwise 9nown as the*eneral Ban9ing (&t, a -ortgagor of a0an9, 0an9ing or &redit institution, whetherthe fore&losure was done Hu%iciall oretraHu%iciall , has a period of one #earfro- the au&tion sale within whi&h toredee- the fore&losed propert#, thequestion o( *hether the Sn%icate%9anagement 0roup,. nc., is a bank orcre%it institution *as never brought be(oreus squarel , and it is indeed odd andstrange that petitioner would nowsar&asti&all# as9 a rhetori&al uestion in its-otion for &lari;&ation.G 3E-phasissupplied4.

Indeed, if petitioner did reall# a&t in good faith, itwould have ventilated 0efore the Court of (ppealsin C()*.R. No. !%> its pretended right underSe&tion =% of R.(. No. = 0ut it never did so.

(t the earliest opportunit#, when it ;led its answerto the &o-plaint for ?udi&ial fore&losure, petitionershould have averred in its pleading that it wasentitled to the 0ene;&ial provisions of Se&tion =% of R.(. No. =H 0ut again, petitioner did not -a9ean# su&h allegation in its answer.

5ro- the said Resolution, petitioner too9 no furtherstep su&h that on "ar&h 1, 1++, the privaterespondent ;led a "otion for Issuan&e of rit ofPossession with the trial &ourt.

During the hearing &alled on (pril $1, 1++, the&ounsel of re&ord of petitioner entered appearan&eand as9ed for ti-e to interpose opposition to the"otion for Issuan&e of rit of Possession.

On "a# $, 1++, in opposition to privaterespondents "otion for Issuan&e of writ ofPossession, petitioner ;led a G"otion to Co-pelPrivate Respondent to (&&ept Rede-ption.G It wasthe ;rst ti-e petitioner ever asserted the right toredee- su0?e&t properties under Se&tion =% of R.(.No. =, the *eneral Ban9ing (&tH theoriing thatthe original -ortgagee, 0eing a &redit institution,its assign-ent of the -ortgage &redit to petitionerdid not re-ove petitioner fro- the &overage of

Se&tion =% of R.(. No. =. herefore, it shouldhave the right to redee- su0?e&t properties withinone #ear fro- registration of the au&tion sale,theoried the petitioner whi&h &on&luded that inview of its Gright of rede-ption,G the issuan&e ofthe titles over su0?e&t par&els of land to the privaterespondent was irregular and pre-ature.

In its Order of 8ul# $1, 1++, the trial &ourt,presided over 0# 8udge Napoleon Inoturan, deniedprivate respondents -otion for a writ ofpossession, opining that Se&tion =% of the *eneralBan9ing (&t was appli&a0le and therefore, the

petitioner had until O&to0er $1, 1++ to redee-the said par&els of land, said Order ruled as follows/

GIt is undisputed that Inter&on is a &reditinstitution fro- whi&h defendant o0taineda loan se&ured with a real estate -ortgageover four 3'4 par&els of land. (ssu-ing thatthe -ortgage de0t had not 0een assignedto plaintiA, there is then no uestion thatdefendant would have a right ofrede-ption in &ase of fore&losure, ?udi&iall#or e7tra?udi&iall#, pursuant to the a0oveuoted Se&tion =% of R( =, as a-ended.

@owever, the pivotal issue here is whetheror not the defendant lost its right ofrede-ption 0# virtue of the assign-ent ofits -ortgage de0t 0# Inter&on to plaintiA,whi&h is not a 0an9 or &redit institution. he issue is resolved in the negative. heright of rede-ption in this &ase is vested0# law and is therefore an a0soluteprivilege whi&h defendant -a# not loseeven though plaintiA)assignee is not a0an9 or &redit institution 3!olentino versusCourt o( Appeals, 1!> SCR( 14. Indeed, a&ontrar# ruling will lead to a possi0le

&ir&u-vention of Se&tion =% 0e&ause allthat -a# 0e needed to deprive a defaulting-ortgagor of his right of rede-ption is toassign his -ortgage de0t fro- a 0an9 or&redit institution to one whi&h is not.Prote&tion of defaulting -ortgagors, whi&his the avowed poli&# 0ehind the provision,would not 0e a&hieved if the ruling wereotherwise. Conseuentl#, defendant stillpossesses its right of rede-ption whi&h it-a# e7er&ise up to O&to0er $1, 1++ onl#,whi&h is one #ear fro- the date ofregistration of the &erti;&ate of sale ofsu0?e&t properties 30SS versus loilo, 1=

SCR( 1+, &iting &impin versus AC, 1>>SCR( %=4.

1=





Sin&e the period to e7er&ise defendantsright of rede-ption has not #et e7pired,the &an&ellation of defendants transfer&erti;&ates of title and the issuan&e of newones in lieu thereof in favor of plaintiA aretherefore illegal for 0eing pre-ature,there0# ne&essitating re&onve#an&e 3seeSe&. > 3a4 PD 1$+, as a-ended4.

@ERE5ORE, the Court here0# rules as

follows/

314 he "otion for Issuan&e of ritof Possession is here0# deniedH

3$4 PlaintiA is dire&ted to a&&ept therede-ption on or 0efore O&to0er$1, 1++ in an a-ount &o-puteda&&ording to the ter-s stated inthe rit of E7e&ution dated 8ul# 1,1++' plus all other related &ostsand e7penses -entioned underSe&tion =%, R( =, as a-endedH

and

34 he Register of Deeds ofJalenuela, Bula&an is dire&ted 3a4to re&onve# to the defendant thefollowing titles of the four 3'4par&els of land, na-el# C Nos. J)%%=%, J)%%=+, J)%%%!, and J)%%%1, now in the na-e of plaintiA,and 304 to register the &erti;&ate of sale dated O&to0er =, 1++' and theOrder &on;r-ing the sale dated5e0ruar# 1!, 1++ 0# a 0rief

-e-orandu- thereof upon thetransfer &erti;&ates of title to 0eissued in the na-e of defendant,pursuant to Se&. > 3a4 PD 1$+, asa-ended.

he O-ni0us "otion dated 8une , 1++,together with the Opposition thereto, isnow dee-ed resolved.

SO ORDERED.G'

Private respondent interposed a "otion for

Re&onsideration see9ing the reversal of the Order0ut to no avail. In its Order dated Septe-0er ',1++, the trial &ourt denied the sa-e.

o atta&9 and &hallenge the aforesaid order of 8ul#$1, 1++ and su0seuent Order of Septe-0er ',1++ of the trial &ourt, the private respondent ;ledwith this &ourt a Petition for Certiorari, Prohi0itionand "anda-us, do&9eted as *.R. No. 1$1%+, 0uta0sent an# spe&ial and &ogent reason shown forentertaining the sa-e, the Court referred thepetition to the Court of (ppeals, for properdeter-ination.

Do&9eted as *.R. No. %='= on Nove-0er 1',1++>, the Court of (ppeals gave due &ourse to the

petition and set aside the trial &ourts Order dated 8ul# $1, 1++ and Order dated Septe-0er ', 1++.

In its Resolution of "ar&h 11, 1++=, the Court of(ppeals denied petitioners "otion forRe&onsideration of the De&ision pro-ulgated onNove-0er 1', 1++> in C()*.R. No. %='=.

Fndaunted, petitioner has &o-e to this Court viathe present petition, pla&ing relian&e on theassign-ent of errors, that/

I

@E RESPONDEN COFR O5 (PPE(2SERRED *R(JE2L IN @O2DIN* @( @ECOFR O5 (PPE(2S 3E25@ DIJISION4 INC( *.R. SP NO. !%> @(D RESO2JEDGL!2 #A&!3 G @( PEIIONER @FER((2B( @(D NO RI*@ O5 REDE"PION BFON2L @E EQFIL O5 REDE"PION.

II

@E RESPONDEN COFR O5 (PPE(2SERRED *R(JE2L IN I*NORIN* @(PEIIONER @FER( (2B( POSSESSES @EONE)LE(R RI*@ O5 REDE"PION FNDERSECION =%, R.(. NO. = 3@E *ENER(2B(NIN* (C4.

III

@E RESPONDEN COFR O5 (PPE(2SERRED *R(JE2L IN @O2DIN* @( PRIJ(E

RESPONDEN SLNDIC(ED "(N(*E"EN*ROFP, INC. IS ENI2ED O @EISSF(NCE O5 ( RI O5 POSSESSIONOJER @E SFB8EC PROPERL.

In its &o--ent on the petition, private respondent&ountered that/

G(. @E @ONOR(B2E COFR O5 (PPE(2SCORREC2L @E2D @( I RESO2JED I@5IN(2IL IN C.(.)*.R. SP NO. !%> @(PEIIONER ON2L @(D @E RI*@ O5REDE"PION IN RESPEC O5 @E SFB8EC

PROPERIES.

B. @E PEIION IS (N INSIDIOFS (NDFNDER@(NDED (E"P O EJ(DE @E5IN(2IL O5 J(RIOFS DECISIONS,RESO2FIONS (ND ORDERS @IC@ @E2D @(, PEIIONER ON2L POSSESSES @EEQFIL O5 REDE"PION IN RESPEC O5 @E SFB8EC PROPERIES.

C. PEIIONER IS B(RRED BL ESOPPE25RO" BE2(ED2L R(ISIN* @E ISSFE O5IS (22E*ED RI*@ O5 REDE"PION.@D(ECI

1%







D. IN @O2DIN* @( @E PEIIONER @(D @E RI*@ O5 REDE"PION OJER @ESFB8EC PROPERIES, @E RI(2 COFR"(DE ( "OCERL O5 @E 2( O5 @EC(SE.G>

(nd 0# wa# of Repl#, petitioner argued, that/

I.

@E COFR O5 (PPE(2S IN C( *.R. SP NO.!%> COF2D NO @(JE POSSIB2LRESO2JED @EREIN @E@ER I@5IN(2IL OR O@ERISE ) @E ISSFE O5PEIIONER @FER( (2B(S RI*@ O5REDE"PION FNDER SECION =%, R.(. NO.=.

II.

@ERE IS NO ESOPPE2 @ERE. PEIIONER@FER( (2B( INJOED IS RI*@ O5

REDE"PION FNDER SECION =%, R.(. NO.= IN I"E2L 5(S@ION, i.e., (5ERCON5IR"(ION BL @E COFR O5 @E5OREC2OSFRE S(2E, (ND I@IN ONE 314 LE(R 5RO" @E D(E O5 RE*ISR(IONO5 @E CERI5IC(E O5 S(2E.

III.

@E PRINCIP2E O5 @E 2( O5 @E C(SE@(S (BSO2FE2L NO BE(RIN* @ERE/

314

@E RI*@ O5 REDE"PION FNDERSECION =%, R.(. NO. = IS IN 5(CPREDIC(ED FPON @E 5IN(2IL (NDCORRECNESS O5 @E DECISION IN CIJI2C(SE NO. %+)'$'.

3$4

@FS, @E RCS ORDER RECO*NIIN*PEIIONER @FER( (2B(S RI*@ O5REDE"PION FNDER SECION =%, R.(. NO.= DOES NO IN (NL (L @(JE @E

E55EC O5 ("ENDIN*, "ODI5LIN*, ORSEIN* (SIDE @E DECISION IN CIJI2C(SE NO. %+)'$'.

he a0ove argu-ents and &ounter)argu-entsadvan&ed relate to the pivotal issue of whether ornot the petitioner has the one)#ear right ofrede-ption of su0?e&t properties under Se&tion =%of Repu0li& (&t No. = otherwise 9nown as the*eneral Ban9ing (&t.

he petition is not visited 0# -erit.

Petitioners assertion of right of rede-ption underSe&tion =% of Repu0li& (&t No. = is pre-ised onthe su0-ission that the Court of (ppeals did not

resolve su&h issue in C()*.R. SP No. !%>H&ontending thus/

314

BL NO SREC@ O5 2O*IC C(N @E $!"(RC@ 1++ RESO2FION IN C( *.R. SPNO. !%> BE INERPREED O "E(N @ECOFR O5 (PPE(2S @(D RESO2JED I@5IN(2IL @E ISSFE O5 @E@ERPEIIONER @FER( (2B( @(D @E RI*@O5 REDE"PION @EN (22 @( @ERESO2FION DID (S O "ERE2L NOE @E "OION 5OR C2(RI5IC(ION.

3$4

@E $! "(RC@ 1++ RESO2FION IN C(*.R. SP NO. !%> IS NO ( 5IN(2 8FD*"EN, ORDER OR DECREE. I IS NOEJEN ( 8FD*"EN OR ORDER O BE*INI@. I ORDERS NO@IN*H I(D8FDIC(ES NO@IN*.

34

PEIIONER @FER( (2B(S RI*@ O5REDE"PION FNDER SECION =%, R.(. NO.= (S NO (N ISSFE (ND (S NO INISSFE, (ND COF2D NO @(JE POSSIB2LBEEN (N ISSFE NOR IN ISSFE, IN C( *.R.SP NO. !%>.

3'4

@E ! SEPE"BER 1++' DECISION IN C(*.R. SP NO. !%> @(JIN* (2RE(DLBECO"E 5IN(2 EJEN BE5ORE @E 5I2IN*O5 @E "OION 5OR C2(RI5IC(ION, @ECOFR O5 (PPE(2S NO 2ON*ER @(D (NL 8FRISDICION O (C O5 @E "OION OR(NL O@ER "(ER IN C( *.R. SP NO.!%>, ECEP O "ERE2L NOE @E"OION. E(SI@a

II.

IN S(R CONR(S, @E ISSFE O5

PEIIONER @FER( (2B(S RI*@ O5REDE"PION FNDER SECION =%, R.(. NO.= (S DIREC2L R(ISED (ND 8OINED BL @E P(RIES, (ND @E S("E DF2LRESO2JED BL @E RI(2 COFR.

III.

@E RI*@ O5 REDE"PION FNDERSECION =% O5 R.(. NO. = IS"(ND(ORL (ND (FO"(IC(22L EISSBL 2(. @E COFRS (RE DFL)BOFND ORECO*NIE SFC@ RI*@.

IJ.

1+






EQFI(B2E CONSIDER(IONS EI*@@E(JI2L IN 5(JOR O5 PEIIONER @FER((2B(, NO @E 2E(S O5 @IC@ IS @EE22)SE2ED PO2ICL O5 @E 2( O (IDR(@ER @(N DE5E( @E RI*@ O5REDE"PION.

J.

@ERE5ORE @E $1 8F2L 1++ (ND !'SEPE"BER 1++ ORDERS O5 @E RI(2COFR (RE J(2ID (ND PROPER IN(CCORD(NCE I@ @E "(ND(E O5 @E2(.

5ro- the various de&isions, resolutions andorders a quo it &an 0e gleaned that what petitionerhas 0een ad?udged to have was onl# the equit ofrede-ption over su0?e&t properties. On thedistin&tion 0etween the equit of rede-ption andright of rede-ption, the &ase of 0regorio 3. &impinvs. nterme%iate Appellate Court ,= &o-es to thefore. @eld the Court in the said &ase/

Ghe equit o( re%emption is, to 0e sure,diAerent fro- and should not 0e &onfusedwith the right o( re%emption.

he right o( re%emption in relation to a-ortgage M understood in the sense of aprerogative to re)a&uire -ortgagedpropert# after registration of thefore&losure sale M e7ists onl# in the &aseof the etraHu%icial (oreclosure of the-ortgage. No su&h right is re&ognied in a ?udi&ial fore&losure e7&ept onl# where the

-ortgagee is the Philippine National Ban9or a 0an9 or 0an9ing institution.

here a -ortgage is (oreclose%etraHu%iciall , (&t 1 grants to the-ortgagor the right of rede-ption withinone 314 #ear fro- the registration of thesheriAs &erti;&ate of fore&losure sale.

here the (oreclosure is Hu%iciall eecte%,however, no euivalent right of rede-ptione7ists. he law de&lares that a Hu%icial(oreclosure sale M*hen conGrme% be an

or%er o( the court. . . . shall operate to%ivest the rights o( all the parties to theaction an% to vest their rights in the purchaser, subHect to such rights o(re%emption as ma be allo*e% b la*.MSuch rights eceptionall Mallo*e% bla*M 3i.e., even after &on;r-ation 0# anorder of the &ourt4 are those granted 0# the&harter of the Philippine National Ban93(&ts No. $='= and $+%4, and the *eneralBan9ing (&t 3R.(. =4. !hese la*s con(eron the mortgagor , his su&&essors ininterest or an# ?udg-ent &reditor of the-ortgagor, the right to redee- the

propert# sold on fore&losure a(terconGrmation b the court o( the(oreclosure sale whi&h right -a# 0e

e7er&ised within a period of one 314 #ear,&ounted fro- the date of registration of the&erti;&ate of sale in the Registr# ofPropert#.

But, to repeat, no such right o( re%emptioneists in case of ?udi&ial fore&losure of a-ortgage if the -ortgagee is not the PNBor a 0an9 or 0an9ing institution. In su&h a&ase, the fore&losure sale, when &on;r-ed

0# an order of the &ourt. . . shall operate todivest the rights of all the parties to thea&tion and to vest their rights in thepur&haser. here then e7ists onl# what is9nown as the euit# of rede-ption. !his issimpl the right o( the %e(en%antmortgagor to etinguish the mortgage an%retain o*nership o( the propert b paingthe secure% %ebt *ithin the 7>/%a perio%a(ter the Hu%gment becomes Gnal, ina&&ordan&e with Rule >%, or even after thefore&losure sale 0ut prior to its&on;r-ation.

Se&tion $, Rule >% provides that

. . If upon the trial . . the &ourt shall ;ndthe fa&ts set forth in the &o-plaint to 0etrue, it shall as&ertain the a-ount due tothe plaintiA upon the -ortgage de0t oro0ligation, in&luding interest and &osts, andshall render ?udg-ent for the su- so founddue and order the sa-e to 0e paid into&ourt within a period of not lessthan ninet 7>- %as (rom the %ate o( theservice o( such or%er , and that in default of su&h pa#-ent the propert# 0e sold torealie the -ortgage de0t and &osts.

his is the -ortgagors equit not right- o( re%emption whi&h, as a0ove stated, -a#0e e7er&ised 0# hi- even 0e#ond the +!)da# period fro- the date of servi&e of theorder, and even after the fore&losure saleitself, provided it 0e 0efore the order of&on;r-ation of the sale. (fter su&h order of &on;r-ation, no rede-ption &an 0eeAe&ted an# longer.G% 3E-phasis supplied4

Petitioner failed to seasona0l# invo9e its purportedright under Se&tion =% of R.(. No. =.

Petitioner avers in its petition that the Inter&o-,prede&essor in interest of the private respondent,is a &redit institution, su&h that Se&tion =% ofRepu0li& (&t No. = should appl# in this &ase.Stated diAerentl#, it is the su0-ission of petitionerthat it should 0e allowed to redee- su0?e&tproperties within one #ear fro- the date of sale asa result of the fore&losure of the -ortgage&onstituted thereon.

he pivot of inuir# here therefore, is whether the

petitioner seasona0l# invo9ed its asserted rightunder Se&tion =% of R.(. No. = to redee- su0?e&tproperties.

$!









Petitioner theories that it invo9ed its GrightG inGti-el# fashionG, that is, after &on;r-ation 0# the&ourt of the fore&losure sale, and within one 314#ear fro- the date of registration of the &erti;&ateof sale. Indeed, the fa&ts show that it was onl# on"a# $, 1++ when, in opposition to the "otion forIssuan&e of rit of Possession, did petitioner ;le a"otion to Co-pel Private Respondent to (&&eptRede-ption, invo9ing for the ver# ;rst ti-e itsalleged right to redee- su0?e&t properties under to

Se&tion =% of R.(. No. =.

In light of the aforestated fa&ts, it was too late inthe da# for petitioner to invo9e a right to redee-under Se&tion =% of R.(. No. =. Petitioner failedto assert a right to redee- in several &ru&ial stagesof the pro&eedings.

5or instan&e, on Septe-0er =, 1++', when it ;ledwith the trial &ourt an E7)part "otion forClari;&ation, petitioner failed to allege and provethat private respondents prede&essor in interestwas a &redit institution and therefore, Se&tion =% of

R.(. No. = was appli&a0le. Petitioner -erel#as9ed the trial &ourt to &larif# whether the sale ofsu0?e&t properties was e7e&ution sale or ?udi&ialfore&losure sale.

So also, when it presented 0efore the trial &ourt anE7&eption to the Order and "otion to Set (sideSaid Order dated O&to0er 1, 1++', petitioneragain was silent on its alleged right under Se&tion=% of R.(. No. =, even as it failed to show thatprivate respondents prede&essor in interest is a&redit institution. Petitioner ?ust argued that theafore-entioned Order -ateriall# altered the trial&ourts De&ision of (pril !, 1++$.

hen, too, nothing was heard fro- petitioner on itsalleged right under Se&tion =% of R.(. No. = andof the prede&essor in interest of private respondentas a &redit institution, when the trial &ourt &a-eout with an order on 5e0ruar# 1!, 1++, &on;r-ingthe sale of su0?e&t properties in favor of privaterespondent and de&laring that all pending in&identswith respe&t to the Order dated Septe-0er $>,1++' had 0e&o-e -oot and a&ade-i&.

Si-ilarl#, when petitioner ;led on 5e0ruar# $=,1++ a "otion for Clari;&ation with the Court of(ppeals, see9ing G&lari;&ationG of the date of&o--en&e-ent of the one 314 #ear rede-ptionperiod for the su0?e&t properties, petitioner neverinti-ated an# alleged right under Se&tion =% ofR.(. No. = nor did it invite attention to its presentstan&e that private respondents prede&essor)in)interest was a &redit institution. Conseuentl#, inits Resolution dated "ar&h $!, 1++, the Court of(ppeals ruled on the said -otion thus/

GBut we never -ade an# pronoun&e-enton the one)#ear right o( re%emption ofpetitioner 0e&ause, in the ;rst pla&e,

the (oreclosure in this case is Hu%icial, an%as such. the mortgagor has onl the equit.not the right o( re%emption . . . hile it

-a# 0e true that under Se&tion =% of R.(.= as a-ended, otherwise 9nown as the*eneral Ban9ing (&t, a -ortgagor of a0an9, 0an9ing or &redit institution, whetherthe fore&losure was done ?udi&iall# ore7tra?udi&iall#, has a period of one #earfro- the au&tion sale within whi&h toredee- the fore&losed propert#, thequestion o( *hether the Sn%icate%9anagement 0roup. nc., is bank or cre%it

institution *as never brought be(ore ussquarel , and it is indeed odd and strangethat petitioner would now sar&asti&all# as9a rhetori&al uestion in its -otion for&lari;&ation.G+ 3E-phasis supplied4.

If petitioner were reall# a&ting in good faith, itwould have ventilated 0efore the Court of (ppealsin C()*.R. No. !%> its alleged right under Se&tion=% of R.(. No. =H 0ut petitioner never did do so.

Indeed, at the earliest opportunit#, when itsu0-itted its answer to the &o-plaint for ?udi&ial

fore&losure, petitioner should have alleged that itwas entitled to the 0ene;&ial provisions of Se&tion=% of R.(. No. = 0ut again, it did not -a9e an#allegation in its answer regarding an# rightthereunder. It 0ears stressing that the appli&a0ilit#of Se&tion =% of R.(. No. = hinges on the fa&tualuestion of whether or not private respondentsprede&essor in interest was a &redit institution. (swas held in &impin, a ?udi&ial fore&losure sale,Gwhen &on;r-ed 0# an order of the &ourt, . . shalloperate to divest the rights of all the parties to thea&tion and to vest their rights in thepur&haser, subHect to such rights o( re%emption asma be allo*e% b la*M,"1! whi&h &onfer on the

-ortgagor, his su&&essors in interest or an# ?udg-ent &reditor of the -ortgagor, the right toredee- the propert# sold on fore&losure after&on;r-ation 0# the &ourt of the ?udi&ial fore&losuresale. hus, the &lai- that petitioner is entitled tothe 0ene;&ial provisions of Se&tion =% of R.(. No.= sin&e private respondents prede&essor)in)interest is a &redit institution is in the nature of a&o-pulsor# &ounter&lai- whi&h should have 0eenaverred in petitioners answer to the &o-pliant for ?udi&ial fore&losure.

G. . . ( &ounter&lai- is, -ost 0roadl#, a

&ause of a&tion e7isting in favor of thedefendant against the plaintiA. "orenarrowl#, it is a claim *hich. i( establishe%,will defeat or in some *a quali( a Hu%gment or relie( to *hich plainti isother*ise entitle% t is sometimes %eGne%as an cause o( action arising in &ontra&tavaila0le against an# a&tion also arising in&ontra&t and e7isting at the ti-e of the&o--en&e-ent of su&h an a&tion. It isfreuentl# de;ned 0# the &odes as a &auseof a&tion arising out of the &ontra&t ortransa&tion set forth in the &o-plaint asthe foundation of the plaintiAs &lai-, or

&onne&ted with the su0?e&t of thea&tion.G11 3e-phasis supplied4

$1











Ghe &ounter&lai- is in itself a distin&t andindependent &ause of a&tion, so that whenproperl# stated as su&h, the defendant0e&o-es, in respe&t to the -atters stated0# hi-, an a&tor, and there are twosi-ultaneous a&tions pending 0etween thesa-e parties, wherein ea&h is at the sa-eti-e 0oth a plaintiA and a defendant.Counter&lai- is an oAensive as well as adefensive plea and is not ne&essaril#

&on;ned to the ?usti&e of the plaintiAs&lai-. t represents the right o( the%e(en%ant to have the claims o( the partiescounterbalance% in *hole or in part, an% Hu%gment to be entere% in ecess, i( an. Acounterclaim stan%s on the same (ooting,an% is to be teste% be the same rules, as i(it *ere an in%epen%entaction.G1$ 3e-phasis supplied4

he ver# purpose of a &ounter&lai- would have0een served had petitioner alleged in its answer itspurported right under Se&tion =% of R.(. No. =/

G. . . he rules of &ounter&lai- are designedto ena0le the disposition ofa *hole &ontrovers# of interested parties&oni&ting &lai-s, at one time an% in oneaction, provided all parties 0e 0rought0efore the &ourt and the -atter de&idedwithout pre?udi&ing the rights of an#part#.G1

he failure of petitioner to seasona0l# assert itsalleged right under Se&tion =% of R.(. No. =pre&ludes it fro- so doing at this late stage &ase.Estoppel -a# 0e su&&essfull# invo9ed if the part#fails to raise the uestion in the earl# stages of thepro&eedings.1' hus, Ga part# to a &ase who failedto invo9ed his &lai- in the -ain &ase, while havingthe opportunit# to do so, will 0e pre&luded,su0seuentl#, fro- invo9ing his &lai-, even if itwere true, after the de&ision has 0e&o-e ;nal,otherwise the ?udg-ent -a# 0e redu&ed to a-o&9er# and the ad-inistration of ?usti&e -a# 0epla&ed in disrepute.G1

(ll things viewed in proper perspe&tive, it isde&isivel# &lear that the trial &ourt erred in stillallowing petitioner to introdu&e eviden&e that

private respondents prede&essor)in)interest was a&redit institution, and to thereafter rule that thepetitioner was entitled to avail of the provisions ofSe&tion =% of R.(. No. =. In eAe&t, the trial &ourtper-itted the petitioner to a&&o-plish what thelatter failed to do 0efore the Court of (ppeals, thatis, to invo9e its alleged right under Se&tion =% ofR.(. No. = although the Court of (ppeals in C()*.R. no. !%> alread# found that the uestion ofwhether the S#ndi&ated "anage-ent Coun&il*roup, In&. is a 0an9 or &redit institution was never0rought 0efore 3the Court of (ppeals4 suarel#.G he said pronoun&e-ent 0# the Court of (ppealsunerringl# signi;ed that petitioner did not -a9e ati-el# assertion of an# right under Se&tion =% of

R.(. No. = in all the stages of the pro&eedings0elow.

Jeril#, the petitioner has onl# itself to 0la-e for notalleging at the outset that the prede&essor)in)interest of the private respondent is a &reditinstitution. hus, when the trial &ourt, and theCourt of (ppeals repeatedl# passed upon the issueof whether or not petitioner had the right ofrede-ption or euit# of rede-ption over su0?e&t

properties in the de&isions, resolutions and orders,parti&ularl# in Civil Case no. %+)'$', C()*.R. CJNo. +$', C()*.R. SP No. !%>, and C()*.R. SPNo. %='=, it was un-ista9a0le that the petitionerwas ad?udged to ?ust have the euit# of rede-ptionwithout an# uali;&ation whatsoever, that is,without an# right of rede-ption allowed 0# law.

he Glaw of &aseG holds that petitioner hasthe euit# of rede-ption without an#uali;&ation.

here is, therefore, -erit in private respondents

&ontention that to allow petitioner to 0elatedl#invo9e its right under Se&tion =% of R.(. No. =will distur0 the Glaw of the &ase.G @owever, privaterespondents state-ent of what &onstitutes theGlaw of the &aseG is not entirel# a&&urate. he Glawof the &aseG is not si-pl# that the defendantpossesses an euit# of rede-ption. (s the Courthas stated, the Glaw of the &aseG holds thatpetitioner has the euit# of the rede-ption withoutan# uali;&ation whatsoever, that is, without theright of rede-ption aAorded 0# Se&tion =% of R.(.No. =. hether or not the Glaw of the &aseG iserroneous is i--aterial, it still re-ains the Glaw ofthe &aseG. ( &ontrar# rule will &ontradi&t 0oth theletter and spirit of the rulings of the Court of(ppeals in C()*.R. SP No. !%>, C()*.R. CJ No.+$', and C()*.R. %='=, whi&h &learl# sawthrough the repeated atte-pts of petitioner toforestall so si-ple a -atter as -a9ing the se&urit#given for a ?ust de0t to answer for its pa#-ent.

@en&e, in &onfor-it# with the ruling in &impin, thesale of the su0?e&t properties, as &on;r-ed 0# theOrder dated 5e0ruar# 1!, 1++ of the trial &ourt inCivil Case No. %+)'$' operated to divest therights of all the parties to the a&tion and to vesttheir rights in private respondent. here then

e7isted onl# what is 9nown as the equit o(re%emption, whi&h is si-pl# the right of thepetitioner to e7tinguish the -ortgage and retainownership of the propert# 0# pa#ing the se&uredde0t within the +!)da# period after the ?udg-ent0e&a-e ;nal. here 0eing an e7pli&it ;nding on thepart of the Court of (ppeals in its De&ision ofSepte-0er !, 1++' in C()*.R. No. !%> thatthe herein petitioner failed to e7er&ise its euit# ofrede-ption within the pres&ri0ed period,rede-ption &an no longer 0e eAe&ted. he&on;r-ation of the sale and the issuan&e of thetransfer &erti;&ates of title &overing the su0?e&tproperties to private respondent was then, in order. he trial &ourt therefore, has the -inisterial dut# to

$$












pla&e private respondent in the possession ofsu0?e&t properties.

@ERE5ORE, the petition is DENIED, and theassailed de&ision of the Court of (ppeals, de&laringnull and void the Order dated $1 8ul# 1++ andOrder dated ' Septe-0er 1++= of the Regional rialCourt of "a9ati Cit# in Civil Case No. %+)'$',(55IR"ED. No pronoun&e-ent as to &osts.

RULE 69 PARTITION

G.R. No. 192486 No/&&r 21, 2012

RUPERTA CANO <A. E <IRA> "#$ !ESUSCARLO GERAR <IRA>, Petitioners,vs.SPOUSES !OSE USI "#$ AMELITAUSI, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

$



<ELASCO, !R., J.:

he Case

Petitioners have availed of Rule ' to assail andnullif# the De&ision1 dated 8ul# $', $!!+, aseAe&tivel# reiterated in a Resolution$ of 8une $,$!1!, 0oth rendered 0# the Court of (ppeals 3C(4in C()*.R. CJ No. +!'', setting aside theDe&ision dated 8une $1, $!!= of the Regional rial

Court 3RC4, Bran&h in "a&a0e0e, Pa-panga, inCivil Case No. !1)111%3"4, an a&&ionpu0li&ianareivindi&atoria, whi&h respondents&o--en&ed with, 0ut eventuall# dis-issed 0#, that&ourt.

he 5a&ts

(t the &ore of the present &ontrovers# are severalpar&els of land whi&h for- part of what was on&e2ot No. =, Cad)!)D, "asantol Cadastre 32ot= hereinafter4, registered in the na-e of Ellen P."endoa 3"endoa4, -arried to "oses "endoa,under ransfer Certi;&ate of itle No. 3C4 1'1)RP

of the Registr# of Deeds of Pa-panga. ith an areaof +,1= suare -eters, -ore or less, 2ot = islo&ated in Brg#. Be0e (na&, "asantol, Pa-panga.

On (pril $%, 1+%>, *eodeti& Engineer (0don *.5a?ardo prepared a su0division plan' 35a?ardo Plan,for short4 for 2ot =, in whi&h 2ot = was dividedinto si7 3>4 s-aller par&els of diAering siedi-ensions, designated as/ 2ot =)(, 2ot =)B,2ot =)C, 2ot =)D, 2ot =)E, and 2ot =)5&onsisting of >, '>, ,'', >%, >== and ,!1suare -eters, respe&tivel#.

he following da#, (pril $+, 1+%>, "endoa

e7e&uted two separate deeds of a0solute sale, the;rst, transferring 2ot =)5 to 8esus Carlo *erardJira# 38esus Jira#4, and the se&ond deed&onve#ing 2ot =)( to spouses (velino Jira# and"argarita "asang&a# 3Sps. Jira#4.> he na-es"&Dwight "endoa, "endoas son, and oneErnesto Bustos appear in 0oth notaried deeds asinstru-ental witnesses. (s of that ti-e, the 5a?ardoPlan has not 0een o:&iall# approved 0# the 2and"anage-ent Bureau 32"B4, for-erl# the Bureau of2ands. (nd at no ti-e in the &ourse of the&ontrovers# did the spouses Jira# and 8esus Jira#,as pur&hasers of 2ots =)( and =)5,respe&tivel#, &ause the annotations of the

&onve#ing deeds of sale on C 1'1)RP.

@erein petitioner, Ruperta Cano Jda. de Jira# 3Jda.de Jira#4, is the surviving spouse of 8esus Jira#,who died in (pril 1++$.

(s of (pril $+, 1+%>, the dispositions -ade onandor the ownership pro;le of the su0divided lotsappearing under the 5a?ardo Plan are as follows/

2ot No. (rea Conve#an&es 0#

"endoa

2ot =)( >> suare -eters Sold to Sps. (velinoand "argarita Jira#

2ot =)B '> suare -eters Fnsold

2ot =)C ,'' suare-eters

Fnsold

2ot =)D >% suare -eters Proposed Road

2ot =)E >== suare -eters Fnsold

2ot =)5 ,!1 suare-eters

Sold to 8esus Jira#

he afore-entioned &onve#an&es notwithstanding,"endoa, E-eren&iana ". Jda. de "allari 3Jda. de"allari4 and respondent spouses 8ose Fsi and

(-elita . Fsi 3Sps. Fsi or the Fsis4, as purported&o)owners of 2ot =, e7e&uted on (ugust $!, 1++!a Su0division (gree-ent,= or the

1st su0division agree-ent 31st S(4. Pursuant tothis agree-ent whi&h adopted, as 0ase ofreferen&e, the 2"B)approved su0division planprepared 0# *eodeti& Engineer (lfeo S. *alang3*alang Plan4, 2ot = was su0divided into threelots, i.e., 2ots ( to C, with the following area&overage/ 2ots =)(, '> suare -eters, =)B,'+' suare -eters, and =)C, >,%% suare-eters. In its pertinent parts, the 1st S( reads/

hat the a0ove)parties are the sole and e7&lusiveowners of a &ertain par&el of land situated in theBo. of Be0e (na&, "asantol, Pa-panga, whi&h is9nown as 2ot No. = under C No. 1'1 R.P. of theRegistr# of Deeds of Pa-panga, under Psd)No. !)1!)!$$'$H

hat for the &onvenien&e of the parties hereto thatthe e7isting &o--unit# of the said 2ot 0eter-inated and their respe&tive share 0edeter-ined 0# proper ad?udi&ationH

hat the parties hereto agreed to su0divided 3si&4the a0ove)-entioned propert# 0# *eodeti&Engineer (lfeo S. *alang, as per tra&ing &loth and0lue print &op# of plan Psd)!)!$$'$ and

$'

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_192486_2012.html#fnt1



















te&hni&al des&ription dul# approved 0# the Bureauof 2ands, hereto (tta&hed and -ade internal partof this instru-ent in the following -anner/

2ot =)( ) ) ) ) ) ) ) o E-eren&ia ". Jda. "allariH

2ot =)B ) ) ) ) ) ) ) o Sps. 8ose B. Fsi and (-elitaB. FsiH

2ot =)C ) ) ) ) ) ) ) o Ellen P. "endoa% 3E-phasisadded.4

C 1'1)RP would eventuall# 0e &an&eled and, inlieu thereof, three derivative titles were issued tothe following, as indi&ated/ C 1%')RP for 2ot=)( to "allariH C 1%)RP+ for 2ot =)B to Sps.FsiH and C 1%>)RP for 2ot =)C to "endoa.

On (pril , 1++1, "endoa, "&Dwight P. "endoa,Bis-ar9 P. "endoa, Beverl# P. "endoa,*eorgenia P. "endoa, Sps. (le?andro 2a&ap and 8uanita F. 2a&ap, Sps. Nestor Coronel and @er-iniaBalingit, Sps. Ba&ani and "artha Balingit, Sps.Ruperto and 8ose;na 8ordan, and Sps.

8ose and (-elita Fsi e7e&uted another Su0division(gree-ent1! 3$nd S(4 &overing and under whi&hthe %,1'%)s. -. 2ot =)C was further su0dividedinto 1 s-aller lots 32ot =)C)1 to 2ot =)C)1in&lusive4. he su0division plan11 for 2ot =)C, asli9ewise prepared 0# Engr. *alang on O&to0er 1,1++!, was o:&iall# approved 0# the 2"B on "ar&h1, 1++1.

he $nd S( partl# reads/

1. hat we are the sole and e7&lusive undivided &o)

owners of a par&el of land situated at Barrio Putatand (ra0ia, Be0e (na&, "asantol, Pa-panga,identi;ed as 2ot No. =)C of Psd)No. !)!'1>>+,&ontaining an area of %,1'% s. -eters and &overed0# .C.. No. 1%> R.P. of the

Register of Deeds of Pa-pangaH

$. hat it is for the 0ene;t and 0est interest of theparties herein that the Tsi&U their &o)ownershiprelation over the a0ove)-entioned par&el of land0e ter-inated and their respe&tive share over the&o)ownership 0e allotted Tsi&U to the-H

herefore, 0# virtue of the foregoing pre-ises, wehave agreed, as we here0# agree to su0divide oursaid par&el of land 7 7 7.1$ 3E-phasis added.4

Conseuent to the su0division of 2ot =)C in linewith the *alang Plan and its su0seuent partitionand distri0ution to the respe&tive allotees pursuantto the $nd S(, the following individuals appearedas owners of the su0divided units as indi&ated inthe ta0le 0elow/

2and (rea Partitioned to/

2ot =)C)1 $!! suare -eters Sps. 8ose and (-elita Fsi

2ot =)C)$ 1,!!! suare -eters Sps. (le?andro V 8uanita 2a&ap

2ot =)C) !! suare -eters Sps. Nestor V @er-inia Coronel

2ot =)C)' !! suare -eters Sps. Nestor V @er-inia Coroneland Sps. Ba&ani V "arthaBalingit

2ot =)C) '!! suare -eters Sps. Ruperto V 8ose;na 8ordan

2ot =)C)> !! suare -eters Ellen, "&Dwight, Bis-ar9,Beverl# and *eorgenia "endoa

2ot =)C)= $$! suare -eters Ellen, "&Dwight, Bis-ar9,Beverl# and *eorgenia "endoa

2ot =)C)% 1,!!! suare -eters Ellen, "&Dwight, Bis-ar9,Beverl# and *eorgenia "endoa

2ot =)C)+ !! suare -eters Ellen, "&Dwight, Bis-ar9,Beverl# and *eorgenia "endoa

2ot =)C)1! 1,!!! suare -eters Sps. 8ose and (-elita Fsi

2ot =)C)11 >>% suare -eters Ellen, "&Dwight, Bis-ar9,Beverl# and *eorgenia "endoa

2ot =)C)1$ ! suare -eters Ellen, "&Dwight, Bis-ar9,Beverl# and *eorgenia "endoa

2ot =)C)1U T1,1! suare -etersU T(llotted for a proposed roadU

$













In net eAe&t, the two su0division agree-entspaved the wa# for the issuan&e, under the Sps.Fsis na-e, of C Nos. 1%)RP,1 $!+$)RP,1' and$1!1)RP,1 &overing 2ots =)B, =)C)1 and =)C)

1!, respe&tivel#.

On the other hand, the su0division of 2ot =, perthe *alang Plan, and the two su0divisionagree-ents &on&luded 0ased on that plan, virtuall#resulted in the loss of the identit# of what underthe 5a?ardo Plan were 2ot =)( and 2ot =)5. heSps. Jira# and the late 8esus Jira#, to re&all,pur&hased 2ot =)( and 2ot =)5, respe&tivel#,fro- "endoa.

hen &a-e the o&ular inspe&tion andsurve#1> &ondu&ted on 2ot =, as an undividedwhole, 0# *eodeti& Engr. (ngelito Ni&dao of the

2"B. So-e highlights of his ;ndings/

3a4 2ot =)( of the 5a?ardo Plan with anarea of > suare -eters that Sps. Jira#0ought is within 2ot =)B 3*alang Plan4allotted under 1st S( to Sps. 8ose and(-elita FsiH and

304 2ot =)5 of the 5a?ardo Plan with anarea of ,!1 suare -eters is al-ostidenti&al to the &o-0ined area of 2ots =)C)% to =)C)1$ awarded to Ellen "endoaand her &hildren"&Dwight, Bis-ar9,Beverl# and *eorgenia, and a portion

31,!!! suare -eters4 of 2ot =)C)1! ofthe *alang Plan awarded to Sps. 8ose and(-elita Fsi.

(s to 0e e7pe&ted, the foregoing overlappingtransa&tions involving the sa-e propert# orportions thereof spawned several suits and&ounter) suits featuring, in parti&ular, hereinpetitioners and respondents, vi/

3a4 ( suit for (nnul-ent of Deed of (0solute Sale;led 0efore the RC, Bran&h in "a&a0e0e,Pa-panga, do&9eted as Civil Case No. %%)!$>)",in whi&h the Fsis and "endoa, as plaintiAs,

assailed the validit# and sought the annul-ent ofthe deed of a0solute sale e7e&uted 0# "endoa on(pril $+, 1+%> &onve#ing 2ot =)( 35a?ardo Plan4to defendants Sps. Jira#.

304 ( si-ilar suit for (nnul-ent of Deed of (0soluteSale &o--en&ed 0# "endoa against 8esus Jira#0efore RC)Br. in "a&a0e0e, Pa-panga,do&9eted as Civil Case No. %%)!$%)", entitledEllen P. "endoa v. 8esus Carlo *erard Jira#, alsosee9ing to nullif# the (pril $+, 1+%> Deed of(0solute Sale &onve#ing 2ot =)5 35a?ardo Plan4 to 8esus Jira# and to de&lare the plaintiA as entitled toits possession.

he adverted Civil Case Nos. %%)!$>)" and %%)!$%)" were ?ointl# tried 0# RC)Br. , whi&h, on

(ugust 1, 1+%+, rendered a 8oint De&ision1= ;ndingfor the Sps. Jira# and 8esus Jira#, as defendants,and a&&ordingl# dis-issing the separate&o-plaints to annul the deeds of sale su0?e&t ofthe ?oint &ases.

On appeal, the C(, in C()*.R. CJ Nos. $'+%1)%$,and later this Court, in its De&ision of De&e-0er11, 1++, in *.R. No. 1$$$%= in eAe&t a:r-ed intoto the RC dis-issal de&ision.1% he Court, via its

Resolution of (pril 1=, 1++%, would eventuall# den#with ;nalit#1+ "endoa and the Fsis -otion forre&onsideration of the aforesaid De&e-0er 11,1++ De&ision.

3&4 ( for&i0le entr# &ase ;led on Nove-0er 1+,1++1 0# the late 8esus Jira# against the Sps. Fsi0efore the "uni&ipal Cir&uit rial Court 3"CC4 in"a&a0e0e, Pa-panga, do&9eted as Civil Case No.+1 314, entitled 8esus Carlo *erard Jira# v.Spouses 8ose Fsi and E-elita olentino, to e?e&t theFsis fro- 2ot =)5 35a?ardo Plan4.

On 8ul# $+, 1++%, the "CC rendered a

De&ision$!

in favor of 8esus Jira#, the dispositiveportion of whi&h pertinentl# reads/

@ERE5ORE, pre-ises &onsidered, ?udg-ent ishere0# rendered for the plaintiA the late petitioner 8esus Jira#, and a&&ordingl#, the defendants Sps.Fsi and an# other persons &lai-ing under the- arehere0# ordered to va&ate the su0?e&t pre-ises, 2ot=)5 e-0ra&ed in .C.. No. 1'1)R.P., Register ofDeeds Pa-panga, and 2ot =)(, 0oth situated atBe0e (na&, "asantol, Pa-panga and to re-ove attheir own e7pense, all stru&tures or i-prove-entsthe# 0uilt and introdu&ed thereon.

Defendants are li9ewise senten&ed to pa# plaintiAthe a-ount of @REE @FNDRED 3P!!.!!4 PESOSper -onth fro- Nove-0er 1+, 1++1, until the#va&ate the pre-ises, as reasona0le &o-pensationfor the use and o&&upation thereof 7 7 7.

7 7 7 7

SO ORDERED.$1

he De&ision eventuall# 0e&a-e ;nal ande7e&utor#, the Fsis having opted not to appeal it.

3d4 ( Petition for (nnul-ent of the "CCs 8ul# $+,1++% De&ision ;led 0# the Sps. Fsi 0efore the RC,do&9eted as Civil Case No. ++)!+1'", entitled Sps. 8ose V (-elita Fsi v. @on. Pres. 8udge "CC,"a&a0e0e, Pa-panga, the Court SheriA, "CC,"a&a0e0e, Pa-panga and

Ruperta Cano Jda. de Jira#, whi&h de&ision pla&ed 8esus Jira#s widow, Ruperta, in possession of 2ot=)5 of the 5a?ardo Plan.

(s -a# 0e noted, the spouses Fsi, instead ofappealing fro- the 8ul# $+, 1++% "CC De&ision inCivil Case No. +1 314, sought, after its ;nalit#, its

annul-ent 0efore the RC. B# De&ision$$

dated 8une $+, $!!!, the RC dis-issed the petition toannul. he Fsis appeal to the C(, do&9eted as C()

$>


























*.R. CJ No. >=+', -erited the sa-e dis-issala&tion.$ (nd ;nall#, in *.R. No. 1'% 3Spouses 8ose and (-elita Fsi v. Ruperta Cano Jda. deJira#4, the Court denied, on 5e0ruar# 1$, $!!,Sps. Fsis petition for review of the C(s De&ision. he denial 0e&a-e ;nal on (pril %, $!! and anEntr# of 8udg-ent$' issued in due &ourse.

3e4 ( Petition for (&&ion Pu0li&ianaReivindi&atoria $ instituted on De&e-0er 1$, $!!1

0# Sps. Fsi against the late 8esus Jira#, assu0stituted 0# Jda. de Jira#, et al., 0efore the RCin "a&a0e0e, Pa-panga, do&9eted as Civil CaseNo. !1)111%3"4, involving 2ots =)B, =)C)1 and=)C)1! 3*alang Plan4 &overed 0# C Nos. 1%)RP, $!+$)RP and $1!1)RP.

he e7e&ution of the 8ul# $+, 1++% "CC De&isionin Civil Case No. +1 314, as the Sps. Fsi asserted intheir petition, would oust the- fro- their own infee si-ple lots even though the dispositive portionof said for&i0le entr# De&ision -entioned 2ots =)( and =)5 35a?ardo Plan4 and not 2ots =)B, =)C)1 and =)C)1! 3*alang Plan4 whi&h areregistered in their na-es per C Nos. 1%)RP,$!+$)RP and $1!1)RP.

In ti-e, Jda. de Jira# -oved for the dis-issal$> ofthese pu0li&iana reivindi&atoria a&tions ongrounds, a-ong others, of litis pendentia and res ?udi&ata, on a&&ount of 314 the Sps. Fsis appeal,then pending 0efore the C(, fro- the dis-issal 0#the RC of Civil Case No. ++)!+1'"H$= and 3$4 the(ugust 1, 1+%+ RC De&ision in Civil Case Nos. %%)!$>)" and %%)!$%)", as eAe&tivel# a:r-ed 0#the C(, and ;nall# 0# the Court in *.R. No. 1$$$%=. his -otion to dis-iss would, however, 0e denied0# the RC through an Order$% of "ar&h %, $!!$,&o-pelling Jda. de Jira# to ;le an answer,$+ again

invo9ing in defense the do&trine of res ?udi&ata.Sps. Fsis Repl# to (nswer! &ontained an aver-entthat their titles over the su0?e&t lots are the 0esteviden&e of their ownership.

3f4 (n a&tion for Can&ellation of itles or Surrenderof Original itles with Da-ages1 &o--en&ed 0#Jda. de Jira#, et al., against the Sps. Fsi, "endoaand eight others 0efore the RC, Bran&h ' in"a&a0e0e, Pa-panga, do&9eted as Civil Case No.3!$4)11>'3"4, see9ing the &an&ellation of C Nos.>1')R.P., $!++)R.P., $1!1)R.P., =!$)R.P. and $1!)R.P. &overing 2ots =)C)% to =)C)1$ assu0divided under the $nd S( of (pril , 1++1 whi&h

ta9en together is 0asi&all# identi&al to 2ot =)535a?ardo Plan4 sold to 8esus Jira#.

o re&ap, the si7 3>4 &ases thus ;led involvingportions of 2ot = and their status are/

CivilCaseNo.

he Parties (&tionSuitfor

Su0?e&t2ot3s4

Disposition

%%)!$>)"

Sps. Fsi v. (nnul-entof Deed of

=)( De&isionin favor

Sps. Jira# (0soluteSale

35a?ardoPlan4

of Sps.Jira#.De&isionis now;nal.

%%)!$%)"

"endoa v. 8esus Jira#

(nnul-entof Deed of(0soluteSale

=)5

35a?ardoPlan4

De&isionin favorof Sps.Jira#.

Su0?e&tof C()*.R. CJNos.$'+%1)%$ Mdenied.Su0?e&tof *.R.

No.1$$$%= Mpetitiondenied.

+1 314 8esus Jira#v. Sps. Fsi

5or&i0leEntr#

=)5

35a?ardoPlan4

8udg-ent in favorof Jira#.Noappeal.

+!)!+1'"

Sps. Fsi v.Jda. deJira#

Petition for(nnul-entof "CC

De&ision inCC No. +1314

=)5

35a?ardoPlan4

RCdis-issedpetition.

C()*.R.CJ No.>=+' Mappealdis-issed. *.R.No.1'% M

petitiondenied.

3!$4)11>'3"4

Jda. deJira# v."endoa,et al.

Can&ellation of itles0efore RC,Br. ,Pa-panga

2ots =)C)%

o =)C)1$

32ot =)5 35a?ardo

Plan4

Pending0eforethe RC.

$=


























!1)11%3"

Sps. Fsi v.Jda. deJira#

Petition for

(&&ionPu0li&ianaandReivindi&atoria 0eforeRC, Br. ,

Pa-panga

=)B,=)C)

1 and=)C)

1!3*alang

Plan4

Petitiondis-issed.

C()*.R.CJ No.+!'' Mreversed

RCDe&ision.Su0?e&tof instant&ase,*.R. No.1+$'%>

In su-, of the si7 3>4 &ases referred to a0ove, the;rst four 3'4 have 0een ter-inated and the -ainissues therein pere-ptoril# resolved. o a pre&isepoint, the -atter of the validit# of the (pril $+,1+%> deeds of a0solute sale &onve#ing 2ots =)(

and =)5 under the 5a?ardo Plan to Sps. Jira# andJda. de Jira# 3vi&e 8esus Jira#4, respe&tivel#, is nolonger a &ontentious issue 0# for&e of the CourtsDe&ision in *.R. No. 1$$$%= eAe&tivel# upholdingthe dis-issal of the twin &o-plaints to nullif# thedeeds afore-entioned. 2i9ewise, the issue of whohas the 0etter possessor# right independent of titleover the disputed lots has 0een resolved in favor of Jda. de Jira# and the Sps. Jira# and against theFsis and verita0l# put to rest 0# virtue of theCourts ;nal, a:r-ator# De&ision in *.R. No.1'%.

Onl# two &ases of the original si7 revolving around

2ot = re-ained unresolved. he ;rst refers to thepetition for review of the de&ision of the C( in C()*.R. CJ No. +!'' whi&h, in turn, is an appeal fro-the de&ision of the RC in Civil Case No. !1)111%3"4, a Petition for (&&ion Pu0li&ianaReivindi&atoria and Da-ages, and the se&ond isCivil Case No. 3!$4)11>'3"4 for Can&ellation of itles or Surrender of Original itles with Da-ages. he ;rst &ase is su0?e&t of the present re&ourse,while the se&ond is, per re&ords, still pending0efore the RC, Bran&h ' in "a&a0e0e,Pa-panga, its resolution dou0tless on hold in lightof the instant petition.

In the -eanti-e, the Sps. Fsi have re-ained inpossession of what in the *alang Plan aredesignated as 2ots =)B, =)C)1 and =)C)1!.

he Ruling of the RC in Civil Case No. !1)111%3"4

(s -a# 0e re&alled, on 8une $1, $!!= in Civil CaseNo. !1)111%3"4, the "a&a0e0e, Pa-panga RCrendered ?udg-ent dis-issing the petition of theSps. Fsi$ for (&&ion Pu0li&ianaReivindi&atoria. Inits dis-issal a&tion, the RC held that the Sps. Fsifailed to esta0lish 0# preponderan&e of eviden&e tosupport their &lai- of title, possession andownership over the lots su0?e&t of their petition.

5ollowing the denial of their -otion forre&onsideration per the RCs Order of Septe-0er

$, $!!=, the Sps. Fsi interposed an appeal 0eforethe C(, do&9eted as C()*.R. CJ No. +!''.

he Ruling of the C(

On 8ul# $', $!!+, the C( rendered the assailedde&ision, reversing and setting aside the appealed 8une $1, $!!= RC de&ision. he fallo of the C(de&ision reads/

@ERE5ORE, the instant appeal is *R(NED andthe assailed De&ision of the Regional rial Court,REJERSED and SE (SIDE. 8udg-ent is here0#rendered de&laring as legal and valid, the right ofownership of petitioner)appellant respondentsherein spouses 8ose Fsi and (-elita . Fsi over 2otNos. =)B, =)C)1 and =)C)1! &overed 0# CNos. 1%)R.P., $!+$)R.P, and $1!1)R.P.,respe&tivel#. Conseuentl#, respondents)appelleesherein petitioners are here0# ordered to &ease anddesist fro- further &o--itting a&ts ofdispossession or fro- distur0ing possession andownership of petitioners)appellants of the saidpropert# as herein des&ri0ed and spe&i;ed. Clai-s

for da-ages, however, are here0# denied 7 7 7.

SO ORDERED.

he C( predi&ated its ruling on the interpla# of thefollowing pre-ises and ;ndings/ 3a4 the validit# ofthe two 3$4 dul# notaried su0division agree-ents,or the 1st S( and $nd S(, whi&h the 2"B laterapprovedH 304 the su0divisions of 2ot = on the0asis of the *alang Plan a&tuall# partoo9 thenature of the partition of the shares of its &o)ownersH 3&4 what "endoa &onve#ed through the(pril $+, 1+%> deeds of a0solute sale is onl# herideal, a0stra&t or pro)indiviso share of 2ot = of

whi&h she had full ownership, the &onve#an&e orsale su0?e&t to the eventual delineation andpartition of her shareH 3d4 Jda. de Jira# has notshown that fraud surrounded the e7e&ution of thepartition of 2ot = through the su0divisionagree-ents of (ugust $!, 1++! and (pril , 1++1H3e4 the &erti;&ates of title of the Sps. Fsi &onstituteindefeasi0le proof of their ownership of 2ots =)B,=)C)1 and =)C)1!H 3f4 said &erti;&ate entitledthe Sps. Fsi to ta9e possession thereof, the right topossess 0eing -erel# an attri0ute of ownershipH 3g4Jda. de Jira# &an onl# go after the partitionedshares of "endoa in 2ot =H and 3h4 the issue ofpossessor# right has 0een -ooted 0# the ?udg-entof ownership in favor of the Sps. Fsi over 2ots =)B, =)C)1 and =)C)1!.

Jda. de Jira# sought 0ut was deniedre&onsideration per the assailed 8une $, $!1! C(Resolution.

@en&e, e have this petition.

he Issue

@E@ER OR NO @E COFR ( QFO *R(JE2L(ND SERIOFS2L ERRED IN REJERSIN* (NDSEIN* (SIDE @E DECISION O5 @E RC

DIS"ISSIN* RESPONDENS PEIION.'

$%











he Courts Ruling

In the -ain, the issue tendered in this pro&eeding0oils down to the uestion of whether the two 3$4su0division agree-ents dated (ugust $!, 1++! and(pril , 1++1, respe&tivel#, parta9e of a 0ona ;deand legall# 0inding partition &ontra&ts orarrange-ents a-ong &o)owners that validl#eAe&tuated the transfer of the su0?e&t lots torespondent spouses Fsi. Intertwined with the -ain

issue is the &orrelative uestion 0earing on thevalidit# of the deeds of a0solute sale upon whi&hthe petitioners hinged their &lai- of ownership andright of possession over said lots.

he Court rules in favor of petitioners.

Petitioners &ontend ;rst oA that the C( erred in itsholding that the partitions of 2ot = and later ofthe divided unit 2ot =)C following the *alangPlan were a&tuall# the partitions of the pro)indivisoshares of its &o)owners eAe&tivel# &onve#ing tothe- their respe&tive spe&i;& shares in thepropert#.

e agree with petitioners.

5irst, the C(s holding aforestated is neithersupported 0#, nor dedu&i0le fro-, the evidentiar#fa&ts on re&ord. @e who alleges -ust prove it.Respondents have the 0urden to su0stantiate thefa&tu- pro0andu- of their &o-plaint or theulti-ate fa&t whi&h is their &lai-ed ownership overthe lots in uestion. he# were, however,unsu&&essful in addu&ing the fa&tu- pro0ans orthe evidentiar# fa&ts 0# whi&h the fa&tu-pro0andu- or ulti-ate fa&t &an 0e esta0lished. (sshall 0e dis&ussed shortl#, fa&ts and &ir&u-stan&es

o0tain arguing against the &lai-ed &o)ownershipover 2ot =.

Se&ond, the earlier sale of 2ot =)( and 2ot =)535a?ardo Plan4 on (pril $+, 1+%> was valid andeAe&tive &onve#an&es of said portions of 2ot =. he su0seuent transfers to the Sps. Fsi ofsu0stantiall# the sa-e portions of 2ot =a&&o-plished through the su0division agree-ents&onstitute in eAe&t dou0le sales of those portions. his a0erration was 0rought to light 0# the resultsof the adverted surve# &ondu&ted so-eti-e in 8une $$, 1+++ of Engr. Ni&dao of the 2"B.

hird, even granting arguendo that the su0?e&tsu0division agree-ents were in fa&t 0ut partitionsof the pro)indiviso shares of &o)owners, saidagree-ents would still 0e in;r-, for the Sps. Jira#and Jda. de Jira# 3vi&e 8esus Jira#4 were e7&ludedfro- the transa&tion. 2i9e Jda. de "allari, Sps.Jira# and 8esus Jira# had validl# a&uired and,hen&e, owned portions of 2ot = and arethe-selves &o)owners of 2ot =.

(nd last, over and a0ove the foregoing&onsiderations, the instant petition -ust 0eresolved in favor of petitioners, the underl#ingreinvindi&ator# and possessor# a&tions in Civil Case

No. !1)111% 3"4 0eing 0arred 0# the appli&ation ofthe res ?udi&ata prin&iple. hat is -ore, the issueof superior possessor# rights of petitioner Jda. de

Jira# over 2ot =)5 35a?ardo Plan4 has 0een laid torest with ;nalit# in Civil Case No. +1 314. Besides,Sps. Fsis a&tion to assail the ;nal and e7e&utor# 8ul# $+, 1++% "CC De&ision in Civil Case No. +1314 has 0een denied with ;nalit# in *.R. No.1'%.

he su0division agree-ents not partition of &o)owners

Partition, in general, is the separation, division, andassign-ent of a thing held in &o--on 0# those towho- it -a# 0elong.

Contrar# to the ;nding of the C(, the su0divisionagree-ents forged 0# "endoa and her alleged &o)owners were not for the partition of pro)indivisoshares of &o)owners of 2ot = 0ut were a&tuall#&onve#an&es, disguised as partitions, of portions of 2ot = spe&i;&all# 2ots =)( and =)B, andportions of the su0seuent su0division of 2ot =)C.

Nota0l#, after a full)0lown trial in Civil Case No. !1)

111% 3"4 wherein the spouses Fsi -erged ana&&ion pu0li&iana with an a&&ion reinvindi&atoria inone petition, the RC held that Sps. Fsi failed toprove their &ase. @owever, in C( *.R. CJ No.+!'', an appeal fro- said RC de&ision, the C(,while a&9nowledging the e7isten&e of the (pril $+,1+%> deeds of a0solute sale, nonetheless a&&ordedvalidit# to the (ugust $!, 1++! and (pril , 1++1su0division agree-ents. his is in&orre&t. he C(held that the two 3$4 su0division agree-ents, asnotaried, en?o# the presu-ption of regularit# andeAe&tuated the propert# transfers &overed there0#,o0viousl# glossing over the -ala ;des attendantthe e7e&ution of the two su0division agree-ents. It

&annot 0e overe-phasied enough that the two 3$4deeds of a0solute sale over portions ofsu0stantiall# the sa-e par&el of land antedated thesu0division agree-ents in uestion and theire7e&ution a&9nowledged too 0efore a notar#pu0li&.

he appellate &ourt found and so de&lared thesu0division agree-ents valid without so -u&h ase7plaining, let alone su0stantiating, itsdeter-ination. he C( never elu&idated how theSps. Fsi 0e&a-e, in the ;rst pla&e &o)owners, with"endoa over 2ot =. On its fa&e, C 1'1)RP&overing 2ot = was in the na-e of spouses Ellenand "oses "endoa onl#. hen too, the C( did note7plain how under the $nd S( the Sps. Fsi, theSps. 2a&ap, the Sps. Balingit and the Sps. 8ordan0e&a-e &o)owners with "endoa over 2ot =)C,when "endoa, under the 1st S(, virtuall#represented herself as the sole owner of 2ot =)C.

( s&rutin# of the re&ords with a ;ne)tooth &o-0li9ewise fails to su0stantiall# show a partition of 2ot= 0# its &o)owners. hile the 1st and $nd S(spurport to 0e deeds of partition 0# and a-ong &o)owners of the lots &overed there0#, partition as afa&t is 0elied 0# the eviden&e e7tant on re&ord.Consider/

It is undisputed that C 1'1 RP &overing 2ot =was originall# in the na-e of Ellen P. "endoa and

$+





hus0and, "oses.> he ?oint de&ision of the RC inCivil Case Nos. %%)!$> and %%)!$%)" narratedhow the &ouple &a-e to own 2ot =, thus/ G2ot= was a&uired 0# Spouses "oses "endoa andEllen "endoa and Spouses Pa&i;&o Bustos and"aria Ro-an fro- Donato 2a&ap for P,!!!.!!3E7h. G1G4 in 1+==. (fter two #ears, SpousesPa&i;&o Bustos and "aria Ro-an sold one)half pro)indiviso portion of 2ot = to spouses "oses"endoa and Ellen "endoa for P>,!!!.!! 3E7h.G$G4 and the a&uisition &ost of the whole lot is onl#P%,!!.!! and 7 7 7.G=

"endoa and the Sps. Fsi, in their separate&o-plaints for annul-ent of deeds of sale,do&9eted as Civil Case Nos. %%)!$> and %%)!$%)" of the "a&a0e0e, Pa-panga RC, alleged that"oses "endoa authoried (tt#. Jenan&io Jira# tosell the su0?e&t lot for at least PhP $!! per suare-eter, and that after his 3"oses4 death on (pril ,1+%>, 2ot = was in&luded in the pro&eedings forthe settle-ent of his estate do&9eted as Sp. Pro&.Case No. %>)!!'!)" of the RC, Bran&h in"a&a0e0e, Pa-panga, he events thus alleged 0#"endoa and the Fsis &an 0e gleaned fro- the

;nal and e7e&utor# ?oint de&ision in Civil Case Nos.%%)!$>)" and %%)!$%)" whi&h petitioner Jda. deJira# atta&hed as (nne7 GG in her (nswer withCounter&lai-% to the Fsis petition for a&&ionpu0li&anareivindi&atoria. Said 8oint De&ision a-pl#shows, in gist, the allegations+ of 0oth the Sps. Fsiand "endoa in Civil Case Nos. %%)!$>)" and %%)!$%)" asserting said fa&ts. (nd these assertions,-ade in their &o-plaints, are ?udi&ial ad-issionsunder Se&. ','! Rule 1$+ of the Rules of Court.

Fnli9e Jda. de "allari who, per Jda. de Jira#s ownad-ission, pur&hased the '1>)suare -eterportion of 2ot = on 5e0ruar# 1', 1+%', thus

&onstituting her 3Jda. de "allari4 as &o)owner of"endoa to the e7tent of said areapur&hased,'1 the Sps. Fsi have not 0een shown to0e &o)owners with "endoa. here is si-pl#nothing in the re&ords to de-onstrate how the Sps.Fsi 0e&a-e &o)owners of 2ot = 0efore or afterthe death of "oses "endoa. Elsewise put, noeviden&e had 0een addu&ed to show how thealleged interest of the Sps. Fsi, as &o)owner, &a-ea0out, e7&ept for the 0are assertions in the 1st and$nd S(s that the# &o)owned 2ot = and 2ot =)C3*alang Plan4.

It is fairl# &lear that 2ot =, even fro- the fa&t

alone of its 0eing registered under the na-e of thelate "oses "endoa and Ellen "endoa, for-edpart of the &ouples &on?ugal propert# at the ti-e"oses de-ise on (pril , 1+%>. Euall# &lear, too,is that Jda. de "allari 0e&a-e a &o)owner of 2ot= 0# virtue of the pur&hase of its '1>)suare-eter portion on 5e0ruar# 1', 1+%', during thelifeti-e of "oses. Be that as it -a# and given thatthe Sps. Fsi have not 0een shown to 0e &o)ownersof "endoa and Jda. de "allari prior to the sale 0#"endoa on (pril $+, 1+%> of 2ots =)( and =)535a?ardo Plan4 to the Sps. Jira# and 8esus Jira#,respe&tivel#, then the e7e&ution of the 1st S( on(ugust $!, 1++! &ould not have 0een a partition 0#&o)owners of 2ot =. he sa-e &ould 0e said of

the $nd S( of (pril , 1++1 vis)W)vis 2ot =)C, forthe re&ords are si-ilarl# &o-pletel# 0ereft of an#eviden&e to show on how the purported

parti&ipating &o)owners, na-el# Sps. Fsi, the Sps.2a&ap, the Sps. Balingit and the Sps. 8ordan0e&a-e &o)owners with "endoa and her &hildren,i.e., "&Dwight, Bis-ar9, Beverl# and *eorgenia.

he (pril $+, 1+%> Deeds of (0solute Sale

of 2ot =)( and 2ot =)5 are Jalid

It -ust 0e noted that the RC, in its de&ision in CivilCase Nos. %%)!$>)" and %%)!$%)", upheld thevalidit# of the separate (pril $+, 1+%> deeds ofa0solute sale of 2ots =)( and =)5 35a?ardoPlan4. he &o-0ined area of 2ot =)( 3>> s. -.4and 2ot =)5 3,!14 is less than one half of thetotal area &overage of 2ot = 3+,1=4. he sale ofone)half portion of the &on?ugal propert# is valid asa sale. It &annot 0e gainsaid then that the deeds,e7e&uted as the# were 0# the propert# owner, weresu:&ient to transfer title and ownership over theportions &overed there0#. (nd the aforesaid RCde&ision had 0e&o-e ;nal and e7e&utor# as far0a&9 as De&e-0er 11, 1++ when the Court, in*.R. No. 1$$$%=, in eAe&t, a:r-ed the RC

de&ision. 2i9ewise, the "CCs de&ision in CivilCase No. +1 314 for for&i0le entr#, de&laring Jda.de Jira#, as su&&essor)in)interest of 8esus Jira#, asentitled to the ph#si&al possession, or possessionde fa&to, of 2ot =)5 35a?ardo Plan4, and the RCsde&ision in Civil Case No. ++)!+1'", disposing ofthe 0elated appeal of the "CC de&ision in thefor&i0le entr# &ase, have 0e&o-e ;nal ande7e&utor# on 5e0ruar# 1$, $!! under *.R. No.1'%.

In light of the &onvergen&e of the foregoingdisposed)of &ases, there &an 0e no uestion as tothe ownership of the Sps. Jira# and Jda. de Jira#

3vi&e 8esus Jira#4 over the spe&i;ed and delineatedportions of 2ot = whi&h the# pur&hased for valuefro- "endoa. (nd "endoa, as vendor, was0ound to transfer the ownership of and deliver, aswell as warrant, the thing whi&h is the o0?e&t of thesale.'$

In the instant &ase, the (pril $+, 1+%> deeds ofa0solute sale indeed in&luded the te&hni&aldes&ription of that part of 2ot = su0?e&t of thetransa&tions, thus &learl# identif#ing the portions32ots =)( and =)5 under the 5a?ardo Plan4 sold0# "endoa to the Sps. Jira# and Jda. de Jira#3vi&e 8esus Jira#4. @en&e, there &an 0e no-ista9ing as to the identit# of said lots.

he deeds in uestion were, to reiterate, not onl#valid 0ut &onstitute prior &onve#an&es of thedisputed portions of 2ot =. (&&ordingl#, thesu0seuent &onve#an&es in 1++! and 1++1 to theSps. Fsi through transfer &ontra&ts, st#led assu0division agree-ents, resulted, in eAe&t, in adou0le sale situation involving su0stantiall# thesa-e portions of 2ot =.

he surve# report of 2"B surve#or, Engr. Ni&dao,would support a ;nding of dou0le sale. @is report,as earlier indi&ated, &ontained the following 9e#;ndings/ 314 2ot =)( 35a?ardo Plan4 with an areaof > suare -eters thus sold to the Sps. Jira# iswithin 2ot =)B 3*alang Plan4, the part assigned to

!





















Sps. Fsi under the divisionH and 3$4 2ot =)535a?ardo Plan4 with an area of ,!1 suare -etersis al-ost identi&al to the &o-0ined area of 2ots=)C)% to =)C)1$ awarded to Ellen "endoa andher &hildren, "&Dwight, Bis-ar9, Beverl# and*eorgenia, and a portion 31,!!! suare -eters4 of2ot =)C)1! 3*alang Plan4 ad?udi&ated to Sps. Fsi.

( dou0le sale situation, whi&h would &all, ifne&essar#, the appli&ation of (rt. 1'' of the Civil

Code, arises when, as ?urispruden&e tea&hes, thefollowing reuisites &on&ur/

3a4 he two 3or -ore4 sales transa&tions-ust &onstitute valid salesH

304 he two 3or -ore4 sales transa&tions-ust pertain to e7a&tl# the sa-e su0?e&t-atterH

3&4 he two 3or -ore4 0u#ers at odds overthe rightful ownership of the su0?e&t -atter-ust ea&h represent &oni&ting interestsHand

3d4 he two 3or -ore4 0u#ers at odds overthe rightful ownership of the su0?e&t -atter-ust ea&h have 0ought fro- the ver#sa-e seller.'

5ro- the fa&ts, there is no valid sale fro- "endoato respondents Fsi. he parties did not e7e&ute avalid deed of sale &onve#ing and transferring thelots in uestion to respondents. hat the# rel# onare two su0division agree-ents whi&h do note7pli&itl# &hroni&le the transfer of said lots to the-.Fnder the 1st S(, all that &an 0e read is thede&laration that respondents, together with others,

are the Gsole and e7&lusive ownersG of the lotssu0?e&t of said agree-ent. Per the $nd S(, itsi-pl# repli&ates the state-ent in the 1st S( thatrespondents are Gsole and e7&lusive undivided &o)ownersG with the other parties. hile respondents-a# &lai- that the S(s of 1++! and 1++1 are&onvenient &onve#ing vehi&les "endoa resortedto in disposing portions of 2ot = under the*alang Plan, the Court ;nds that said S(s are notvalid legal &onve#an&es of the su0?e&t lots due tonon)e7istent prestations pursuant to (rti&le 1!whi&h pres&ri0es Ga -eeting of -inds 0etween twopersons where0# one 0inds hi-self, with respe&t tothe other, to give so-ething or to render so-e

servi&e.G he third ele-ent of &ause of theo0ligation whi&h is esta0lished under (rt. 11% ofthe Civil Code is li9ewise visi0l# a0sent fro- thetwo S(s. he transfer of title to respondents 0asedon said S(s is awed, irregular, null and void. husthe two S(s are not Gsales transa&tionsG nor GvalidsalesG under (rt. 1'' of the Civil Code and, hen&e,the ;rst essential ele-ent under said legalprovision was not satis;ed.1)*phi1

*iven the a0ove perspe&tive, the Sps. Jira# andJda. de Jira# 3vi&e 8esus Jira#4 have, as againstthe Sps. Fsi, superior rights over 2ot =)( and 2ot=)5 35a?ardo Plan4 or portions thereof.

Res 8udi&ata (pplies

Nota0l#, the Sps. Jira# and Jda. de Jira#, afterpere-ptoril# prevailing in their &ases supportive oftheir &lai- of ownership and possession of 2ots=)( and =)5 35a?ardo Plan4, &annot now 0edeprived of their rights 0# the e7pedien&# of theSps. Fsi -aintaining, as here, an a&&ion pu0li&ianaandor a&&ion reivindi&atoria, two of the three 9indsof a&tions to re&over possession of real propert#. he third, a&&ion interdi&tal, &o-prises two distin&t&auses of a&tion, na-el# for&i0le entr# andunlawful detainer,'' the issue in 0oth &ases 0eingli-ited to the right to ph#si&al possession orpossession de fa&to, independentl# of an# &lai- ofownership that either part# -a# set forth in his orher pleadings,' al0eit the &ourt has the&o-peten&e to delve into and resolve the issue ofownership 0ut onl# to address the issue of priorit#of possession.'> Both a&tions -ust 0e 0roughtwithin one #ear fro- the date of a&tual entr# onthe land, in &ase of for&i0le entr#, and fro- thedate of last de-and to va&ate following thee7piration of the right to possess, in &ase ofunlawful detainer.'=

hen the dispossession or unlawful deprivation

has lasted -ore than one #ear, one -a# availhi-self of a&&ion pu0li&iana to deter-ine the0etter right of possession, or possession de ?ure, ofrealt# independentl# of title. On the other hand,a&&ion reivindi&atoria is an a&tion to re&overownership whi&h ne&essaril# in&ludes re&over# ofpossession.'%

Now then, it is a horn0oo9 rule that on&e a ?udg-ent 0e&o-es ;nal and e7e&utor#, it -a# nolonger 0e -odi;ed in an# respe&t, even if the-odi;&ation is -eant to &orre&t an erroneous&on&lusion of fa&t or law, and regardless of whetherthe -odi;&ation is atte-pted to 0e -ade 0# the

&ourt rendering it or 0# the highest &ourt of theland, as what re-ains to 0e done is the purel#-inisterial enfor&e-ent or e7e&ution of the ?udg-ent.'+ (n# atte-pt to reopen a &lose &asewould oAend the prin&iple of res ?udi&ata.

Res ?udi&ata e-0ra&es two &on&epts or prin&iples,the ;rst is designated as G0ar 0# prior ?udg-entGand the other, G&on&lusiveness of ?udg-ent.G iongson v. Court of (ppeals! des&ri0es the eAe&tsof res ?udi&ata, as a 0ar 0# prior ?udg-ent, in thefollowing -anner/

here is no uestion that where as 0etween the

;rst &ase where the ?udg-ent is rendered and these&ond where su&h ?udg-ent is invo9ed, there isidentit# of parties, su0?e&t -atter and &ause ofa&tion, the ?udg-ent on the -erits in the ;rst &ase&onstitutes an a0solute 0ar to the su0seuenta&tion not onl# as to ever# -atter whi&h wasoAered and re&eived to sustain or defeat the &lai-or de-and, 0ut also as to an# other ad-issi0le-atter whi&h -ight have 0een oAered for thatpurpose and to all -atters that &ould have 0eenad?udged in that &ase. 7 7 7

Res ?udi&ata operates as 0ar 0# prior ?udg-ent ifthe following reuisites &on&ur/ 314 the for-er

?udg-ent or order -ust 0e ;nalH 3$4 the ?udg-entor order -ust 0e on the -eritsH 34 the de&ision-ust have 0een rendered 0# a &ourt having

1























?urisdi&tion over the su0?e&t -atter and the partiesHand 3'4 there -ust 0e, 0etween the ;rst andse&ond a&tion, identit# of parties, of su0?e&t -atterand of &auses of a&tion.1 (ll the reuisites arepresent in the instant &ase.

he 0etter right to possess and the right ofownership of Jda. de Jira# 3vi&e 8ose Jira#4 and theSps. Jira# over the disputed par&els of land &annot,0# for&e of the res ?udi&ata do&trine, 0e re)litigated

thru a&tions to re&over possession and vindi&ateownership ;led 0# the Sps. Fsi. he Court, in *.R.No. 1$$$%= 3Ellen P. "endoa and 8ose and (-elitaFsi v. Spouses (velino Jira# and "argarita"asang&a# and 8esus Carlo *erard Jira#4, has ineAe&t deter-ined that the &onve#an&es andne&essaril# the transfers of ownership -ade to theSps. Jira# and Jda. de Jira# 3vi&e 8ose Jira#4 on(pril $+, 1+%> were valid. his deter-inationoperates as a 0ar to the Fsis reivindi&ator# a&tionto assail the (pril $+, 1+%> &onve#an&es andpre&ludes the relitigation 0etween the sa-e partiesof the settled issue of ownership and possessionarising fro- ownership. It -a# 0e that the spousesFsi did not dire&tl# see9 the re&over# of title or

possession of the propert# in uestion in theira&tion for annul-ent of the deed sale of sale. But it&annot 0e gainsaid that said a&tion is &losel#intertwined with the issue of ownership, and aAe&tsthe title, of the lot &overed 0# the deed. heprevalent do&trine, to 0orrow fro- 5ortune "otors,3Phils.4, In&. v. Court of (ppeals,$ Gis that an a&tionfor the annul-ent or res&ission of a sale of realpropert# does not operate to eAa&e thefunda-ental and pri-e o0?e&tive and nature of the&ase, whi&h is to re&over said real propert#.G

(nd lest it 0e overloo9ed, the Court, in *.R. No.1'% 3Spouses 8ose and (-elita Fsi v. Ruperta

Cano Jda. de Jira#4, again in eAe&t ruled with;nalit# that petitioner Jda. de Jira# has a 0etterpossessor# right over 2ot =)5 35a?ardo Plan4. hus, the Courts de&ision in *.R. No. 1$$$%= ?u7taposed with that in *.R. No. 1'% wouldsu:&e to 0ar the Sps. Fsis a&&ion pu0li&iana, asthe spouses had invo9ed all along their ownershipover the disputed 2ot =)5 as 0asis to defeat an#&lai- of the right of possessiOn. hile an a&&ionreivindi&atoria is not 0arred 0# a ?udg-ent in ane?e&t-ent &ase, su&h ?udg-ent &onstitutes a 0ar tothe institution of the a&&ion pu0li&iana, 0e&ausethe -atter of possessio 0etween the sa-e partieshas 0e&o-e res ?udi&ata and &annot 0e delved intoin a new a&tion.

he do&trine of res ?udi&ata is a 0asi& postulate tothe end that &ontroversies and issues on&e de&idedon the -erits 0# a &ourt of &o-petent ?urisdi&tionshall re-ain in repose. It is si-pl# unfortunate thatthe RC, in Civil Case No. !1)111%3"4, did not appl#the do&trine of res ?udi&ata to the instant &ase,despite petitioners, as respondents 0elow, hadraised that ground 0oth in their -otion to dis-issand answer to the underl#ing petition.

@ERE5ORE, the instant petition is *R(NED. heassailed De&ision dated 8ul# $', $!!+ andResolution dated 8une $, $!1! of the Court of(ppeals in C()*.R. CJ No. +!'' are REJERSEDand SE (SIDE. he De&ision dated 8une $1, $!!=

in Civil Case No. !1)111%3"4 of the RC, Bran&h in "a&a0e0e, Pa-panga is a&&ordingl#REINS(ED.

Costs against respondents.

G.R. No. 16998 !+#& 1, 2011

MOESTO LEO<ERAS, Petitioner,vs.CASIMERO <ALEH, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

:RION, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on&ertiorari1 assailing the "ar&h 1, $!!de&ision$ and the O&to0er >, $!! resolution of theCourt of (ppeals 3C(4 in C()*.R. CJ No. >%'+. heC( de&ision reversed the 8une $, $!!! de&ision' of the Regional rial Court 3RC4, Bran&h '>, Frdaneta

Cit#, Pangasinan, dis-issing respondent Casi-eroJaldes &o-plaint for annul-ent of title,re&onve#an&e and da-ages against petitioner"odesto 2eoveras.

5(CF(2 (NECEDENS

"aria Sta. "aria and Do-inga "anangan were theregistered owners ) three)fourths 3X4 and one)fourth 3Y4 pro)indiviso, respe&tivel# ) of a par&el ofland lo&ated in Po0la&ion, "anaoag, Pangasinan,&overed 0# Original Certi;&ate of itle 3OC4 No.$'>+, with an area of $%,1=1 suare -eters.

In Septe-0er 1+$, Sta. "aria sold her three)fourths 3X4 share to Benigna 2la-as.> he sale wasdul# annotated at the 0a&9 of OC No. $'>+.hen Benigna died in 1+'',= she willed her three)fourths 3X4 share euall# to her sisters (le?andra2la-as and 8osefa 2la-as.% hus, (le?andra and 8osefa ea&h owned one)half 3Z4 of Benignas three)fourths 3X4 share.

On 8une 1', 1+>+, (le?andras heirs sold theirprede&essors one)half 3Z4 share 3roughl#euivalent to 1!,>' suare -eters4 to therespondent, as eviden&ed 0# a Deed of (0soluteSale.+

(lso on 8une 1', 1+>+, 8osefa sold her own one)half 3Z4 share 3su0?e&t propert#4 to the respondent andthe petitioner, as eviden&ed 0# another Deed of(0solute Sale.1! On even date, the respondent andthe petitioner e7e&uted an (gree-ent,11 allottingtheir portions of the su0?e&t propert#.

INESSE@

hat we Tpetitioner and respondentU are thea0solute owners of Tthe su0?e&t propert#U whi&h isparti&ularl# des&ri0ed as follows/

$







http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_169985_2011.html#fnt1






























777

hat our ownership over the said portion-entioned a0ove is eviden&ed 0# a Deed of(0solute Sale 777

hat in said deed of sale -entioned in thei--ediate pre&eding paragraph, our respe&tiveshare &onsist of , $%$.1 Tone)half of 1!,>'suare -etersU suare -eter ea&h.

hat we here0# agreed and &ovenanted that ourrespe&tive share shall 0e as follows/

"odesto 2eoveras M ,!$! suare -etersresidential portion on the northern part near the"uni&ipal road of Po0la&ion Pugaro, "anaoag,PangasinanH

Casi-ero Jalde M =,''.$=1$ suare -eters of thepar&el of land des&ri0ed a0ove.1

On 8une %, 1+==, the petitioner and the respondente7e&uted an (:davit of (dverse Clai- over thesu0?e&t propert#.1' he parties too9 possession oftheir respe&tive portions of the su0?e&t propert#and de&lared it in their na-e for ta7ationpurposes.1

In 1++>, the respondent as9ed the Register ofDeeds of 2inga#en, Pangasinan on thereuire-ents for the transfer of title over theportion allotted to hi- on the su0?e&t propert#. ohis surprise, the respondent learned that thepetitioner had alread# o0tained in his na-e twotransfer &erti;&ates of title 3Cs4/ one, C No.1+%1$ ) &overing an area of ,!$! suare -etersHand two, C No. 1+%1 ) &overing an area of1,!!' suare -eters 3or a total of ',!$' suare-eters4.

he Register of Deeds infor-ed the respondentthat the# &ould not ;nd the re&ord of OC No.$'>+H instead, the Register of Deeds furnished therespondent with the following1> 3&olle&tivel#,petitioners do&u-ents4/

1. wo 3$4 deeds of a0solute sale dated 8une 1', 1+>+, 0oth e7e&uted 0# Sta."aria, purportedl# &onve#ing anunspe&i;ed portion of OC No. $'>+ asfollows/

a. 11, >% suare -eters to therespondent and petitioner1=

0. %, >%+ suare -eters to oneJirgilia 2i "eneses1%

$. Deed of (0solute Sale 3Benigna Deed4also dated 8une 1', 1+>+ e7e&uted 0#Benigna1+ whi&h reads/

I, Benigna 2la-as, 5ernande 777 do sell777 0# wa# of (BSO2FE S(2E unto thesaid Casi-ero Jalde, "odesto 2eoverasand Jirgilia "eneses their heirs andassigns, =,'' s.-.H ',!$' s. -. and%,>%+ s. -. -ore or less respe&tivel# of apar&el of land whi&h is parti&ularl#des&ri0ed as follows/

G( par&el of land 777 &overed 0# TOC No.U

$'>+.G 3E-phases added4

. Su0division Plan of PSF $1%>' of OCNo. $'>+$!

'. (:davit of Con;r-ation ofSu0division$1 dated "a# , 1++' 3(:davit4,whi&h reads/

hat we, Jirgilia 2i "eneses, 777 Do-inga"ananganH "odesto 2eoverasH and Casi-eroJalde 777

777 are &o)owners of a &ertain par&el of land withan area of $%, 1=1 s. -. -ore or less insu0division plan Psu $1%>' 777 &overed 0# TOCNo.U $'>+ situated at Po0la&ion 3now Pugaro4,"anaoag, PangasinanH

777 we agree 777 to su0divide and here0#&on;r-ed the su0division in the following -anner777/

2ot $ with an area of , !$! s. -. 777 to "odesto2eoveras 777H

2ot with an area of 1,!!' s. -. 777 to "odesto2eoveras 777H

2ot ' with an area of =,'' s. -. 777 to Casi-eroJalde 777H

2ot with an area of %, >%+ s. -. 777 to Jirgilia"enesesH

2ot > with an area of =,!' s. -. 777 to Do-inga"anangan 3E-phasis supplied.4

On 8une $1, 1++>, the respondent ;led a &o-plaintfor (nnul-ent of itle, Re&onve#an&e andDa-ages against the petitioner, see9ing there&onve#an&e of the 1,!!')suare -eter portion3disputed propert#4 &overed 0# C No. 1+%1, onthe ground that the petitioner is entitled onl# to the,!$! suare -eters identi;ed in the parties(gree-ent.

he respondent sought the nulli;&ation of thepetitioners titles 0# &ontesting the authenti&it# ofthe petitioners do&u-ents. Parti&ularl#, therespondent assailed the Benigna Deed 0#

presenting Benignas death &erti;&ate. herespondent argued that Benigna &ould not havee7e&uted a deed, whi&h purports to &onve# ',!$'


























suare -eters to the petitioner, in 1+>+ 0e&auseBenigna alread# died in 1+''. he respondentadded that neither &ould Sta. "aria have sold tothe parties her three)fourths 3X4 share in 1+>+0e&ause she had alread# sold her share to Benignain 1+$.$$ he respondent denied his purportedsignature appearing in the (:davit,$ and pra#edfor/

a4 777 the &an&ellation of the Tpetitioners

do&u-entsUH

04 the &an&ellation of C No. 1+%1 inthe na-e of "odesto 2eoveras and that it0e re&onve#ed to the TrespondentUH

&4 the &an&ellation and nulli;&ation of TCNo. 1+%1$U &overing an area of ,!$!suare -eters 777H

d4 Tthe issuan&e ofU title 777 in the na-e of TrespondentU over an area of 1=, 1!'suare -eters of OC$'>+H $' 3Fnders&oring supplied4

In his defense, the petitioner &lai-ed that theparties alread# had 3i4 delineated their respe&tiveportions of the su0?e&t propert# even 0efore the#a&uired it in 1+>+ and 3ii4 agreed that upona&uisition, ea&h would own the portion asdelineatedH that the area he a&tuall# possessedand su0seuentl# a&uired has a total area of',!$' suare -eters, whi&h he su0divided into twoportions and &aused to 0e &overed 0# the two Csin uestion. he petitioner &lai-ed that in signingthe (gree-ent, he was led to 0elieve, 0ased on the

parties rough esti-ation, that the area he a&tuall#possessed is onl# ,!$! suare -eters &ontrar# tothe parties real intention ) i.e., the e7tent of theirownership would 0e 0ased on their a&tualpossession.$

he petitioner further &lai-ed that the respondentvoluntaril# parti&ipated in e7e&uting the (:davit,whi&h &orre&ted the -ista9e in the previousl#e7e&uted (gree-ent$> and &on;r-ed thepetitioners ownership over the disputed propert#. he petitioner as9ed for the dis-issal of the&o-plaint and for a de&laration that he is the

lawful owner of the par&els of land &overed 0# histitles.

RC RF2IN*

he RC dis-issed the &o-plaint. he &ourt ruledthat the respondent failed to preponderantl# provethat the Benigna Deed and the (:davit arefa0ri&ated and, &onseuentl#, no ground e7ists tonullif# the petitioners titles. he &ourt o0servedthat the respondent did not even &o-pare hisgenuine signature with the signatures appearing inthese do&u-ents.

C( RF2IN*

On appeal, the C( reversed the RC 0# rulingagainst the authenti&it# of the Benigna Deed andthe (:davit. he C( gave weight to Benignasdeath &erti;&ate whi&h shows the i-possi0ilit# ofBenignas e7e&ution of the deed in 1+>+. he C(also noted the dis&repan&# 0etween therespondents signatures as appearing in the(:davit, on one hand, and the do&u-ents onre&ord, on the other.$= he C( added that therespondents failure to &o-pare his genuine

signature fro- his purported signatures appearingin the petitioners do&u-ents is not fatal, sin&eSe&tion $$, Rule 1$ of the Rules of Court allowsthe &ourt to -a9e its own &o-parison. In light of itso0servations, the C( ruled/

(s the totalit# of the eviden&e presentedsu:&ientl# sustains Tthe respondentsU &lai- thatthe titles issued to Tthe petitionerU were 0ased onforged and spurious do&u-ents, it 0ehooves thisCourt to annul these &erti;&ates of title.

@ERE5ORE, the assailed De&ision dated 8une $,

$!!! is SE (SIDE. De&laring C No. 1+%1$ and C No. 1+%1 as NF22 and JOID, Tthe petitionerUis here0# dire&ted to re&onve# thesu0?e&t par&els of land to TtherespondentU.$% 3E-phasis added.4

Fnwilling to a&&ept the C(s reversal of the RCruling, the petitioner ;led the present appeal 0#&ertiorari, &lai-ing that the C( &o--itted Ggross-isappre&iation of the fa&tsG$+ 0# going 0e#ondwhat the respondent sought in his &o-plaint.

@E PEIION

he petitioner &lai-s that the C( should not haveordered the re&onve#an&e of 0oth par&els of land&overed 0# the Cs in uestion sin&e therespondent onl# see9s the re&onve#an&e of thedisputed propert# M i.e., the par&el of land &overed0# C No. 1+%1.

he petitioner asserts that after the su0?e&t sale,the parties ph#si&all# partitioned the su0?e&tpropert# and possessed their respe&tive portions,there0# setting the li-its of their ownership.

he petitioner ad-its that the Benigna Deed isGfa0ri&atedG 0ut hastens to add that it was onl#designed 3i4 to a:r- the Gtrue intent andagree-entG of the parties on the e7tent of theirownership, as shown 0# their a&tual ph#si&alpossession, and 3ii4 as a G&onvenient toolG tofa&ilitate the transfer of title to his na-e.

@E RESPONDENS CO""EN

he respondent &lai-s that sin&e the petitionerhi-self ad-itted using a spurious do&u-ent ino0taining his titles 3as alleged in the &o-plaint and

as found 0# the C(4, then the C( &orre&tl#&an&elled the latters titles.!

'


























he parties (gree-ent eAe&tivel# partitioned thesu0?e&t propert#

he petitioner also relies on his alleged a&tualpossession of the disputed propert# to support his&lai- of ownership. Nota0l#, 0oth parties -a9e&oni&ting assertions of possession of the disputedpropert#.'1 he petitioner testi;ed on hispossession as follows/

Q/ @ow -an# suare -eters did #ou get fro- theland and how -an# suare -eters was the shareof TrespondentU[

(/ 'T!U$! suare -eters and -# 0rother)in)law>,!!! plus suare -eters.

777

Q/ as there a 0oundar# 0etween the ',!$! suare-eters and the rest of the propert# whi&h 3si&4designated 0# #our 0rother)in)law[

(/ here is sir, and the 0oundar# is the fen&e.

Q/ hen did #ou put up that fen&e whi&h is the0oundar#[

(/ (fter the deed of sale was -ade.

Q/ (nd that 0oundar# fen&e whi&h #ou puta&&ording to #ou sin&e the e7e&ution of the Deed of (0solute Sale in 1+>+ up to the present does it stille7ist[

(/ Les, sir.

Q/ Sin&e the ti-e #ou pur&hased the propert#a&&ording to #ou #ou alread# divided the propert#,is that &orre&t[

(/ Les, sir.

Q/ (nd that as of toda# who is in possession of that',!$! suare -eters[

(/ I, sir.'$

he petitioner and the respondent were originall#&o)owners of the su0?e&t propert# when the# ?ointl#0ought it fro- the sa-e vendor in 1+>+. @owever,the parties i--ediatel# ter-inated this state ofindivision 0# e7e&uting an (gree-ent, whi&h is inthe nature of a partition agree-ent.

he Civil Code of the Philippines de;nes partitionas the separation, division and assign-ent of athing held in &o--on a-ong those to who- it -a#0elong.' Partition is the division 0etween two or-ore persons of real or personal propert#, ownedin &o--on, 0# setting apart their respe&tiveinterests so that the# -a# en?o# and possess these

in severalt#,'' resulting in the partial or totale7tinguish-ent of &o)ownership.'

In the present &ase, the parties agreed to dividethe su0?e&t propert# 0# giving the petitioner the,!$! suare -eters Gresidential portion on thenorthern part near the "uni&ipal road.G'> here isno dispute that this ,!$!) suare -eter portion isthe sa-e par&el of land identi;ed as 2ot No. $3whi&h is not the su0?e&t of the respondents a&tion

for re&onve#an&e4 in the (:davit and theSu0division Plan presented 0# the petitioner 0eforethe Register of Deeds. he fa&t that the (gree-entla&9s te&hni&al des&ription of the partiesrespe&tive portions or that the su0?e&t propert#was then still e-0ra&ed 0# a single &erti;&ate oftitle &ould not legall# prevent a partition, where thediAerent portions allotted to ea&h were deter-inedand 0e&a-e separatel# identi;a0le, as in this&ase.'=

hat is stri9ingl# signi;&ant is that even thepetitioners own testi-on# -erel# atte-pted to

&on;r- his a&tual possession of the disputedpropert#, without, however, supporting his &lai- M&ontrar# to the written (gree-ent M that theparties ownership of the su0?e&t propert# would 0e&o)e7tensive with their possession. his is the &oreof the petitioners defense. (t an# rate, ?ust as non)possession does not negate ownership, neitherdoes possession auto-ati&all# proveownership,'% espe&iall# in the fa&e of anuna-0iguous do&u-ent e7e&uted 0# the partiesthe-selves.1avvphi1

Contrar# to the petitioners &lai- that his a&tualpossession deter-ines the e7tent of his ownership,it is the parties (gree-ent that de;nes the e7tentof their ownership in the su0?e&t propert#. One ofthe legal eAe&ts of partition, whether 0#agree-ent a-ong the &o)owners or 0# ?udi&ialpro&eeding, is to ter-inate the &o)ownership and,&onseuentl#, to -a9e the previous &o)owners thea0solute and e7&lusive owner of the share allottedto hi-.'+

Parentheti&all#, the respondent de&lared forta7ation purposes the portion he &lai-s inDe&e-0er 1+%=.! he total area 3=,'' suare-eters4 of the properties de&lared is euivalent to

the area allotted to the respondent under the(gree-ent. On the other hand, the petitionerde&lared the 1,!!')suare -eter portion onl# inSepte-0er 1++', under a7 De&laration No.++,1 despite his &lai- of e7&lusive and adversepossession sin&e 1+>+.

Nulli;&ation of the petitioners title over the ,!$!suare -eter portion

hile the petitioner ad-itted using a spuriousdo&u-ent in se&uring his titles, nonetheless, heuestions the C(s nulli;&ation of C No. 1+%1$

on the ground that, per the respondents ownad-ission and the parties (gree-ent, he is therightful owner of the land &overed 0# this title.

>































e disagree.

he petitioners argu-ent &onfuses registration oftitle with ownership.$ hile the petitionersownership over the land &overed 0# C No.1+%1$ is undisputed, his ownership onl# gave hi-the right to appl# for the proper transfer of title tothe propert# in his na-e. O0viousl#, the petitioner,even as a rightful owner, -ust &o-pl# with thestatutor# provisions on the transfer of registered

title to lands. Se&tion of Presidential De&reeNo. 1$+ provides that the su0seuent registrationof title pro&ured 0# the presentation of a forgeddeed or other instru-ent is null and void. hus, thesu0seuent issuan&e of C No. 1+%1$ gave thepetitioner no 0etter right than the taintedregistration whi&h was the 0asis for the issuan&e of the sa-e title. he Court si-pl# &annot allow thepetitioners atte-pt to get around the properpro&edure for registering the transfer of title in hisna-e 0# using spurious do&u-ents.

Re&onve#an&e is the re-ed# of the rightful owner

onl#

hile the C( &orre&tl# nulli;ed the petitioners&erti;&ates of title, the C( erred in ordering there&onve#an&e of the entire su0?e&t propert# in therespondents favor. he respondent hi-selfad-itted that the ,!$!) suare -eter portion&overed 0# C No. 1+%1$ is the petitioners ?ustshare in the su0?e&t propert#.' hus, although thepetitioner o0tained C No. 1+%1$ using the sa-espurious do&u-ents, the land &overed 0# this titleshould not 0e re&onve#ed in favor of therespondent sin&e he is not the rightful owner of thepropert# &overed 0# this title.

@ERE5ORE, the petition is partiall# *R(NED. he assailed de&ision and resolution of the Court of (ppeals are "ODI5IED. (&&ordingl#, the petitioneris dire&ted to RECONJEL to the respondent thepar&el of land &overed 0# C No. 1+%1. Costsagainst petitioner.

G.R. No. 14409. April 12, 200

SPOUSES -A>MATON S. GARINGAN AN !A>>ARI PA7A=I, Petitioners,

vs.-A!I MUNI: SAUPI GARINGAN, -A!A TEROSAUPI GARINGAN, "#$ -A!A !E-AA SAUPIGARINGAN,Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.?

he Case

Before this Court is a petition for review1 to reversethe De&ision$ dated 1+ 8une $!!! and the

Order dated 1+ 8ul# $!!! of the Sharia Distri&tCourt, hird Sharia 8udi&ial Distri&t, a-0oangaCit# in Civil Case No. 1). he Sharia Distri&t

Court &an&elled ransfer Certi;&ate of itle 3GCG4No. $+$ in the na-e of GD?a#ari or 8a##ari "oro.G he Sharia Distri&t Court also ordered the partitionof the land in dispute, and the issuan&e of new Cs in the na-es of @ad?i "uni0 Saupi *aringan,@ad?a ero Saupi *aringan, @ad?a 8ehada Saupi*aringan and @a#-aton *aringan 8a##ari.

he (nte&edent 5a&ts

On $ 5e0ruar# 1++, @ad?i "uni0 Saupi *aringan,@ad?a ero Saupi *aringan and @ad?a 8ehada Saupi*aringan 3G@ad?i "uni0, et al.G4 ;led an a&tion forPartition and In?un&tion with pra#er for Preli-inar#In?un&tion against their sister @a#-aton Saupi*aringan' 3G@a#-atonG4 and her hus0and 8a##ariPawa9i 3GPawa9iG4, also 9nown as D?a#ari "oro.@ad?i "uni0, et al. alleged that their grandfatherSaupi "oro owned an agri&ultural lot, full# plantedwith &o&onut and other fruit 0earing trees,&ontaining an area of 11.> he&tares. he land issituated in Sitio ine00asan, Baranga# Se-ut,"uni&ipalit# of 2a-itan, Basilan Provin&e. Saupi

"oro a&uired the land through pur&hase fro- *ani"oro. Saupi "oro donated the land to his daughterInsih Saupi 3GInsihG4, -other of @ad?i "uni0, et al.and @a#-aton. (fter the donation, Insihprede&eased her father and her interest over theland passed to her &hildren @ad?i "uni0 Saupi*aringan, @ad?a ero Saupi *aringan, @ad?a 8ehadaSaupi *aringan, and @a#-aton *aringan.

(fter the death of Saupi "oro in 1+', @a#-atonand Pawa9i too9 over the ad-inistration of theland. 2ater, @a#-aton and Pawa9i de&lared theland, then still untitled, in their na-es for ta7ationpurposes under a7 De&laration No. 1>=.@a#-aton and Pawa9i refused to share with @ad?i"uni0, et al. the in&o-e fro- the sale of fruits fro-the land.

@a#-aton and Pawa9i, on the other hand, &lai-edthat on $$ Septe-0er 1+>+, Pawa9i 0ought theland fro- 8i9iru- ". (d?aluddin 3G8i9iru-G4. C No. )$+$ was issued in the na-e of D?a#ari "oro.Pawa9i too9 possession of the land in the &on&eptof an owner in the sa-e #ear. @e de&lared the landfor ta7ation purposes under a7 De&laration No.1>=.

he De&ision of the Sharia Distri&t Court

he Sharia Distri&t Court found that Saupi "oroa&uired the land in dispute fro- *ani "oro. InsihSaupi, during her lifeti-e, a&&epted the land 0#wa# of donation fro- her father. Fpon the death ofInsih and her hus0and, their &hildren su&&eeded tothe rights of their parents over the propert#. heSharia Distri&t Court ruled/

5ro- the foregoing eviden&e of the plaintiAs itappears that the propert# in uestion was given 0#Saupi "oro during his lifeti-e to his daughter Insih

Saupi, who thereafter, sta#ed in the land andintrodu&ed i-prove-ents &onsisting of &o&onuttrees with her hus0and *aringan until the# died,

=
























prede&easing Saupi "oro, whi&h shows that thepropert# given 0# Saupi "oro to his daughter InsihSaupi *aringan during the for-ers lifeti-e, wasa&&epted 0# the latter during her lifeti-e.

he herein plaintiAs in this &ase, in&luding theirsister and defendant, @a#-aton *aringan 8a##ari,0eing the &hildren of Insih Saupi and *aringan,steps 3si&4 into whatever rights or properties left 0#their de&eased parents.

On the 0asis of the eviden&e of the &ase, the hereinpropert# in uestion was a&uired 0# theirgrandfather Saupi "oro fro- *ani "oro 0eforeorld ar II or so-eti-e during the 8apaneseo&&upation. 3See E7hi0it G()1G, p. $+=, Re&ord4.During their grandfathers lifeti-e he donated it tohis daughter plaintiAs 3si&4 -other Insih *aringanwho together with her hus0and *aringan o&&upiedand planted said propert#H (fter plaintiAs -otherInsih Saupi *aringan died, the propert# was left toplaintiAs sister now defendant @a#-aton *aringan 8a##ariH (nd, after the latter also died, her hus0and

and &o)defendant 8a##ari Pawa9i too9 over thepropert#. here is therefore, an i-plied trustrelation esta0lished 0etween the heirs of InsihSaupi *aringan plaintiAs herein and their sisterdefendant @a#-aton *aringan and the latterhus0and 8a##ari Pawa9i over the said propert#. In a&ase, it was held, Gthat the orrens S#ste- wasnever &al&ulated to for-ent 3si&4 0etra#al in theperfor-an&e of a trust.G 3Es&o0ar v. 2o&sin, =' Phil.%>4. hus, through the &ontinuous possession ofthe propert# 0eginning fro- the plaintiAsgrandparent Saupi "oro so-eti-e in 1+'1, untilthe latter died so-eti-e in 1+' up to the ti-e itwas held in trust 0# plaintiAs &o)heir, defendant

@a#-aton *aringan, and the latter hus0and and&o)defendant 8a##ari Pawa9i, who after @a#-aton*aringans death &ontinued to hold the land&lai-ing to have a&uired it 0# pur&hase fro-(d?aluddin "oro, ta&9ing the periods, -ore thanthirt# #ears had elapsed whi&h gives the hereinplaintiAs the right over the said propert#, thoughthe donation -ade in favor of their -other Insih*aringan 0# their grandfather Saupi "oro was notin a pu0li& instru-ent, 0ut -erel# ver0al. In a &asethe Court held, Ghat while donation of i--ova0lepropert# not -ade in a pu0li& instru-ent, su&h asver0al one, is not eAe&tive as a transfer of title, #et

it is a &ir&u-stan&e whi&h -a# e7plain the adverseand e7&lusive &hara&ter of the possession of theintended donee, and su&h possession -a# ripeninto ownership 0# pres&ription.G 3Pensader vs.Pensader, '= Phil. ++H (pilado vs. (pilado 3C.(.4' O.*. p. 1''H "a&a0as&o vs. "a&a0as&o 3C.(.4 'O.*. $$H Espiue vs. Espiue 3S.C.4 O.*. '!=+HCa0a&utan vs. Serrano 3C.S.4 + O.*. $+$H Cited onp. $, (. olentino, Civil Code of the Philippines,Jol. II, 1+%= ed.4.

PlaintiAs herein, na-el# 314 @ad?i "uni0 Saupi*aringan, 3$4 @ad?a ero Saupi *aringan, 34 @ad?a 8ehada Saupi *aringan, together with their sister,

and defendant 3'4 @a#-aton *aringan)8a##ari arethe &hildren of Insih Saupi and *aringan. Fpon thedeath of their parents Insih Saupi and *aringan,

the# su&&eeded to whatever hereditar# rights overthe estates of their de&eased parents. heeviden&e shows that plaintiAs -other Insih Saupi*aringan prede&eased her father Saupi *aringan. 77 7.

In Civil Case No. '1 entitled 8an?alawi "oro, et. al.,plaintiAs vs. (ndaang "oro, et. al., defendants thatwas ;led 0efore the then Court of 5irst Instan&e ofBasilan Cit# is dated 8ul# 1>, 1+> on paragraph

of the said Civil &o-plaint states, Gthat Saupi "orodied intestate in 1+'G 3si&4H hus, Insih Saupi andI-a- *aringan, the plaintiAs parents, who 0othprede&eased Saupi "oro, their death o&&urredso-eti-e 0efore the death of Saupi "oro in 1+'.Su&h 0eing the &ase, the law then governing thesu&&essional rights of 5ilipino "usli-s was still theCivil Code of the Philippines, R.(. No. %> whi&h0e&a-e eAe&tive on (ugust !, 1+!. 3Ile?a# vs.Ile?a#, et. al., 3S.C.4 '+ O.*. '+!4. (nd, under(rti&le +! of the present Code of "usli- Personal2aws of the Philippines, P.D. 1!%, Ghe rights tosu&&ession are trans-itted fro- the -o-ent of the

death of the de&edentG. his provision is anadoption of (rti&le == of the Civil Code of thePhilippines, whi&h provides/ Ghe rights to thesu&&ession are trans-itted fro- the -o-ent of thedeath of the de&edentGH whi&h has 0een interpretedthat the su&&ession is opened 0# the death of theperson fro- who- the inheritan&e &o-es. 3(. olentino, Civil Code, p. 1, Jol. III, 1+=+ ed.H Cited Navarro (-andi %$4. Considering the appli&a0lelaws on this regard, sin&e Insih Saupi *aringan andI-a- *aringan who were plaintiAs parents,prede&eased Saupi "oro who died in 1+', the lawthen appli&a0le to su&&essional rights of 5ilipino"usli-s was the prevailing law at that ti-e whi&h

was still the Civil Code of the Philippines. his ruleis re&ognied 0# the Code of "usli- Personal 2awsof the Philippines, P.D. 1!%, under (rti&le 1%>,whi&h provides/

G(rt. 1%>. EAe&t of Code on Past (&ts. 314 (&tse7e&uted prior to the eAe&tivit# of this Code shall0e governed 0# the laws in for&e at that ti-e oftheir e7e&ution, and nothing herein e7&ept asotherwise spe&i;&all# provided, shall aAe&t theirvalidit# or legalit# or operate to e7tinguish an#right a&uired or lia0ilit# in&urred there0#.G

(nd, the appli&a0le provisions of the Civil Code ofthe Philippines on this regard are as follows, touote/

G(rt. +=+. 2egiti-ate &hildren and theirdes&endants su&&eed the parents and otheras&endants, without distin&tion as to se7 or age,and even if the# should &o-e fro- diAerent-arriagesGH (nd,

(rt. +%!. he Children of the de&eased shall alwa#sinherit fro- hi- in their own right, dividing theinheritan&e in eual shares.G

@ERE5ORE, in view of the foregoing, ?udg-ent ishere0# rendered as follows/

%



314 hat the following des&ri0ed real propert#, vi/G( par&el of agri&ultural land lo&ated in Se-ut,2a-itan, Basilan Cit#, Philippines, identi;ed asBureau of 2ands Plan @)J)1%>% 0ounded on N., 0#seashore, $! -. wideH on the SE., 0# propert# of uravin "oroH on the S., 0# propert# of @ati0 @i#aHand on the ., 0# propert# of @usin "oro,&ontaining an area of ONE @FNDRED @IREEN @OFS(ND @REE @FNDRED (ND SIL 5IJE311,>4 SQF(RE "EERS -ore or lessG is

ordered partitioned a-ong the following in EQF(2S@(RES, to wit/ @ad?i "uni0 Saupi *aringan, @ad?a ero Saupi *aringan, @ad?a 8ehada Saupi *aringan,and @a#-aton *aringan 8a##ari, shall get entitledto ONE 5OFR@ 31'4 S@(RE E(C@ of the aforesaidpropert#H

3$4 ransfer Certi;&ate of itle No. $+$ &overingsaid propert# in the na-e of D?a#ari or 8a##ari "oro-arried to @a#-aton "ora of the O:&e of theRegister of Deeds of Basilan Cit# is here0# orderedannulled and &an&elled, and, in lieu thereof theO:&e of the Register of Deeds of Basilan Cit# is

ordered to issue a New Certi;&ate of itle in thena-es of the owners -entioned in the pre&edingparagraph 1, and in the proportion given thereinH

34 Ordering the defendant and an#one a&ting forthe defendants to pea&efull#, and voluntaril#surrender the afore)-entioned par&el of landtogether with the i-prove-ents e7isting thereonto the plaintiAs, their heirs or legal representatives,and restore thein the o&&upation and en?o#-entthereof.

SO ORDERED.>

In an Order dated 1+ 8ul# $!!!, the Sharia Distri&tCourt denied the -otion for re&onsideration of@a#-aton and Pawa9i.

@en&e, the present petition.

he Issues

In their -e-orandu-, petitioners raise thefollowing issues/

hether the Sharia Distri&t Court erred in ordering

the partition of the su0?e&t propert# and annul-entof ransfer Certi;&ate of itle No. )$+$ on the0asis alone of respondents &lai- that Saupi "oro,their prede&essor)in)interest, was the one whoowned the said par&el of land during his lifeti-e,there0# disregarding the prote&tion a&&orded topersons dealing with propert# registered under the orrens s#ste-.

hether the hird Sharia Distri&t Court erred innot ruling that respondents right to see9 are&onve#an&e of the su0?e&t propert# had alread#pres&ri0ed or is 0arred 0# la&hes.

hether the hird Sharia Distri&t Court erred innot ruling that respondents have no &ause of a&tion

against the petitioners in an a&tion for partition asthe# are not &o)owners of the su0?e&t propert#,petitioners 0eing the sole owners of the propert#.=

he Ruling of the Court

he petition is -eritorious.

he settle-ent of the issue of ownership is the ;rst

stage in an a&tion for partition, and the a&tion willnot lie if the &lai-ant has no rightful interest in thepropert# in dispute.% In this &ase, @ad?i "uni0, et al.failed to prove their right to the land in dispute.

!he 'erivative !itle o( 6aari Pa*aki

he land in dispute was originall# registered in thena-e of (ndaang *ani 3G(ndaangG4 under OriginalCerti;&ate of itle 3GOCG4 No. P)=++ issued on >De&e-0er 1+. OC No. P)=+ was issued uponthe approval of (ndaangs ho-estead appli&ationand the issuan&e on 1= 5e0ruar# 1+ of 2etters of

Patent No. J)'1%1.

(ndaang died intestate on $+ (ugust 1++. On 1(pril 1+>!, (ndaangs widow and sole heir, CristetaSantiago vda. de *ani 3GCristetaG4, e7e&uted anE7tra?udi&ial Settle-ent and Sale1! ad?udi&ating toherself the land in dispute and at the sa-e ti-eselling it to 8i9iru-. On 1 (ugust 1+>= or seven#ears after the sale, Cristeta &aused the&an&ellation of OC No. P)=+ and the issuan&e inher na-e of C No. )1+'!.11 On the sa-e date, C No. )1+'! was &an&elled and C No. )1+'11$ was issued in the na-e of 8i9iru-.

On $$ Septe-0er 1+>+, 8i9iru- e7e&uted a Deed of (0solute Sale1 in favor of D?a#ari "oro. On 1! 8une1+=1, C No. )1+'1 was &an&elled and C No. )$+$1' was issued in the na-e of D?a#ari "oro also9nown as 8a##ari Pawa9i.

!he Claim o( 2a%Hi 9unib, et al.

@ad?i "uni0, et al. &lai- that 0efore or during the 8apanese o&&upation of the Philippines, Saupi "oroa&uired the land in dispute through sale fro- *ani"oro. (fter *ani "oros death, his heirs, whi&hin&luded (ndaang, oAered to repur&hase the landfro- Saupi "oro. Saupi "oro refused. he heirs of*ani "oro1 instituted Civil Case No. 1 for IllegalDetainer1> against Saupi "oro.1= (lthough the"uni&ipal rial Court of Basilan Cit#1% de&laredSaupi "oro in default for non)appearan&e, itdis-issed the &o-plaint in a De&ision dated $'Septe-0er 1+1, as follows/

Does an a&tion lie against the defendant for IllegalDetainer/ Rule =$, pp. $'=)$'%, "orans Rules ofCourt, provides, that there are two 3$4 9inds ofDetainer/ 314 that 0# a tenant, and 3$4 that 0# avendee or vendor, or other person unlawfull#

withholding possession of an# land of 0uilding 3si&4.In the present &ase, the &ause of a&tion is 0asedonl# on a ver0al &ontra&t that too9 pla&e #ear ago,

+































one of the prin&ipal parties is now dead. he &ourt0elieves that the right of the plaintiAs to re&overpossession has not 0een &learl# esta0lished. Intheir &o-plaint, the# stated that the alleged&ontra&t too9 pla&e 0efore orld ar II, while inopen &ourt the# stated that it too9 pla&e during the 8apanese o&&upation. he plaintiAs li9ewise failedto e7plain in Court, wh# *ani "oro during hislifeti-e failed to redee- the propert#, although thea-ount involved is a pittant 3si&4. *ani "oro has all

the ti-e in the world and the -eans to repa# saida-ount of sevent# 3P=!.!!4, 0efore his death on"a#, 1+'+, and if said &ontra&t reall# e7isted, hewould not have hesitated to redee- said propert#9nowing that his &hildren stands 3si&4 to 0edeprived of their inheritan&e of a su0stantial par&elof land with i-prove-ents.

(lthough, the allegations of the plaintiAs standsunrefuted 3defendant 0eing in default4 #et theCourt in the interest of ?usti&e, has to sift andanal#e the eviden&e of the plaintiAs in order that ?usti&e &ould 0e -eted to the parties.

IN JIE O5 @E 5ORE*OIN* CONSIDER(IONS, theCourt is of the opinion and so hold, that the plaintiA has failed to prove its &ase, and ?udg-ent ishere0# rendered dis-issing the a0ove &o-plaint,without &osts.

I IS SO ORDERED.1+

Despite the de&ision, (ndaang applied for aho-estead patent over the disputed land.(ndaangs appli&ation was approved and on 1=5e0ruar# 1+, he was issued 2etters of Patent No.

J)'1%1. On > De&e-0er 1+, OC No. P)=+ wasissued in (ndaangs na-e.

In 8ul# 1+>, the 0rothers and sisters of Saupi"oro,$! &lai-ing to 0e his heirs,$1 ;led Civil CaseNo. '1 for (nnul-ent of Certi;&ate of itle to aPar&el of 2and and Da-ages against (ndaang andthe Register of Deeds of Basilan 0efore the thenCourt of 5irst Instan&e 3GC5IG4 of BasilanCit#.$$ @owever, the &ase did not prosper. In a&erti;&ation dated 1% Septe-0er 1++', Cler9 ofCourt Selso ". "ananaris of the Regional rialCourt of Isa0ela, Basilan de&lared that the 0uildinghousing the sala of the C5I of Basilan Cit# was0urned in 1+=. he re&ords of Civil Case No. '1were destro#ed. he plaintiAs did not revive the&ase whi&h was G&onsidered a0andoned.G$

!he 2omestea% Application o( An%aang 0ani

Fnder Co--onwealth (&t No. 1'1 3GC( 1'1G4,$' asa-ended, agri&ultural lands -a# 0e a&uired 0#ho-estead, as follows/

SEC. 1$. (n# &itien of the Philippines over the ageof eighteen #ears, or the head of a fa-il#, whodoes not own -ore than twent#)four he&tares ofland in the Philippines or has not had the 0ene;t of an# gratuitous allot-ent of -ore than twent#)four

he&tares of land sin&e the o&&upation of thePhilippines 0# the Fnited States, -a# enter aho-estead of not e7&eeding twent#)four he&taresof agri&ultural land of the pu0li& do-ain.

SEC. 1. Fpon the ;ling of an appli&ation for aho-estead, the Dire&tor of 2ands, if he ;nds thatthe appli&ation should 0e approved, shall do so andauthorie the appli&ant to ta9e possession of theland upon the pa#-ent of ;ve pesos, Philippine

&urren&#, as entr# fee. ithin si7 -onths fro- andafter the date of the approval of the appli&ation,the appli&ant shall 0egin to wor9 the ho-estead,otherwise he shall lose his prior right to the land.

SEC. 1'. No &erti;&ate shall 0e given or patentissued for the land applied for until at least one);fth of the land has 0een i-proved and &ultivated. he period within whi&h the land shall 0e &ultivatedshall not 0e less than one nor -ore than ;ve #ears,fro- and after the date of the approval of theappli&ation. he appli&ant shall, within the saidperiod, notif# the Dire&tor of 2ands as soon as he is

read# to a&uire the title. If at the date of su&hnoti&e, the appli&ant shall prove to the satisfa&tionof the Dire&tor of 2ands, that he has resided&ontinuousl# for at least one #ear in the-uni&ipalit# in whi&h the land is lo&ated, or in the-uni&ipalit# ad?a&ent to the sa-e and has&ultivated at least one);fth of the land &ontinuousl#sin&e the approval of the appli&ation, and shall-a9e a:davit that no part of said land has 0eenalienated or en&u-0ered, and that he has&o-plied with all the reuire-ents of this (&t,then, upon the pa#-ent of ;ve pesos, as ;nal fee,he shall 0e entitled to a patent.

C( 1'1 reuires the appli&ant to enter inpossession of, i-prove and &ultivate the land.

(ndaang was one of the plaintiAs in Civil Case No.1 for illegal detainer against Saupi "oro.$ In that&ase, the plaintiAs pra#ed that the# 0e allowed (or&$&& the land in dispute whi&h *ani"oro /&r"ll or("&$ to Saupi "oro duringthe 8apanese o&&upation. he plaintiAs also pra#edthat the trial &ourt order Saupi "oro (o /")"(& (%&l"#$ "#$ (o r&'(i(+(& (%& pr&i'&' to theplaintiAs. he trial &ourt dis-issed the &o-plaint.

here is no eviden&e on re&ord that shows that theheirs of *ani "oro su0seuentl# rea&uired theland. Nothing shows that (ndaang *ani was theo&&upant of the land when he applied forho-estead patent, or that he o&&upied the landand introdu&ed i-prove-ents thereon in theinteri- 0efore the approval of his appli&ation.@en&e, @ad?i "uni0, et al. insist that (ndaang didnot &o-pl# with the reuire-ents of C( 1'1.

$evie* o( CertiGcate o( !itle on 0roun% o( rau%

Se&tion 1$$ of (&t No. '+> 3G(&t '+>G4,$> provides/

'!






















SEC. 1$$. henever pu0li& lands in the PhilippineIslands 0elonging to the *overn-ent of the 3FnitedStates or to the *overn-ent of the4 PhilippineIslands are alienated, granted, or &onve#ed topersons or to pu0li& or private &orporations, thesa-e shall 0e 0rought forthwith under theoperation of this (&t and shall 0e&o-e registeredlands. It shall 0e the dut# of the o:&ial issuing theinstru-ent of alienation, grant, or &onve#an&e in0ehalf of the *overn-ent to &ause su&h instru-ent

0efore its deliver# to the grantee, to 0e ;led withthe register of deeds for the provin&e where theland lies and to 0e there registered li9e other deedsand &onve#an&es, whereupon a &erti;&ate shall 0eentered as in other &ases of registered land, and anowners dupli&ate &erti;&ate issued to the grantee. he deed, grant, or instru-ent of &onve#an&e fro-the *overn-ent to the grantee shall not ta9e eAe&tas a &onve#an&e or 0ind the land, 0ut shall operateonl# as a &ontra&t 0etween the *overn-ent andthe grantee and as eviden&e of authorit# to the&ler9 or register of deeds to -a9e registration. hea&t of registration shall 0e the operative a&t to&onve# and aAe&t the land, and in all &ases underthis (&t registration shall 0e -ade in the o:&e ofthe register of deeds for the provin&e where theland lies. he fees for registration shall 0e paid 0#the grantee. (fter due registration and issue of the&erti;&ate and owners dupli&ate, su&h land shall0e registered land for all purposes under this (&t.

Fpon its registration, the land in dispute falls underthe operation of (&t '+> and 0e&o-es registeredland. ( ho-estead patent, on&e registered,0e&o-es as indefeasi0le as a orrens title.$=

( person deprived of the land, estate, or interest

therein 0# virtue of a de&ree of registration -a#avail of the re-ed# provided under Se&tion % of(&t '+>. hus/

Se&. %. If the &ourt after hearing ;nds that theappli&ant or adverse &lai-ant has title as stated inhis appli&ation or adverse &lai- and proper forregistration, a de&ree of &on;r-ation andregistration shall 0e entered. Ever# de&ree ofregistration shall 0ind the land, and uiet titlethereto, su0?e&t onl# to the e7&eptions stated inthe following se&tion. It shall 0e &on&lusive uponand against all persons, in&luding the Insular

*overn-ent and all the 0ran&hes thereof, whether-entioned 0# na-e in the appli&ation, noti&e, or&itation, or in&luded in the general des&ription Gowho- it -a# &on&ern.G S+)% $&)r&& '%"ll #o( &op&#&$ r&"'o# o* (%& "'&#)&, i#*"#), oro(%&r $i'"ili( o* "# p&r'o# "&)(&$(%&r&, #or "# pro)&&$i# i# "# )o+r(*or r&/&r'i# B+$&#(' or $&)r&&'? '+B&)(,%o&/&r, (o (%& ri%( o* "# p&r'o# $&pri/&$o* (%& l"#$ or o* "# &'("(& or i#(&r&'((%&r&i# $&)r&& o* r&i'(r"(io# o("i#&$ *r"+$ (o l& i# (%& )op&(&#( Co+r( o* Fir'(I#'("#)& " p&(i(io# *or r&/i& i(%i# o#& &"r"*(&r &#(r o* (%& $&)r&& pro/i$&$ #o

i##o)&#( p+r)%"'&r *or /"l+& %"' ")+ir&$ "#i#(&r&'(. Upo# (%& &5pir"(io# o* '"i$ (&r o*o#& &"r, &/&r $&)r&& or )&r(i)"(& o* (i(l&

i''+&$ i# "))or$"#)& i(% (%i' '&)(io# '%"ll& i#)o#(ro/&r(il&. If there is an# su&hpur&haser, the de&ree of registration shall not 0eopened, 0ut shall re-ain in full for&e and eAe&tforever, su0?e&t onl# to the right of appealherein0efore provided/ Provi%e%, however, hat node&ree or &erti;&ate of title issued to persons notparties to the appeal shall 0e &an&elled orannulled. But an# person aggrieved 0# su&h de&reein an# &ase -a# pursue his re-ed# 0# a&tion for

da-ages against the appli&ant or an# other personfor fraud in pro&uring the de&ree. henever thephrase Ginno&ent pur&haser for valueG or aneuivalent phrase o&&urs in this (&t, it shall 0edee-ed to in&lude an inno&ent lessee, -ortgagee,or other en&u-0ran&er for value. 3E-phasissupplied4

he fraud &onte-plated in Se&tion % of (&t '+>refers to e7trinsi& or &ollateral fraud. In Libudan v.

Gil ,$% the Court e7plained the s&ope of e7trinsi& or&ollateral fraud as follows/

7 7 7 34he a&tion to annul a ?udg-ent, upon theground of fraud, would 0e unavailing unless thefraud 0e etrinsicor &ollateral and the fa&ts uponwhi&h it is 0ased have not 0een &ontroverted orresolved in the &ase where the ?udg-ent sought to0e annulled was rendered. E7trinsi& or &ollateralfraud, as distinguished fro- intrinsi& fraud,&onnotes an# fraudulent s&he-e e7e&uted 0# aprevailing litigant Goutside the trial of a &aseagainst the defeated part#, or his agents, attorne#sor witnesses, where0# said defeated part# isprevented fro- presenting full# and fairl# his sideof the &ase.G But intrinsic fraud ta9es the for- ofGa&ts of a part# in a litigation during the trial, su&h

as the use of forged instru-ents or per?uredtesti-on#, whi&h did not aAe&t the presentation ofthe &ase, 0ut did prevent a fair and ?ustdeter-ination of the &ase.G

hus, relief is granted to a part# deprived of hisinterest in land where the fraud &onsists in adeli0erate -isrepresentation that the lots are not&ontested when in fa&t the# areH or in appl#ing forand o0taining ad?udi&ation and registration in thena-e of a &o)owner of land whi&h he 9nows hadnot 0een allotted to hi- in the partitionH or inintentionall# &on&ealing fa&ts, and &onniving with

the land inspe&tor to in&lude in the surve# plan the0ed of a naviga0le strea-H or in willfull#-isrepresenting that there are no other &lai-sH orin deli0eratel# failing to notif# the part# entitled tonoti&eH or in indu&ing hi- not to oppose anappli&ationH or in -isrepresenting a0out theidentit# of the lot to the true owner 0# theappli&ant &ausing the for-er to withdraw hisappli&ation. In all these e7a-ples the overriding&onsideration is that the fraudulent s&he-e of theprevailing litigant prevented a part# fro- havinghis da# in &ourt or fro- presenting his &ase. hefraud, therefore, is one that aAe&ts and goes intothe ?urisdi&tion of the &ourt.

7 7 7

'1








e have repeatedl# held that relief on the groundof fraud will not 0e granted where the alleged fraudgoes into the -erits of the &ase, is intrinsi& and not&ollateral, and has 0een &ontroverted and de&ided. hus we have unders&ored the denial of reliefwhere it appears that the fraud &onsisted in thepresentation at the trial of a supposed forgeddo&u-ent, or a false and per?ured testi-on#, or in0asing the ?udg-ent on a fraudulent &o-pro-iseagree-ent, or in the alleged fraudulent a&ts or

o-issions of the &ounsel whi&h prevented thepetitioner fro- properl# presenting the &ase.

he fraud 0eing attri0uted to (ndaang is note7trinsi& and &ollateral. In Libudan, the Courtruled that the allegation that neither the appli&antnor his alleged su&&essor)in)interest has ever 0eenin a&tual possession of the propert# in uestionsin&e ti-e i--e-orial does not &onstitutee7trinsi& fraud.

*ranting that (ndaang &o--itted e7trinsi& and&ollateral fraud, @ad?i "uni0, et al. failed to avail of

the re-ed# provided under Se&tion % of (&t '+>within the pres&ri0ed period.

In Nelayan, et al. v. Nelayan, et al .,$+ this Courtruled that in the &ase of pu0li& land grants3patents4, the one)#ear period under Se&tion % is&ounted fro- the issuan&e of the patent 0# thegovern-ent.

he 2etters of Patent was issued on 1= 5e0ruar#1+. he 0rothers and sisters of Saupi "oro ;ledCivil Case No. '1 for annul-ent of title onl# in 8ul#1+>, -ore than a #ear after the issuan&e of the

2etters of Patent. here is no eviden&e that Saupi"oros &hildren, who are his &o-pulsor# heirs,intervened in the &ase. Insihs &hildren who &lai-to have su&&eeded to the rights of their -otheralso failed to intervene in the &ase. @ad?i "uni0, etal. did not do an#thing to prote&t their interest, noteven after the re&ords of Civil Case No. '1 were0urned. Instead of availing of the re-ed# underSe&tion % of (&t '+>, @ad?i "uni0, et al. ;led ana&tion for partition on $ 5e0ruar# 1++, whi&h-ust fail 0e&ause a orrens title is not sus&epti0leto &ollateral atta&9. hus/

GIt is a rule in this ?urisdi&tion that on&e a pu0li&land has 0een 0rought under the 2and Registration(&t, the orrens title issued thereto is indefeasi0le.It is entitled to the sa-e regard as one issued in a ?udi&ial pro&eeding. he orrens title is notsus&epti0le to &ollateral atta&9. he de&ree 3ororder of the Dire&tor of 2ands for the issuan&e ofthe patent in the &ase of a ho-estead4 -a# 0ereviewed under Se&. % of the 2and Registration(&t 0# ;ling the appropriate petition within one#ear fro- the issuan&e of the said de&ree or fro-the issuan&e of the order for the issuan&e of thepatent. Or an appeal -a# 0e ta9en to the appellate&ourt within the regle-entar# period fro- the

de&ision of the CourtH and in the &ase of theho-estead, the ad-inistrative re-edies -a# 0epursued. hese are the -ethods of dire&t atta&9.G!

!he Proper Part to Bring the Action

In an# event, @ad?i "uni0, et al. are not the properparties to ;le an a&tion for re&onve#an&e of theland in dispute.

Even in Civil Case No. '1, the plaintiAs there didnot &lai- that the land was privatel# owned andthus not proper su0?e&t for ho-estead appli&ation. he# onl# alleged )o#(i#+o+' po''&''io# of theland. Even in their "e-orandu- ;led 0efore thisCourt, @ad?i "uni0, et al. onl# alleged that(ndaang *ani violated the provisions of C( 1'1and that he was never in a&tual possession ando&&upation of the land in dispute. @ad?i "uni0, etal. also a&9nowledged that Civil Case No. 1 onl#&on;r-ed Saupi "oros p%'i)"l po''&''io# ofthe land. Indeed, Civil Case No. 1, 0eing a &ase forillegal detainer, did not settle the issue ofownership of the land. he trial &ourt dis-issed the&o-plaint in that &ase onl# 0e&ause the plaintiAsfailed to esta0lish their right to re&over possessionof the land. (n# deter-ination of ownership -ade

in the illegal detainer &ase is not &on&lusive.

Evidentl#, the land was not privatel# owned 0#*ani "oro fro- who- Saupi "oro Ga&uiredG it. he land in dispute was part of the pu0li& do-ain0efore the issuan&e of OC No. P)=+. If it wereotherwise, there would 0e no need for *ani "orosson, (ndaang, to ;le a ho-estead appli&ation.

he rule on this -atter is &lear/

(ll lands that were not a&uired fro- the*overn-ent, either 0# pur&hase or 0# grant,

0elong to the pu0li& do-ain. (n e7&eption to therule would 0e an# land that should have 0een inthe possession of an o&&upant and of hisprede&essors in interest sin&e ti-e i--e-orial, forsu&h possession would ?ustif# presu-ption that theland had never 0een part of the pu0li& do-ain orthat it had 0een a private propert# even 0efore theSpanish &onuest.1

@ad?i "uni0, et al.s a&tion for partition eAe&tivel#see9s to &an&el the ho-estead patent and the&orresponding &erti;&ate of title. @owever, even ifthe ho-estead patent and the &erti;&ate of title

are &an&elled, @ad?i "uni0, et al. will not a&uirethe land in the &on&ept of an owner. he land willrevert to the govern-ent and will again for- partof the pu0li& do-ain.

Se&tion 1!1 of C( 1'1 provides that a&tions forreversion of pu0li& lands fraudulentl# awarded-ust 0e instituted 0# the Soli&itor *eneral and inthe na-e of the Repu0li& of the Philippines.$ hus/

( &erti;&ate of title issued pursuant to aho-estead patent parta9es of the nature of a&erti;&ate issued in a ?udi&ial pro&eeding, as longas the land disposed of is reall# a part of thedisposa0le land of the pu0li& do-ain and 0e&o-esindefeasi0le and in&ontroverti0le after one #ear

'$













fro- issuan&e. 7 7 7. he onl# instan&e when a&erti;&ate of title &overing a tra&t of land, for-erl#a part of the patri-onial propert# of the State,&ould 0e &an&elled, is for failure on the part of thegrantee to &o-pl# with the &onditions i-posed 0#law, and in su&h &ase the proper part# to 0ring thea&tion would 0e the *overn-ent to whi&h thepropert# would revert.

Considering the foregoing, @ad?i "uni0, et al. have

no personalit# to ;le an a&tion to re&overpossession of the land in dispute. 5urther, the#failed to ti-el# avail of whatever re-ed# availa0leto the- to prote&t whatever interest the# had overthe land.

7-EREFORE, the De&ision of the Sharia Distri&tCourt, hird Sharia 8udi&ial Distri&t, a-0oangaCit# in Civil Case No. 1), is SE (SIDE, andanother one is entered DIS"ISSIN* the &o-plaintin Civil Case No. 1).

RULE 0

FORCI:LE ENTR> ANUNLA7FUL ETAINER

G.R. No. 118328 O)(o&r 8, 1998

MARCIANA SERONCILLO, petitioner,vs.SPOUSES FIEL "#$ E<EL>N :ENOLIRAO,MELITON CARISIMA, "#$ COURT OFAPPEALS, respondents.

MARTINEH, J.:

his petition for review assails the de&ision of theCourt of (ppeals dated 8ul# 1', 1++' in C( *.R. CJ

No. +$1 1

whi&h a:r-ed the de&ision of theRegional rial Court of Pasa# Cit#, 3Bran&h 1!%4 inCivil Case No. ==%, dated 8une !, 1++$ dire&tingherein petitioner to de-olish and re-ove all illegalstru&tures whi&h she &onstru&ted in front of thesu0?e&t lot, to va&ate the said propert# and right ofwa#, and return possession thereof to therespondents.

he ante&edent fa&ts/

he su0?e&t pre-ises was for-erl# part of theestate of @. J. Ongsia9o, &o-prising of 1,%!>

suare -eters, -ore or less, lo&ated at the &ornerof Pilapil and N. Do-ingo Streets, Pasa# Cit#. helegal heirs of @.J. Ongsia9o organied the Fnited

Co-ple7 Realt# and rading Corporation 3FCRC4whi&h su0divided the propert# into fourteen 31'4lots, 2ots )( to >>>)N. he su0divided lots werethen oAered for sale with ;rst priorit# to ea&h ofthe tenants, in&luding the private respondents andpetitioner. 2 2ot >>>)@ has an area of $'% suare-eters, &onsisting of two 3$4 parts. One part is theresidential portion with an area of 11$ suare-eters pur&hased 0# private respondents)spousesBenolirao 3 while the se&ond part is the right of wa#

for 2ot >>>)I and the aforesaid residentialportion. 4 Private respondent Carisi-a pur&hased2ot >>>)I. Petitioner, who was o&&up#ing thewestern end and front portions of the aforesaid lotsde&lined the oAer to pur&hase an# of the lotsoAered for sale 0# FCRC.

Petitioner &ontinued pa#ing rentals to @.J.Ongsia9os wife, "rs. Rosario de 8esus. hereafter,the &olle&tion of rentals was stopped pro-ptingpetitioner to ;le on 8une !, 1+%=, Civil Case No.'> 0efore the "etropolitan rial Court of Pasa#Cit# for &onsignation of rentals against FCRC,

Rosario de 8esus and the spouses Carisi-a. he&onsignation was granted 0# the trial &ourt andwas eventuall# a:r-ed on appeal 0# the Regional rial Court of Pasa# Cit#, Bran&h 1!+ on O&to0er$, 1+%+. 6

On "a# , 1+%+, FCRC e7e&uted a deed ofa0solute sale in favor of private respondents)spouses Benolirao for 2ot >>>)@. his sale wasannotated at the 0a&9 of FCRCs title on 2ot >>>)@. 8

On 8une $, 1+%+, after unsu&&essful oral andwritten de-ands were -ade upon petitioner,FCRC instituted an a&tion against her for re&over#of possession of the su0?e&t pre-ises 0efore theRegional rial Court of Pasa# Cit#, Bran&h 11'do&9eted as Civil Case No >>$. 9 On 8ul# 1, 1++!,the trial &ourt rendered its de&ision dis-issing the&o-plaint of FCRC, stating in part, to wit/

It is &lear, therefore, that plaintiA,not having 0een authoried inwriting for the purpose, -a# notvalidl# 0ring an a&tion to enfor&e aper&eived ease-ent of right of wa#pertaining to the owners of 2ots

>>>)@ and >>>)I or the Benoliraoand Carisi-a fa-ilies, whileBen?a-in Ongsia9o possessed theauthorit# to institute the &ase3E7hi0it G*G4, plaintiA is not the realpart# in interest. 5urther-ore, thesituation o0taining does not &all forthe enfor&e-ent of an ease-ent of right of wa#. Defendant Seldon&illois not the owner of and has never&lai-ed ownership over the portionof 2ot >>>)@ on whi&h her house isere&ted. ( servitude is anen&u-0ran&e i-posed upon ani--ova0le for the 0ene;t ofanother i--ova0le 0elonging to a

'





diAerent owner 3(rti&le >1, NewCivil Code4. In the present &ase thee?e&t-ent of defendant Serdon&illofro- the portion of 2ot >>>)@o&&upied 0# the house at theinstan&e of the proper part#3Renato Bolinaraos fa-il# 4 wouldre-ove the o0stru&tion.

777 777 777

@ERE5ORE, in view of all theforegoing &onsideration, the&o-plaint against the defendant"ar&iana Serdonillo, as well asdefendants &ounter&lai-, isdis-issed for la&9 of -erit. ithoutpronoun&e-ent as to &osts.

SO ORDERED. 10

FCRC did not appeal the aforesaid de&ision of theRegional rial Court, hen&e, the sa-e 0e&a-e ;nal.

On Nove-0er $!, 1+%+, Serdon&illo instituted CivilCase No. =='+ for the E7er&ise of PreferentialRights of 5irst Refusal against FCRC and privaterespondents)spouses a 5idel and Evel#n Benoliraopra#ing for the annul-ent of sale of a portion of lot>>>)@ sold to the Benolirao spouses on the groundthat said transfer or &onve#an&e is illegal. She&lai-ed that she has the preferred right to 0u# thesaid propert# and that the sa-e was not oAered toher under the sa-e ter-s and &onditions, hen&e, itis null and void. FCRC and private respondentsprevailed and this &ase was dis-issed. On appeal

to the Court of (ppeals, the sa-e was dis-issedon 8ul# +, 1++$. 11

On Nove-0er $!, 1++!, private respondents -adetheir ;nal de-and on petitioner reiterating theirprevious de-ands to va&ate the propert#. 12 OnDe&e-0er 1, 1++!, private respdndents ;led their&o-plaint for re&over# of possession of the su0?e&tpre-ises against petitioner 0efore the Regional rial Court of Pasa# Cit#, Bran&h 1!%, do&9eted asCivil Case No. ==, whi&h &o-piaint alleges these-aterial fa&ts/

. hat plaintiAs, 0eing thenregistered owners of the propertiesdesignated as lot >>>)@ and >>>)I,are li9ewise the ownersgrantees of the right of wa# granted 0# FnitedCo-ple7 Realt# and radingCorporation whi&h was&orrespondingl# annotated in itstitle 3(nne7 GB)G 4 under Entr# No.$!1')1=$$+1 of the Register of Deeds of Pasa# Cit#H

>. hat sin&e 1+%$ the defendanthas 0uilt and &onstru&ted aresiden&e and pig pen on theplaintiAs right of wa# as well as on

the front portions of the lattersproperties leaving the- virtuall#o0stru&ted with no ingress oregress fro- the -ain roadH

=. hat ver0al and written de-ands-ade upon the defendant 0# theplaintiAs to re-ove and de-olishher stru&tures had 0een ignored,the last of whi&h was on Nove-0er

$!, 1++!, 7ero7 &op# of whi&h ishereto atta&hed as (nne7 GCG andta9en as an integral part hereof,0ut despite su&h de-ands, thedefendant failed and refused andstill fails and refuses to re-ove andva&ate her illegal stru&tures on theportion of the properties as well ason the right of wa# of plaintiAs.

%. hat plaintiAs in &o-plian&e withthe atarungang Pa-0aranga# 2awlodged a &o-plaint 0efore the

Baranga# Captain, Baranga# %',one 1! of Pasa# Cit#, whi&h&erti;ed ;ling of the sa-e in &ourt,7ero7 &op# of said &erti;&ation ishereto atta&hed as (nne7 GDG andta9en as integral part hereofH

+. hat due to the un?usti;edrefusal of the defendant, theplaintiAs are suAering theunne&essar# in&onvinien&e of thea0sen&e of de&ent and su:&ientingress and egress on theirproperties, and will &ontinue tosuAer the sa-e unless the illegalstru&tures are ;nall# de-olishedandor re-oved 0# thedefendantsH 13

Petitioner, in her (nswer, put up the defense thatshe is the legiti-ate tenant of said lots in uestionsin&e 1+>, pertinent portions of whi&h are uotedhereunder, thus/

1. hat 2ot >>>)@ and 2ot >>>)I-entioned in the &o-plaint arefor-erl# portions of a 0ig tra&93sic4of land &onsisting of 1,%!> suare-eters then owned 0# @.J.Ongsia9oH

1'. hat sin&e 1+> and 0efore the1,%!> suare -eters of lot owned0# @.J. Ongsia9o was su0dividedinto fourteen 31'4 lots in 1+%$,defendant is 3sic4 alread# alegiti-ate tenant and o&&upantfa-il# of around '!! suare -etersof the 1,%!> suare -eters of thesaid land then owned 0# @.J.

Ongsia9o 0# ere&ting herresidential house thereon at the

''



agreed -onthl# rental of P1.!!and in&reased to P 1!!.!!H

1. hat upon the death of @.J.Ongsia9o his heirs &ontinued&olle&ting the -onthl# rental of thepre-ises fro- the defendantsH

1>. hat the heirs of @.J. Ongsia9ofor-ed a &orporation 9nown asFNIED CO"P2E RE(2L (ND R(DIN* CORPOR(ION and the0ig par&el of land &onsisting of1,%!> suare -eters wastransferred to the said &orporationand su0divided in 1+%$ intofourteen 31'4 lots, two 3$4 of whi&hlots are the ver# sa-e lots leased0# the defendant fro- @.J.Ongsia9o and later fro- his heirsand then fro- Fnited Co-ple7Realt# and rading Corporation asalleged in the pre&eding pars. l,

1', and 1H14

he issues having 0een ?oined, trial on the -eritsensued. On 8une !, 1++$, the trial &ourt renderedits de&ision in favor of private respondent, thedispositive portion of whi&h reads/

@ERE5ORE, IN JIE of theforegoing, and ;ndingpreponderan&e of eviden&e inplaintiAs favor, ?udg-ent is here0#rendered as follows/

14 Ordering the defendant tode-olish and re-ove all illegalstru&tures she &onstru&ted on thefront portions of the su0?e&t lotsand on the right of wa# of theplaintiAH

$.4 Ordering the defendant tova&ate the propert# and right ofwa# and return possession thereofto the plaintiAs,

4 Ordering the defendant to pa#

the &ost of suit.

(s to the da-ages 3a&tual and-oral4 no award is given. In thea0sen&e of proof of fraud and 0adfaith 0# the defendants, the latterare 3sic4 not lia0le for da-ages3Es&ritor 8r. vs. I(C, 1 SCR( ==4.

(&tual and &o-pensator# da-agesreuire su0stantial proof. In thea0sen&e of -ali&e and 0ad faith,-oral da-ages &annot 0e awarded

3Cap&o vs. "a&asaet, 1%+ SCR(SCR( >14.

(s to the attorne#s fees, ea&hpart# should shoulder hishere7penses.

SO ORDERED. 1

(ggrieved 0# the trial &ourts de&ision, petitionerappealed to the Court of (ppeals alleging that/ 14the lower &ourt should have dis-issed the&o-plaint of private respondents &onsidering that0ased on the letter of de-and dated Nove-0er $!,1++!, the a&tion ;led should have 0een unlawfuldetainer and not an a&tion for re&over# ofpossessionH $4 the a&tion ;led 0# privaterespondents is 0arred 0# res Hu%icata &onsideringthat the present a&tion is identi&al with that of CivilCase No. >>$H 4 the lower &ourt erred in notdis-issing the &o-plaint for la&9 of &ause of a&tionwith respe&t to enfor&e-ent of right of wa# vis avis defendantH and '4 the lower &ourt erred inordering that defendants va&ate the properties inuestion sin&e the lease of defendants thereon wasstill in e7isten&e and had not #et 0een

ter-inated. 16

On 8ul# 1', 1++', the respondent Court of (ppealsrendered its de&ision sustaining the ;ndings of thetrial &ourt and dis-issed the appeal of petitioner,stating in part as follows/

he issue as to the proper a&tionhas 0een resolved 0# therespondent &ourt, to wit/

he defense thatwhat should have

0een ;led is ane?e&t-ent &ase andnot re&over# ofpossession, is notalso &orre&t. he;ling of this &asefor re&over# ofpossession, insteadof an e?e&t-ent&ase, is notaltogetherun?usti;ed. heBenoliraos andCarisi-a 0e&a-ethe owners as earl#as "a#, 1+%+.Jer0al and writtende-ands had 0eenignored. here is ani--ediate need forplaintiAs to use theright of wa#, whi&hup to the presentti-e is o0stru&ted.(t -ost, whatsurfa&ed is ate&hni&alit# whi&h

should 0ea0andoned.

'



( plain reading of the &o-plaintshows that plaintiA)appellees &auseof a&tion is for re&over# ofpossession of their propert# whi&hwas en&roa&hed upon 0#defendant)appellant. 1

( -otion for re&onsideration of the aforesaidde&ision ;led 0# petitioner on (ugust %,1++' 18 was denied 0# the respondent on

Septe-0er $, 1++'. 19

@en&e, this petition.

Petitioner as&ri0es one single error &o--itted 0#the respondent &ourt, to wit/

@E RESPONDEN RE*ION(2 RI(2 COFR (ND @E COFR O5 (PPE(2S 3Sp. 5ifteenth Division4CO""IED *R(JE (BFSE O5 8FRISDICION INDECIDIN* (S (N (CCION PFB2ICI(N( (NE8EC"EN OR FN2(5F2 DE(INER C(SE 3@E 8FRISDICION O5 @IC@ C2E(R2L PER(INS O @E IN5ERIOR COFR4, ( C(SE B(SIC(22LINJO2JIN* (N E(SE"EN O5 RI*@ O5 (L.

Petitioner asserts that the respondent &ourt erredin sustaining the trial &ourts ;nding that the&o-plaint ;led 0# private respondents for re&over#of possession of the su0?e&t pre-ises is an accion publiciana notwithstanding the fa&t that the a&tionwas ;led within one 314 #ear fro- de-and.Petitioner &ontends that private respondentsshould have ;led an a&tion for unlawful detainerand not an a&tion for re&over# of possessionagainst petitioner. Conseuentl#, the trial &ourt is

without ?urisdi&tion to hear and deter-ine CivilCase No. ==%. In support of her &ontention,petitioner &ited the &ases of Bernabe vs.&una 20 and 9e%ina vs. Court o( Appeals, 21 whi&hshe states is stri9ingl# si-ilar to the fa&ts of this&ase. Conseuentl#, the rulings of this Court inthese two &ases are suarel# appli&a0le and&ontrolling in the &ase at 0ar.

Private respondents, however, aver that the# were-erel# su&&essors)in)interest of FCRC andtherefore step into the shoes of the latter. he#&lai- that the de-and to va&ate reuired 0# law

should at the ver# least 0e re&9oned fro- 8une $,1+%+, the date of the ;ling of the &o-plaint in CivilCase No. >>$ &onsidering that their de-ands aresi-pl# a reiteration of FCRCs de-ands againstpetitioner. Private respondents further &ontend thatthe allegations in the &o-plaint deter-ine the ?urisdi&tion of the &ourt. hus, the &o-plaint in CivilCase No. ==% spe&i;&all# alleged that privaterespondents are the owners of lots >>>)I and >>>)@as eviden&ed 0# transfer &erti;&ates of title andpra#ed for re&over# of possession of a portionthereof in&luding its right of wa# illegall# andunlawfull# possessed 0# petitioner.

Petitioners position is without -erit.

It is an ele-entar# rule of pro&edural law that ?urisdi&tion of the &ourt over the su0?e&t -atter isdeter-ined 0# the allegations of the &o-plaintirrespe&tive of whether or not the plaintiA isentitled to re&over upon all or so-e of the &lai-sasserted therein. (s a ne&essar# &onseuen&e, the ?urisdi&tion of the &ourt &annot 0e -ade to dependupon the defenses set up in the answer or upon the-otion to dis-iss, for otherwise, the uestion of ?urisdi&tion would al-ost entirel# depend upon the

defendant. 22 hat deter-ines the ?urisdi&tion ofthe &ourt is the nature of the a&tion pleaded asappearing fro- the allegations in the &o-plaint. he aver-ents therein and the &hara&ter of therelief sought are the ones to 0e&onsulted. 23 (&&ordingl#, the issues in the instant&ase &an onl# 0e properl# resolved 0# ane7a-ination and evaluation of the allegations inthe &o-plaint in Civil Case No. ==%. 24

In this regard, to give the &ourt ?urisdi&tion to eAe&tthe e?e&t-ent of an o&&upant or defor&iant on theland, it is ne&essar# that the &o-plaint -ust

su:&ientl# show su&h a state-ent of fa&ts as to0ring the part# &learl# within the &lass of &ases forwhi&h the statutes provide a re-ed#, withoutresort to parol testi-on#, as these pro&eedings aresu--ar# in nature. 2 In short, the ?urisdi&tionalfa&ts -ust appear on the fa&e of the &o-plaint.hen the &o-plaint fails to aver fa&ts &onstitutiveof for&i0le entr# or unlawful detainer, as where itdoes not state how entr# was eAe&ted or how andwhen dispossession started, the re-ed# shouldeither 0e an accion publiciana or an accionreivin%icatoria. 26

In the &ase of 6avier vs. Neri%iano 2 this Court

held that the do&trine in Emilia v. Ba%o, 28 de&ided-ore than twent#);ve #ears ago, is still good law. Itpreserved the age)old re-edies availa0le undere7isting laws and ?urispruden&e to re&overpossession of real propert#, na-el#/ 314 accioninter%ictal, whi&h is the su--ar# a&tion for eitherfor&i0le entr# or%etentacion, where the defendantspossession of the propert# is illegal ab initioH or forunlawful detainer or %esahucio, where thedefendants possession was originall# lawful 0ut&eased to 0e -ust 0e so 0# the e7piration of hisright to possess, 0oth of whi&h -ust 0e 0roughtwithin one #ear fro- the date of a&tual entr# on

the land, in &ase of for&i0le entr#H and fro- thedate of last de-and, in &ase of unlawful detainer,in the proper -uni&ipal trial &ourt or -etropolitan&ourtH 3$4 accion publiciana whi&h is a plenar#a&tion for re&over# of the right to possess andwhi&h should 0e 0rought in the proper regional trial&ourt when the dispossession has lasted for -orethan one #earH and, 34 accionreivin%icatoria or accion %e reivin%icacion whi&hsee9s the re&over# of ownership and in&ludesthe Hus possi%en%i 0rought in the proper regionaltrial &ourt.

Accion reivin%icatoria or accion %e reivin%icacion is

thus an a&tion where0# plaintiA alleges ownershipover a par&el of land and see9s re&over# of its fullpossession. It is diAerent fro- accion

'>



inter%ictal or accion publicianawhere plaintiA-erel# alleges proof of a 0etter right to possesswithout &lai- of title. In Bana#os vs. Susana Realt#,In&., 29 this Court held that/

e have &onsistentl# held that a&o-plaint for for&i0le entr#, asdistinguished fro- that of unlawfuldetainer, in order to vest ?urisdi&tion upon the inferior &ourt,

-ust allege plaintiAs prior ph#si&alpossession of the propert#, as wellas the fa&t that he was deprived ofsu&h possession 0# an# of the-eans provided in Se&tion 1, Rule=! of the Rules of Court, na-el#/for&e, inti-idation, threats,strateg# and stealth, Gfor if thedispossession did not ta9e pla&e 0#an# of these -eans, the &ourts of;rst instan&e, not the -uni&ipal&ourts, have ?urisdi&tion.

777 777 777

he aforesaid Rule =! does not,however, &over all of the &ases ofdispossession of lands. hus,Gwhenever the owner isdispossessed 0# an# other -eansthan those -entioned he -a#-aintain his a&tion in the Court of5irst Instan&e, and it is notne&essar# for hi- to wait until thee7piration of twelve -onths 0efore&o--en&ing an a&tion to 0erepossessed or de&lared to 0eowner of the land.G Courts of 5irstInstan&e have ?urisdi&tion overa&tions to re&over possession ofreal propert# illegall# detained,together with rents due andda-ages, even though one 314#ear has not e7pired fro- the0eginning of su&h illegal detention,provided the uestion of ownershipof su&h propert# is also involved. Inother words, if the part# illegall#dispossessed desires to raise theuestion of illegal dispossession as

well as that of the ownership overthe propert# he -a# &o--en&esu&h a&tion in the Court of 5irstInstan&e i--ediatel# or at an#ti-e after su&h illegaldispossession. If he de&ides to raisethe uestion of illegaldispossession onl#, and the a&tionis ;led -ore than one 314 #ear aftersu&h deprivation or withholding ofpossession, then the Court of 5irstInstan&e will have original ?urisdi&tion over the &ase. hefor-er is an accion %e

reivin%icacion whi&h see9s there&over# of ownership as well aspossession, while the latter refers

to an accion publiciana, whi&h isthe re&over# of the right to possessand is a plenar# a&tion in anordinar# pro&eeding in the Court of5irst Instan&e.

( reading of the aver-ents of the &o-plaint in CivilCase No. ==% undisputa0l# show that plaintiAs3private respondents herein4 &learl# set up title tothe-selves as 0eing the a0solute owner of the

disputed pre-ises 0# virtue of their transfer&erti;&ates of title and pra# that petitionerSerdon&illo 0e e?e&ted therefro-. here is nothingin the &o-plaint in Civil Case No. ==% alleging an#of the -eans of dispossession that would&onstitute for&i0le entr# under Se&tion 314 Rule =!of the Rules of Court, nor is there an# assertion ofdefendants possession whi&h was originall# lawful0ut &eased to 0e so upon the e7piration of the rightto possess. It does not &hara&terie petitionersalleged entr# into the land, that is, whether thesa-e was legal or illegal nor the -anner in whi&hpetitioner was a0le to &onstru&t the house and the

pig pens thereon. he &o-plaint -erel# avers thata portion of the lot owned 0# private respondentsand its right of wa# have 0een o&&upied 0#petitioner and that she should va&ate. he a&tiontherefore is neither one of for&i0le nor of unlawfuldetainer 0ut essentiall# involves a dispute relativeto the ownership of '.1 suare -eters of landallegedl# en&roa&hed upon 0# petitioner and itsad?oining right of wa#. Indeed, the O&ularInspe&tion Report of the Bran&h Cler9 of Court,states that/

. . . 34he right of wa# hit dire&tl#the defendant Serdon&illos

propert# &onsisting of a two)store#residential house -ade of woodand *I sheets and o&&up#ing theentire width of the rear portion ofthe right of wa#. ( &o&onut treestands on the -iddle of the road,at the 0a&9 of whi&h is a shant#-ade of rotten *.I. sheets around itwhi&h is used as pigpens and pla&eof washing &lothes e7tended fro-defendants house. o gain a&&essto plaintiAs propert#, the groupturned right and passed 0etween

an GaratirisG tree and &e-ented;rewall owned 0# "r. Belar-ino-a9ing onl# one person at a ti-eto pass. his passagewa# has onl#a width of !. -eter whi&h is 0eingused 0# the defendant and her-e-0ers of the fa-il# aside fro-the plaintiAs.

. . . wo 3$4 -onu-ents of the lot0oundar# of the plaintiAs propert#are e7isting, 0ut the rest arenowhere to 0e found. (&&ording to"rs. Benolirao, the# are lo&ated

within the pre-ises of thedefendants house. (t the 0a&9 of

'=



Benolirao is a private propert#gutted 0# ;re.

. . . Fpon reuest, the group wassgranted per-ission 0# the relativesof the defendant to inspe&t thepla&e. he group further noti&edthat defendants i-prove-entswere even en&roa&hing on theplaintiAs lot 0# appro7i-atel# '.1

-eters, -ore or less. he house ofthe defendant is fa&ing theplaintiAs propert#H there is a s-all&hi&9en house and there is also adog house standing near it. 30

It is noted that at the ti-e of the ;ling of said&o-plaint, Civil Case No. =='+, an a&tion forannul-ent of the sale 0etween FCRC and privaterespondents Benolirao of 2ot >>>)@ initiated 0#petitioner was li9ewise pending in another &ourt. his &ase puts in issue the validit# of privaterespondents a&uisition of the su0?e&t lots and

ulti-atel# their ownership of 2ot >>>)@.

hus, what is noti&ea0le in the &o-plaint is thatprivate respondents de;nitel# gave petitionernoti&e of their &lai- of e7&lusive and a0soluteownership, in&luding their right to possess whi&h isan ele-ental attri0ute of ownership.31 It isi--aterial whether or not private respondentsinstituted their &o-plaint one -onth fro- date oflast de-and or a #ear thereafter. hat is ofpara-ount i-portan&e is that the allegations in&o-plaint are of the nature of either an accion publiciana or an accion reivin%icatoria.

Petitioners relian&e on the Berna0e and "edina&ases, whi&h she &lai-s to 0e suarel# appli&a0leunder the &ir&u-stan&es herein, is entirel#-ispla&ed. hile it is true that in these two &asesthe &o-plaints were ;led 0efore the one)#earperiod had e7pired fro- date of last de-and, theallegations in the &o-plaint failed to state -aterialfa&ts whi&h are indi&ative of a &ase of eitheran accion publiciana or accion reivin%icatoria. hus, the Court in Berna0e stated that/

In their &o-plaint, plaintiAs3petitioners herein4 allege that the#are the owners of a par&el of landwith an area of 1++.' suare-eters -ore or less, lo&ated in ondo, "anila, that defendant3private respondent herein4&onstru&ted a house on said lotwithout plaintiAs per-issionH thaton Nove-0er 1', 1+%!, plaintiAsthru &ounsel -ade a writtende-and for the re-oval of saidhouse as well as for the re&over# of da-ages for the reasona0le useand o&&upation thereofH and that

defendant refused and failed to&o-pl# despite repeated de-ands.

777 777 777

e have noted that whilepetitioners allege in their &o-plaintthat the# are the owners of the loton whi&h the house of the privaterespondent is &onstru&ted, theiratta&hed C shows that the lot isstill in the na-e of 5e?oseraInvest-ent In&orporated, Private

respondent and said &o-pan#entered into a &ontra&t of lease in1+! for the use and o&&upation ofsaid lot. Petitioners allegedl#0ought the lot in uestion in 1+=,and the# -ust have 0een full#aware of the o&&upan&# of theprivate respondent of the pre-isesin uestion. Let, the# did not ta9ean# a&tion to re-ove the house ofthe private respondent or to infor-the respondent that the# had0e&o-e the new owners of the lot

in uestion. It is &lear thereforethat the lease was allowed to&ontinue.

777 777 777

Conseuentl#, the possession ofprivate respondent over the lot inuestion 0e&a-e illegal onl# onNove-0er 1', 1+%!, when thefor-al de-and to pa# and va&atethe pre-ises was sent to hi-. 32

he allegations in the &o-plaint &learl# show thatplaintiAs were alread# the owners of the propert#when defendant &onstru&ted a house on thedisputed lot without their per-ission. hat despitefor-al de-and defendant failed to va&ate andsurrender possession of the propert# to the-.Indeed, the aver-ents in plaintiAs &o-plaintpresent ?urisdi&tional fa&ts whi&h do not illustrateplaintiAs a&tion as either an action publiciana or accion reivin%icatoria 0ut that offor&i0le entr# or unlawful detainer. hus, the trial&ourt &orre&tl# dis-issed plaintiAs &o-plaint,pertinent portion of whi&h is uoted hereunder/

It is &lear on the fa&e of the&o-plaint that at the ti-e of the;ling of this &ase on 5e0ruar# 1+,1+%1, the defendant was inpossession, as a tenant, of thepre-ises. hen plaintiAs &ounsel,therefore sent a written noti&e onNove-0er ', 1+%! reuiringdefendant to va&ate the pre-iseswhen this a&tion was 0rought, theone 314 #ear period after theunlawful deprivation or withholdingof possession has not #et set in. It

is &lear that this is an e?e&t-ent&ase within the e7&lusive

'%



?urisdi&tion of the Cit# Court of"anila.

SO ORDERED. 33

e li9ewise ;nd the "edina &ase, relied upon 0#petitioner, to 0e inappropriate. he fa&ts distin&tl#show that the &o-plaint ;led 0# the owners of thepropert# 0efore the "etropolitan rial Court of"anila, Bran&h '=, was for unlawful detainer. It wasthe a&tion resorted to 0# the plaintiAs afteradvising the defendant 3the lessee of the pre-isesin uestion4 that a -e-0er of the fa-il#, Dr.Iga-a, urgentl# needed the house and afterrepeated de-ands to va&ate -ade on the lesseeproved to 0e unsu&&essful. (ll these in&idents, fro-noti;&ation to the ;ling of the &o-plaint dated "a#1>, 1+%, transpired within a period of si7 3>4-onths. Indeed, the fa&tual 0a&9ground of this&ase is a &lassi& illustration of an a&tion forunlawful detainer. Jeril#, the fa&ts are thereforedia-etri&all# opposite to the fa&ts or &ase at 0ar.

Petitioner has therefore no legal 0asis to insist thatthe present &ase is si-ilar to the Berna0e and"edina &ases and fro- whi&h this Court should0ase its ;ndings and &on&lusions. he do&trine laiddown in !enorio vs. 0ombais still &ontrolling. In that&ase the Court ruled that &ourts of ;rst instan&ehave ?urisdi&tion over all a&tions involvingpossession of land e7&ept for&i0le entr# and illegaldatainer, and therefore the lower &ourt has ?urisdi&tion over the a&tion alleged in theappellants &o-plaint 0e&ause it is neither of illegaldetainer nor of for&i0le entr#. 34

Petitioner -aintains that her leasehold right as atenant of the su0?e&t pre-ises had 0een settled inCivil Case No. '>, an a&tion for &onsignation,whi&h she won 0efore the "etropolitan rial Courtand a:r-ed on appeal 0# the Regional rial Courtof Pasa# Cit#, Bran&h 1!+. Said &ourt ruled that thelatter is a tenant of the site or pre-ises in uestionand that she &annot 0e e?e&ted therefro-, even onthe assu-ption that her house and pig pen areallegedl# standing on a right of wa#. She &lai-sthat pursuant to Se&tion '+ 304 3now Se&tion '=4Rule +, Rules of Court, the issue of tenan&# in said&ase is now &on&lusive 0etween her and privaterespondent with respe&t to the su0?e&t pre-ises in

uestion.

Petitioners &ontention is devoid of -erit.

Se&. '+ 3now Se&tion '=4, provides that/

Se&. '+. EAe&ts of 8udg-ents. the eAe&t of a ?udg-ent or ;nalorder rendered 0# a &ourt or ?udgeof the Philippines having ?urisdi&tion to pronoun&e the ?udg-ent or order, -a# 0e asfollows/

3a4 777 777 777

304 In other &ases the ?udg-ent ororder is, with respe&t to the -atterdire&tl# ad?udged or as to an# other-atter that &ould have 0een raisedin relation thereto, &on&lusive0etween the parties and theirsu&&essors)in)interest 0# titlesu0seuent to the &o--en&e-entof the a&tion or spe&ial pro&eeding,litigating for the sa-e thing and

under the sa-e title and in thesa-e &apa&it#H

he funda-ental prin&iple upon whi&h the do&trineof res Hu%icata rests is that parties ought not 0eper-itted to litigate the sa-e issue -ore thanon&e, that when the right or fa&t has 0een ?udi&iall#deter-ined, the ?udg-ent of the &ourt, so long asit re-ains unreversed, should 0e &on&lusive uponthe parties and those in privit# with thein law orestate. 3

hus, for res Hu%icata to 0ar the institution of a

su0seuent a&tion the following reuisites -ust&on&ur/ 314 the for-er ?udg-ent -ust 0e ;nalH 3$4it -ust have 0een rendered 0# a &ourt having ?urisdi&tion of the su0?e&t -atter and the partiesH34 it -ust 0e a ?udg-ent on the -eritsH and, 3'4there -ust 0e 0etween the ;rst and se&onda&tionsH 3a4 identit# of partiesH 304 identit# ofsu0?e&t -atterH and 3&4 identit# of &ause ofa&tion. 36

here is no dispute as to the presen&e of the ;rstthree 34 reuire-ents and the identit# of thesu0?e&t -atter. he onl# issues re-aining arewhether as 0etween Civil Case No. '> and CivilCase No. ==%, there is identit# of parties and of&auses of a&tion in Civil Case No. '> to 0ar theinstitution of Civil Case No. ==%.

here is identit# of parties. he re&ord shows thatthe parties in Civil Case No. '> are petitioner asplaintiA while the defendants were FCRC, thespouses "eliton and Efre-ia Carisi-a and Rosariode 8esus. Private respondents)spouses 5idel andEvel#n Benolirao a&uired lot >>>)@ fro- FCRCand are therefore the su&&essors)in)interest ofFCRC 0# title su0seuent to the &o--en&e-entand ter-ination of the ;rst a&tion. (s su&h, private

respondents -erel# stepped into the shoes ofFCRC and a&uired whatever &apa&it# and titlethe for-er had over the sa-e propert# or su0?e&t-atter of the a&tion. Indeed, there is a&tual, if notsu0stantial, identit# of parties 0etween the twoa&tions. 3

here is however, no identit# of &auses of a&tion in0oth &ases. In the &ase of 0arcia vs. Court o( Appeals, 38 this Court held that the test of identit#of &auses of a&tion lies not in the for- of an a&tion0ut on whether the sa-e eviden&e would supportand esta0lish the for-er and the present &auses of

a&tion. Petitioners &o-plaint in Civil Case No. '>is an a&tion for &onsignation of rentals while Civil

'+



Case No. ==% is an a&tion for re&over# ofpossession.

In other words, the issue in Civil Case No. '> iswhether or not &onsignation of rentals is properunder the &ir&u-stan&es o0taining in that &ase.Private respondents a&tion for re&over# ofpossession reuires the- to present eviden&e oftheir &lai- or title to the su0?e&t pre-ises and theirright to possess the sa-e fro- petitioner. Stated

&onversel#, the eviden&e in Civil Case No. '> isentirel# diAerent to that in Civil Case No. ==%. hus, the de&ision in Civil Case No. '> does notin an# wa# aAe&t nor 0ar Civil Case No. ==%.

Indeed, the Court noted that the parties had 0eenat odds sin&e 1+%= when petitioner initiated CivilCase No. '>, and then Civil Case No. =='+.Private respondents prede&essor FCRC li9ewiseinitiated Civil Case No. >>$ and the present &aseunder appeal, Civil Case No. ==%, all 0e&ause ofthe use of a right of wa# and an en&roa&h-ent ofonl# '.1 -eters of the su0?e&t pre-ises. (t so-e

point in ti-e, all these sua00les -ust end. hus,the respondent &ourt stated that/

It is true that it is the purpose andintention of the law that &ourtsshould de&ide all uestionssu0-itted to the- Gas truth and ?usti&e reuireG, and that it isgreatl# to 0e desired that all ?udg-ents should 0e so de&idedH0ut &ontrolling and irresisti0lereasons of pu0li& poli&# and ofsound pra&ti&e in the &ourtsde-and that at the ris9 ofo&&asional errors, ?udg-ent of the&ourts deter-ining &ontroversiessu0-itted to the- should 0e&o-e;nal at so-e de;nite ti-e ;7ed 0#law. 39

In passing, e reiterate the ti-e)honored do&trinethat ;ndings of fa&ts of the Court of (ppeals are0inding and &on&lusive upon the Supre-e Court,and the Court, will not nor-all# distur0 su&hfa&tual ;ndings unless the ;ndings of the &ourt arepalpa0l# unsupported 0# the eviden&e or unlessthe ?udg-ent itself is 0ased on -isapprehension of

fa&ts. 40 In this &ase, e ;nd the said de&ision to 0etotall# supported 0# the eviden&e on re&ord.

Based on the foregoing pre-ises, it is unne&essar#to pass upon the other issues raised in the petition.

@ERE5ORE, the petition for review is here0#DIS"ISSED and the de&ision of the Court of(ppeals in C()*.R. CJ NO. +$1 is (55IR"ED. Nopronoun&e-ents as to &osts.

G.R. No. 202 !+#& 18, 2014

:ONIFACIO PIEA, MARIA PIEAr&pr&'&#(&$ INSPIRACION

ANAO, Petitioner,vs.SPOUSES <ICTORIO GURIEHA "#$ EMETERIAM. GURIEHA, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PERLAS;:ERNA:E, J.:

(ssailed in this petition for review on &ertiorari1

arethe De&ision$ dated 5e0ruar# 1%, $!1 and theResolutiondated 8une , $!1 of the Court of(ppeals 3C(4 in C()*.R. SP No. 11=>%> whi&hreversed and set aside the De&ision' dated O&to0er$=, $!1! of the Regional rial Court of Ba#o-0ong,Nueva Ji&a#a, Bran&h $% 3RC4 in Civil Case No.>+=' and dis-issed petitioner Bonifa&io Piedads3Bonifa&io4 Co-plaint for Fnlawful Detainer andDa-ages against respondents)spouses Ji&torio*uriea and Etneteria ". *uriea 3Sps. *uriea4.

he 5a&ts

he instant &ase ste--ed fro- a Co-plaint forFnlawful Detainer and Da-ages ;led 0# Bonifa&ioagainst Sps.*uriea 0efore the "uni&ipal rial Courtof Ba#o-0ong, Nueva Ji&a#a 3"C4, do&9eted asCivil Case No. %==. In his &o-plaint, Bonifa&ioalleged that heis the a0solute owner of the 1-iddle portion of a par&el of residential landdesignated as 2ot 1$$=, lo&ated at 2a orre,Ba#o-0ong, Nueva Ji&a#a, withan area of',>'!.+% suare -eters 3su0?e&t lot4 whi&h hea&uired through intestate su&&ession fro- his latefather who inherited the sa-e fro- the lattersparents, (le?andro Piedad 3(le?andro4and o-asa

Jillara# 3o-asa4. @e also &lai-ed that hisownership of the su0?e&t lot too9 pla&e even 0eforehis fathers death and was validated through aDeed of Con;r-ation of an (d?udi&ation andPartition 3Deed of Con;r-ation4 e7e&uted 0#(le?andro and o-asas legal heirs. 5urther,Bonifa&io alleged that 0efore -igrating to @awaii,he 0uilt a 0ungalow on the su0?e&t lot and assignednu-erous &areta9ers to loo9 after it, the last ofwhi&h were Sps. *uriea. So-eti-e in $!!,however, Sps. *uriea allegedl# too9 interest of the0ungalow and the su0?e&t lot after learning fro- ane-plo#ee of the Depart-ent of Environ-ent andNatural Resour&es 3DENR4 that 2ot 1$$= is pu0li&land. Fsing su&h infor-ation, Sps. *uriea had thesu0?e&t lot de&lared under their na-e for ta7purposes, &aused a su0division surve# of 2ot 1$$=,and ;led an appli&ation for surve# authorit# andtitling with the Bureau of 2and "anage-ent,Co--unit# Environ-ent and Natural Resour&esO:&e of the DENR, Ba#o-0ong, Nueva Ji&a#a3CENRO M DENR Nueva Ji&a#a4.>

hen Bonifa&io learned of Sps. *urieas a&ts, heauthoried Ofelia Ba#)ag to ;le a protest 0efore theDENR whi&h deferred further a&tion on their 3Sps.*urieas4 appli&ation 0efore it. hereafter,

Bonifa&io sent his daughter, "aria Inspira&ionPiedad)Danao 3Danao4, to the &ountr# to personall#de-and that Sps. *uriea va&ate the su0?e&t lot

!

















un&onditionall#H and for this purpose, Danaoinitiated a &o-plaint 0efore the 0aranga# &ourt.@owever, during the -ediation pro&eedings, Sps.*uriea refused to heed Danaos de-and and even&hallenged her to go to higher &ourts. hus,Bonifa&io was &onstrained to ;le the instant &aseas his last resort.=

In their defense, Sps. *uriea denied Bonifa&ios&lai- and -aintained that in 1+=', the su0?e&t lot

was a va&ant and virginal pu0li& land and that theDENR allowed the- to possess and o&&up# thesa-e in the &on&ept of an owner. (s su&h, the#a&uired the sa-e through a&uisitive pres&ription. he# li9ewise assailed the authenti&it# and validit#of the Deed of Con;r-ation, &ontending that it wasonl# signed 0# a few heirs of (le?andro and o-asa.%

he "C Ruling

In a De&ision+ dated "a# %, $!!+, the "C ruled inBonifa&ios favor, and, a&&ordingl#, ordered Sps.

*uriea to va&ate the su0?e&t lot, and pa# Bonifa&iothe a-ount of P!,!!!.!! as attorne#s fees and&osts of suit. It found that Bonifa&io had a 0etterright of possession over the su0?e&t lot aseviden&ed 0# the house he 0uilt thereon as earl#as the 1+!s when he too9 possession of the saidlot, as well as the a:davits of witnesses who arepioneer residents of the area, attesting that Sps.*urieas &lai- over su&h lot ispreposterous.1! 5urther, the "C also found thatSps. *urieas &ontinuous sta# on the su0?e&t lotwas 0# Bonifa&ios -ere toleran&e and su&h sta#0e&a-e illegal when the# refused to va&ate thesaid lot despite the latters de-and. Conseuentl#,Bonifa&io G-a# use su&h for&e as -a# 0ereasona0l# ne&essar# to repel or prevent an a&tualor threatened unlawful ph#si&al invasion orusurpation of ThisU propert# and TtheU ;ling of this&ase is the re-ed# granted Tto hi-U 0# law.G11

Dissatis;ed, Sps. *uriea appealedto the RC,whi&h was do&9eted

as Civil Case No. >+='.

he RC Ruling

In a De&ision1$ dated O&to0er $=, $!1!, the RCa:r-ed the "C ruling in toto. Si-ilarl#, the RCfound that the do&u-entar# and testi-onialeviden&e presented 0# 0oth parties &learl# showedthat Bonifa&io indeed had 0etter possessor# rightsover the su0?e&t lot and the 0ungalow t#pe house0uilt thereon than Sps. *uriea.

(ggrieved, Sps. *uriea elevated the &ase to theC( 0# wa# of petition for review.1

he C( Ruling

In a De&ision1' dated 5e0ruar# 1%, $!1, the C(reversed and set aside the RC ruling, and

&onseuentl#, ordered the dis-issal of Bonifa&iosCo-plaint for Fnlawful Detainer and Da-ages. heC( found, upon further s&rutin# of the Deed ofCon;r-ation, that E-eteria ". *uriea, who-Bonifa&io re&ognied as one of the heirs of thesu0?e&t lot, a-ong others, as well as the otherheirs of (le?andro and o-asa, did not sign theDeed of Con;r-ation. (s su&h, the C( did not give&reden&e to the said do&u-ent and ratio&inatedthat GTaU0sent &redi0le proof that the su0?e&t TlotU

was ever partitioned 0# the heirs of T(le?andro and o-asaU, 7 7 7 E-eteria &ontinues to 0e a &o)owner thereof,G and, hen&e, &annot 0e e?e&ted fro-the sa-e.1

Bonifa&io -oved for re&onsideration 0ut was,however, denied in a Resolution1> dated 8une ,$!1, hen&e, this petition.

he Issue Before the Court

he pri-ordial issue for the Courts resolution iswhether or not the C( &orre&tl# reversed the RC

ruling and, &onseuentl#, dis-issed Bonifa&iosCo-plaint for Fnlawful Detainer and Da-agesagainst Sps. *uriea.

he Courts Ruling


Fnlawful detainer is an a&tion to re&overpossession of real propert# fro- one whounlawfull# withholds possession thereof after thee7piration or ter-ination of his right to holdpossession under an# &ontra&t, e7press or i-plied.

he possession of the defendant in unlawfuldetainer is originall# legal 0ut 0e&a-e illegal dueto the e7piration or ter-ination of the right topossess. he onl# issue to 0e resolved in anunlawful detainer &ase is the ph#si&al or -aterialpossession of the propert# involved, independentof an# &lai- of ownership 0# an# of the parties.1=

(n e?e&t-ent &ase, 0ased on the allegation ofpossession 0# toleran&e, falls under the &ategor# of unlawful detainer. here the plaintiA allows thedefendant to use hisher propert# 0# toleran&ewithout an# &ontra&t, the defendant is ne&essaril#

0ound 0# an i-plied pro-ise that heshe willva&ate on de-and, failing whi&h, an a&tion forunlawful detainer will lie.1%

hus, under Se&tion 1, Rule =! of the Rules ofCourt, the &o-plaint -ust 0e ;led Gwithin one 314#ear after su&h unlawful deprivation or withholdingof possessionG and -ust allege that/ 3a4 thedefendant originall# had lawful possession of thepropert#, either 0# virtue of a &ontra&t or 0#toleran&e of the plaintiAH 304 eventuall#, thedefendants possession of the propert# 0e&a-eillegal or unlawful upon noti&e 0# the plaintiA todefendant of the e7piration or the ter-ination ofthe defendants right of possessionH 3&4 thereafter,the defendant re-ained in possession of the

1




























propert# and deprived the plaintiA the en?o#-entthereofH and 3d4 within one 314 #ear fro- theunlawful deprivation or withholding of possession,the plaintiA instituted the &o-plaint fore?e&t-ent.1+

In this light, the Court shall solel# resolve the issueas to who 0etween the parties has the 0etter rightof possession de fa&to over the su0?e&t lot.Corollar# thereto, issues pertaining to ownership

are 0etter threshed out in another a&tion institutedfor su&h purpose.

(fter a ?udi&ious perusal of the re&ords, the Courtholds that Bonifa&io had &learl# esta0lished his&ause of a&tion for unlawful detainer. he followingesta0lished fa&ts i-pel this &on&lusion/

5irst, the eviden&e shows that as earl# as the1+!s, Bonifa&io alread# had possession of thesu0?e&t lot and even 0uilt a 0ungalow)t#pe housethereon. "oreover, when he -igrated to @awaii,Bonifa&io appointed nu-erous &areta9ers to the

said house and lot, the last 0eing Sps. *uriea. hus, despite his -igration to @awaii, Bonifa&ionever relinuished said possession over the houseand lot. Consistent with (rti&le $'$! of the CivilCode, it is well)settled that GTiUt is not ne&essar#that the owner of a par&el of land should hi-selfo&&up# the propert# as so-eone in his na-e -a#perfor- the a&t. In other words, the owner of realestate has possession, either when he hi-self isph#si&all# in o&&upation of the propert#, or whenanother person who re&ognies his rights as owneris in su&h o&&upan&#.G$1 hus, the Sps. *urieassta# on the su0?e&t lot was onl# -ade possi0lethrough the -ere toleran&e of Bonifa&io.

Se&ond, when Bonifa&io learned that Sps. *urieade&lared the su0?e&t lot under their na-e for ta7purposes, &aused a su0division surve# of 2ot 1$$=,and ;led an appli&ation for surve# authorit# andtitling with the CENROMDENR Nueva Ji&a#a, hei--ediatel# too9 steps to ter-inate their toleratedsta# on the su0?e&t lot and house and de-andedthat the# leave i--ediatel#, rendering theSps.*urieas sta# on the su0?e&t lot illegal.

hird, instead of va&ating the su0?e&t lot, Sps.*uriea de;ed Bonifa&ios de-and and assertedtheir ownership over the sa-e.1)*phi1 "oreover,the# even &hallenged Danao to go to the &ourts tohave there-oved fro- su&h lot. In eAe&t, Sps.*uriea was a0le to unlawfull# withhold possessionof the su0?e&t lot fro- Bonifa&io.

2astl#, Bonifa&io, through Danao, -ade his ;nalde-and to Sps. *uriea on 8anuar# 1', $!!%, aseviden&ed 0# a Certi;&ate to 5ile (&tion issued 0#the Baranga# Captain of the area where thesu0?e&t lot was lo&ated, stating that theSangguniang Baranga# had tried to settle thedispute 0etween the parties 0ut failed to do

so,$$ and ;led his &o-plaint on 8une $', $!!%, orwithin the one 314 #ear period fro- his lastde-and.$

In view of the foregoing, the Court thus holds thatthe C( erred in dis-issing Bonifa&io s Co-plaintfor Fnlawful Detainer and Da-ages against Sps.*uriea. Perfor&e, a reversal of its ruling is proper.

@ERE5ORE, the petition is *R(NED. heDe&ision dated 5e0ruar# 1%, $!1 and theResolution dated 8une , $!1 of the Court of (peals in C()*.R. SP No. 11=>%> are here0#REJERSED and SE ( IDE. (&&ordingl#, the

De&ision dated O&to0er $=, $!1! of the Regional rial Court of Ba#o-0ong, Nueva Ji&a#a, Bran&h$% in Civil Case No. >+=' is REINS(ED.

G.R. No.1484 !+l 18, 2014

SPOUSES ALE!ANRO MANHANILLA ANREMEIOS <ELASCO, Petitioners,vs.7ATERFIELS INUSTRIES CORPORATION,r&pr&'&#(&$ i(' Pr&'i$&#(, ALIHAMA, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

EL CASTILLO, J.:

(ssailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari isthe Septe-0er 1, $!!> De&ision1 of the Court of(ppeals 3C(4 in C()*.R. SP No. >!!1!. SaidDe&ision granted respondent ater;elds IndustriesCorporations 3ater;elds4 Petition for Review ofthe 8ul# 1', $!!! De&ision$ of the Regional ria8Court 3RC4 of "anila, Bran&h '$ in Civil Case No.!!)+>$$%, whi&h in tu- a:r-ed the "a# =, 1+++De&ision of the "etropolitan rial Court 3"C4 of"anila, Bran&h ' in Civil Case No. 1>!'')CJ

granting petitioners spouses (le?andro "ananillaand Re-edios Jelas&os 3spouses "ananilla4Co-plaint for Fnlawful Detainer againstater;elds. 2i9ewise uestioned is the C( (pril 1$,$!!= Resolution' den#ing the "otion forRe&onsideration thereof.

5a&tual (nte&edents

he spouses "ananilla are the owners of a$,!!!)suare -eter par&el of land in Baranga#San"iguel, Sto. o-as, Batangas, &overed 0# ransferof Certi;&ate of itle No. )$!. On "a# $',1++', the# leased a >,!!!)suare -eter portion of

the a0ove)-entioned propert# to ater;elds, asrepresented 0# its President (lia R. "a 3"a4.Pertinent portions of their Contra&t of2ease provide, vi/

Se&tion $. ER" O5 2E(SE. he 2ease shall 0e for aperiod of ENL 5IJE 3$4 LE(RS fro- "a# 1>,1++' to "a# 1, $!1+, renewa0le upon the optionof the 2ESSEEH

Se&tion . "ON@2L REN(2(ND ESC(2(ION. In&onsideration of the lease herein &onstituted,2ESSEE shall pa# unto the 2ESSORS a -onthl#rental in the gross a-ountof EI*@EEN @OFS(ND

3P1%,!!!.!!4 pa#a0le within the ;rst EN 31!4 da#sof ea&h -onth 7 7 7.

$







http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jul2014/gr_177484_2014.html#fnt1


















Se&tion '. DEPOSI. 2ESSORS here0# a&9nowledgere&eipt fro- 2ESSEE a rental deposit in the a-ountofO @FNDRED SIEEN @OFS(ND3P$1>,!!!.!!4 PESOS, Philippine &urren&#, toanswer for an# unpaid rentals, da-ages, penaltiesand unpaid utilit# &harges.Su&h deposit or an#0alan&e thereof shall 0e refunded to the 2ESSEEi--ediatel# upon the ter-ination or e7piration ofthis &ontra&t.>

he parties e7e&uted on 8une >, 1++' an(-end-ent to the Contra&t of 2ease.= Save for the&o--en&e-ent of the lease whi&h the# re&9onedon the date of the e7e&ution of the a-end-entand the underta9ing of the spouses "ananilla toregister the agree-ents, the parties agreed thereinthat all other ter-s and &onditions in the originalContra&t of 2ease shall re-ainin full for&e andeAe&t.

Beginning (pril 1++=, however, ater;elds failedto pa# the -onthl# rental. @en&e, "a sent thespouses "ananilla a letter% dated 8ul# =, 1++=whi&h reads as follows/

Spouses "r. V "rs. (le?andro "ananilla

Sto. o-as, Batangas

I pro-ise to pa# the following rentals in arrears/

1! (pril += %,!!!.!!

1! "a# += 1%,!!!.!!

1! 8une += 1%,!!!.!!

1! 8ul# += 1%,!!!.!!

&he&9 repla&e-ent %,!!!.!!

P=!,!!!.!!

0# wa# of &he&9 pa#-ent dated 8ul# 1, 1++=.

In addition to the afore-entioned, I will give a&he&9 for the a-ount of P1%,!!!, representingadvan&e rental for the -onth of(ugust 1++=.

5ro- hereon, notwithstanding the ter-s of thelease &ontra&t, I shall pa# rentals 3eve4 on or 0eforethe 1!th da# of ea&h -onth, 3!)da#4 representing

advan&e rental.

he deposit stipulated in our lease &ontra&t shall0e used e7&lusivel# for the pa#-ent of unpaidutilities,if an#, and other in&idental e7penses onl#and applied at the ter-ination of the lease.

he lease &ontra&t dated $'+' shall 0e a-endeda&&ording to the a0ove provision.

3Signed4(2I( "(Presidentater;elds Industries Corporation=++=Queon Cit#+

On 8ul# !, 1++%, the spouses "ananilla ;led0efore the "C a Co-plaint1! for E?e&t-ent againstater;elds. he# alleged in paragraph ' thereofthat the# entered into a Contra&t of 2ease withater;elds on "a# $', 1++', and in paragraph ,that the sa-e was a-ended on 8une >, 1++' and 8ul# +, 1++=.11 @owever, ater;elds had&o--ittedviolations of the lease agree-ent 0# notpa#ing the rentals on ti-e. (nd in #et anotherviolation, it failed to pa# the P1%,!!!.!! -onthl#rental for the past si7 -onths prior to the ;ling ofthe Co-plaint, that is, fro- De&e-0er 1++= to "a#1++% or in the total a-ount of P1!%,!!!.!!.De-ands upon ater;elds to pa# the a&&ruedrentals and va&ate the propert# were unheededsothe spouses "ananilla&onsidered the &ontra&tter-inated andor res&inded.1$ (nd sin&eater;elds still failed to &o-pl# with their ;nalde-and to pa# and va&ate,1 the spouses ;led theCo-plaint and pra#ed therein that the for-er 0eordered to 314 va&ate the su0?e&t propert# and, 3$4pa# the a&&rued rentals of P1!%,!!!.!! as of "a#1++%, the su&&eeding rentals of P1%,!!!.!! a-onth until the propert# is va&ated, the interestdue thereon, attorne#s fees, and &ost of suit.

In its (nswer,1' ater;elds ad-itted paragraphs 'and of the Co-plaint and alleged that/ 314 whenthe lease agree-ent was e7e&uted, the propert#su0?e&t thereof was ?ust 0are landH 3$4 it spentsu0stantial a-ounts of -one# in developing theland, i.e., 0uilding of water di9es, putting up of adrainage s#ste-, land ;lling and levellingH 34 it0uilt thereon a pro&essing plant for fruit ?ui&es,preserved vegeta0les and other froen goods forwhi&h it spent around P=,!!!,!!!.!!H and 3'4 it&aused the installation in the said pre-ises of anele&tri&al s#ste- for P%!,!!!.!! and water s#ste-for P1!,!!!.!!. ater;elds further alleged that

although the ;rst two #ears of its operation werefruitful, it later suAered fro- 0usiness reverses dueto the e&ono-i& &risis that hit (sia. Be that as it-a#, ater;elds &lai-ed that it did not fail orrefuse to pa# the -onthl# rentals 0ut was ?ustutiliing the rental deposit in the a-ountof P$1>,!!!.!! 3euivalent to one #ear rentals4 asrental pa#-ent in a&&ordan&e with Se&tion ' of theoriginal Contra&t of 2ease. @en&e,it argued that thespouses "ananilla have no &ause of a&tion againstit. ater;elds also asserted that the pre&ipitate;ling of the Co-plaint against it is tainted with 0adfaith and intended to &ause it grave in?usti&e&onsidering that it alread# spent an enor-ousa-ount of al-ostP1!,!!!,!!!.!! in developing the

propert#. B# wa# of &o-pulsor# &ounter&lai-s,ater;elds sought that the spouses "ananilla 0eordered to pa# it -oral da-ages and attorne#sfees.

Ruling of the "etropolitan rial Court

In its De&ision1 of "a# =, 1+++, the "C found"as letter of 8ul# +, 1++= to have a-ended theContra&t of 2ease. In parti&ular, Se&tion ' of theContra&t of 2ease whi&h provides that the rentaldeposit shall answer for an# unpaid rentals,da-ages, penalties and unpaid utilit# &harges wassuperseded 0# the portion in "as 8ul# +, 1++=

letter whi&h states that Gthe deposit stipulated inour lease &ontra&t shall 0e used e7&lusivel# for thepa#-ent of unpaid utilities, if an#, and other





























in&idental e7penses onl# and applied at theter-ination of the leaseG.@en&e, the "C found no-erit in ater;elds &lai- that it did not fail orrefuse to pa# the -onthl# rentals as it wasappl#ing the rental deposit to its pa#-ent of thesa-e. Conseuentl#, the "C de&lared thatater;elds violated the lease agree-ent due tonon)pa#-ent of rentals and disposed of the &aseas follows/

@ERE5ORE, pre-ises &onsidered, ?udg-ent ishere0# rendered in favor of Tthe spouses"ananillaU and against Tater;eldsU, ordering thelatter to M

1. va&ate su0?e&t pre-ises and surrendersa-e pea&efull# to Tthe spouses"ananillaH

$. to pa# Tthe spouses "ananillaU the su-of P1!%,!!!.!! representing rental arrearsfro- De&e-0er, 1++= to "a#, 1++%, andthe su- of P1%,!!!.!! a -onth thereafter,until it has a&tuall# va&ated and

surrendered su0?e&t pre-isesH

oward this end, whatever rentaldepositTater;eldsU -a# have, shall 0e ta9en intoa&&ount to answer for the lattersarrearages.

. to pa# the &osts of suit.

SO ORDERED.G1>

Ruling of the Regional rial Court

Before the RC, ater;elds uestioned the "Csruling that "as letter of 8ul# +, 1++= eAe&tivel#a-ended the Contra&t of 2ease. It argued that thesaid letter is unenfor&ea0le under the Statute of5rauds sin&e the sa-e was -erel# in thehandwriting of "a, unsu0s&ri0ed 0# 0oth parties,and una&9nowledged 0efore a notar# pu0li&.@en&e, the rental deposit should have0een appliedas pa#-ent for -onthl# rentals pursuant to theoriginal Contra&t of 2ease.

he RC, however, was uni-pressed. It noted in itsDe&ision1= dated 8ul# 1', $!!! that in its (nswer,ater;elds ad-itted paragraph of the Co-plaint

whi&h states that the Contra&t of 2ease wasa-ended on 8une >, 1++' and 8ul# +, 1++=. 5urther,the ver# e7isten&e of "as 8ul# +, 1++= letternegated the appli&a0ilit# of the Statute of 5rauds. he RC thus disposed of the &ase as follows/

@ERE5ORE, ;nding no reversi0le error, the ?udg-ent of the trial &ourt is a:r-ed in toto.

SO ORDERED.1%

Ruling of the Court of (ppeals

he C(, however, had a diAerent ta9e. In itsDe&ision1+ dated Septe-0er 1, $!!>, it gaveweight tothe spouses "ananillasallegation that

the# ter-inated the Contra&t of 2ease. Fpon su&hter-ination, it held that the rental deposit shouldhave 0een applied as pa#-ent for unpaid utilitiesand other in&idental e7penses, if an#, in view of thefollowing portion of the 8ul# +, 1++= letter/

he deposit stipulated in our lease &ontra&t shall0e used e7&lusivel# for the pa#-ent of unpaidutilities, if an#, and other in&idental e7penses onl#and applied at the ter-ination of the lease.$!

(nd sin&e the spouses "ananilla did not allegethat there were unpaid utilities or in&identale7penses for the a&&ount of ater;elds as of theter-ination of the &ontra&t, the whole a-ountof P$1>,!!!.!! should have 0een returned 0# thefor-er to the latter when the &ontra&t waster-inated. Not having done so, the spouses"ananilla therefore,0e&a-e de0tors of ater;eldsinsofar as the said a-ount is &on&erned. (nd sin&eater;elds is also a de0tor of the spouses"ananilla with respe&t to the unpaid rentals,&o-pensation should ta9e pla&e. It ratio&inated/

Co-pensation shall ta9e pla&e when two persons,in their own right, are &reditors and de0tors of ea&hother 3(rt. 1$=%, Civil Code4. (sof the ;ling of thea&tion, Tater;eldsU was inde0ted to Tthe spouses"ananillaU in the a-ount of P1'',!!!.!! asunpaid rentals &overing the period De&e-0er 1++=to 8ul# 1++%, while Tthe Spouses"ananillaU owedTater;eldsU the su- of P$1>,!!!.!! representingits rental deposit. OAsetting theP1'',!!!.!!unpaid rentals against the P$1>,!!!.!! rentaldeposit, Tater;eldsU e-erges as the &reditor tothe tune of P=$,!!!.!!. In other words, as of the;ling of the a&tion, respondents were evenoverpaid in the su- ofP=$,!!!.!!.$1

he C( thereafter &on&luded that the spouses"ananilla haveno &ause of a&tion againstater;elds, vi/

Conseuentl#, Tthe spouses "ananillaU had no&ause of a&tion against Tater;eldsU for allegedviolation of the Contra&t, parti&ularl# non)pa#-entof rentals.$$

@en&e, the falloof the C(s Septe-0er 1, $!!>De&ision/

@ERE5ORE, the petition is *R(NED. he

de&ision dated "a# =, 1+++ of the "etropolitan rial Court of "anila 3Bran&h '4, as a:r-ed 0# theRegional rial Court of "anila 3Bran&h '$4, isREJERSED and SE (SIDE and ?udg-ent isrendered DIS"ISSIN* Tthe spouses "ananillasUa&tion for unlawful detainer against Tater;eldsU.Costs against Tthe spouses "ananillaU.

SO ORDERED.$

he spouses "ananilla ;led a "otion forRe&onsideration,$' whi&h was denied 0# the C( in aResolution$ dated (pril 1$, $!!=.

@en&e, this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

'























Issues

@E @ONOR(B2E COFR O5 (PPE(2S DECIDED (QFESION O5 SFBS(NCE NO IN (CCORDI@2(S (ND @E (PP2IC(B2E DECISIONS O5 @IS @ONOR(B2E COFR @EN I @E2D @( @EPROJISIONS O5 (RIC2E 1$=% O5 @E NE CIJI2CODE (S TSICU (PP2IC(B2E (ND @(CO"PENS(ION @(D (EN P2(CE.

@E @ONOR(B2E COFR O5 (PPE(2S DECIDED (QFESION O5 SFBS(NCE NO IN (CCORDI@2(S (ND @E (PP2IC(B2E DECISIONS O5 @IS @ONOR(B2E COFR @EN I DIS"ISSED@EREIN PEIIONERTSU (CION 5OR FN2(5F2DE(INER.$> he Parties (rgu-ents

he spouses "ananilla &ontend that there &an 0eno issue as to the due e7e&ution, eAe&tivit# andenfor&ea0ilit# of "as 8ul# +, 1++= letter sin&e asidefro- the fa&t that ater;eldsitself ad-itted in its(nswer that the Contra&t of 2ease was a-ended on 8ul#+, 1++=, the "C and the RC had unifor-l#ruled that the said letter operates as an

a-end-ent to the original &ontra&t. (nd as therental deposit &annot 0e applied as pa#-ent forthe -onthl# rentals pursuant to the a-end-ent,ater;elds is &onsidered in default in its pa#-entthereof. Conversel#, ater;elds has &o--itted aviolation of the Contra&t of 2ease whi&h gave riseto a &ause of a&tion for e?e&t-ent against it.

he spouses "ananilla li9ewise uestion theC(sappli&ation of the prin&iple of &o-pensation. othe-, &o-pensation &annot ta9e pla&e in this &ase0e&ause 314 the parties are not prin&ipal &reditorsof ea&h otherH 3$4 the P$1>,!!!.!! rental deposit&annot 0e &onsidered as de0tH and 34 the said

a-ount has not #et 0een liuidated.

ater;elds, for its part, &ontinues to stress that"as letter of 8ul# +, 1++= was -erel# in the lattershandwriting,unsigned 0# 0oth parties, andunsu0s&ri0ed 0efore a notar# pu0li&. Being so, it&ould not have the eAe&t of a-ending Se&tion ' ofthe original &ontra&t. his therefore negates thespouses "ananillas &lai- that ater;elds was indefault in its pa#-ent of the -onthl# rentals sin&ethe rental deposit &ould ver# well 0e utiliedfor thesa-e per the said Se&tion '. Besides, sustainingthe rulings of the "C and RC will result in un?ustenri&h-ent &onsidering that ater;elds will 0e&onstrained to hand over to the spouses "ananillathe su0?e&t propert# for whi&h it had spental-ost P1!,!!!,!!!.!! in i-prove-ents.ater;elds sur-ises that the C( -ust have seenthis ineuita0le situation su&h that itreversed therulings of the trial &ourts. 5urther, it &on&urs withthe C( when itapplied the prin&iple of&o-pensation.

Our Ruling

here is -erit in the Petition.

he C( has &onfused itself in resolving the 0asi&

issue involved in this &ase.

It is uite unfortunate that the C(has apparentl#&onfused itself in resolving the 0asi& issue involvedin this &ase.

(s -a# 0e re&alled, the spouses "ananilla, ona&&ount of ater;elds alleged violation of the&ontra&t of lease 0# non)pa#-ent of rentals,&onsidered the &ontra&t ter-inated and de-andedfor the latter to pa# its o0ligation and va&ate thepropert#. (s de-and proved futile, the said

spouses ;led the Co-plaint for e?e&t-ent TunlawfuldetainerU.

In 5ideldia v. Sps. "ulato,$= the Court held that/

5or the purpose of 0ringing an unlawful detainersuit, two reuisites -ust &on&ur/ 314 there -ust 0efailure to pa# rent or &o-pl# with the &onditions ofthe lease, and 3$4 there -ust 0e de-and 0oth topa# or to &o-pl# and va&ate. he ;rst reuisiterefers tothe e7isten&e of the &ause of a&tion forunlawful detainer, while the se&ond refers to the ?urisdi&tional reuire-ent of de-and in order thatsaid &ause of a&tion -a# 0e pursued. I-plied in the

;rst reuisite, whi&h is needed to esta0lish the&ause ofa&tion of the plaintiA in an unlawfuldetainer suit, is the presentation of the &ontra&t oflease entered into 0# the plaintiA and thedefendant, the sa-e 0eing needed to esta0lish thelease &onditions alleged to have 0een violated. hus, in Ba&hra&h Corporation v. Court of (ppeals,the Court held that the eviden&e needed toesta0lish the &ause of a&tion in an unlawfuldetainer &ase is 314 a lease &ontra&t and3$4 theviolation of that lease 0# the defendant.$%

@ere, there is no issue with respe&t to de-and.hat is in uestion is the presen&e of a &ause of

a&tion. (s -entioned a0ove, &ourts, in order toas&ertain whether there is &ause of a&tion forunlawful detainer, -ust inuire into 3a4 thee7isten&e of the lease &ontra&t and, 304 theviolation of that lease 0# the lessee. Sin&e in this&ase the e7isten&e of a lease &ontra&t 0etween theparties is undisputed, the fo&us is on the supposedviolation of the lease, that is, ater;elds allegednon)pa#-ent of rent. he 0asi& uestion that thuspresents itself for deter-ination is/ Did ater;eldsfail to pa# rent[he answer to this is &ru&ial as fro-the sa-e will depend the e7isten&e ofthe &ause ofa&tion.@owever, sin&e ater;elds denies that itfailed to pa# rent and puts up the &lai- that it wasutiliing the rental deposit as rental pa#-ent, a

preli-inar# uestion e-erges, vi/ "a# the rentaldeposit 0e utilied as rental pa#-ent[

(&&ordingl#, the "C in resolving the &ase ;rstdeter-ined if the 8ul# +, 1++= letter operates as ana-end-ent to the original &ontra&t. 5inding in thea:r-ative, it de&lared that the rental deposit&annot 0e utilied as pa#-ent for the rentals inview of the saida-end-ent. (s things thusstood,the rental for the -onths of De&e-0er 1++= to "a#1++%, as statedin the Co-plaint, re-ained unpaid.Clearl#, there was failure on the part of ater;eldsto pa# rent and, &onseuentl#, it &o--itted aviolation of the lease. It is this violation whi&h gave

rise to a &ause of a&tion for unlawful detaineragainst ater;elds as well as to the right of thespouses "ananilla to &onsider the &ontra&t










ter-inated. (nd as the two reuisites of anunlawful detainer suit are o0taining in this &ase,i.e.,&ause of a&tion and de-and, the "Culti-atel#sustained the spouses "ananillasCo-plaint. 5inding this in order, the RC a:r-ed intotothe "Cs De&ision.

Surprisingl#, the C( in resolving the Petition forReview 0efore it, veered fro- the in&isive approa&h0# whi&h the trial &ourts deter-inedif there e7ists a

&ause of a&tion. Itgave &redit to the spouses"ananillas allegation in the Co-plaint that the#ter-inated the &ontra&t of lease, vi/ Prior to theinstitution of the a&tion, Tthe spouses "ananillaUter-inated the Contra&t. hus, par. % ofthe&o-plaint states that \3i4n view of Tater;eldsUaforesaid violations, the lease &ontra&t of theparties was ter-inated andor res&inded per Tthespouses "ananillasU \;nal letter ter-inating 3the4su0?e&t lease &ontra&t.$+

ithout ;rst ;nding for itself whether there is aviolation of the &ontra&t through non)pa#-ent ofrent as to ?ustif# the alleged ter-ination, the C(i-pliedl# &onsidered the &ontra&t validl#ter-inated and 0ased on this pre-ise applied thefollowing portion of "as 8ul# +, 1++= letter/

he deposit stipulated in our lease &ontra&t shall0e used e7&lusivel# for the pa#-ent of unpaidutilities, if an#, and other in&idental e7penses onl#and applied at the ter-inationof the lease.(&&ordingl#, the C( ruled that the spouses"ananilla should have returned the whole a-ountof the rental deposit to ater;elds upon theter-ination of the &ontra&t there 0eing noallegation of unpaid utilities and e7penses in theCo-plaint. Not having done so, it &onsidered thespouses "ananilla as de0tors of ater;elds with

respe&t to the rental deposit, and ater;elds, inturn, as de0tor of the spouses "ananilla anent theunpaid rentals for the -onths of De&e-0er 1++= to 8ul# 1++%.! (ppl#ing the prin&iple of &o-pensation,it then de&lared that the spouses "ananillahaveno &ause of a&tion against ater;elds sin&ethe rental deposit was su:&ient to &over theunpaid rentals for the said -onths.

he Court, however, ;nds the C( disuisitionawed.

5irst, the C( should not have i--ediatel# assu-edas true the spouses "ananillas allegation that the&ontra&t was alread# ter-inated. (side fro- thefa&t that this ter-ination was spe&i;&all# denied 0#ater;elds in its (nswer,1 it is settled that a-ereassu-ption &annot 0e -ade the 0asis of ade&ision in a &ase or in granting relief. ( ?udg-ent-ust alwa#s 0e 0ased on the &ourts fa&tual;ndings.$

Se&ond, it -ust 0e stressed that in this &ase, theviolation of the lease through non)pa#-ent of rentis what&onstitutes the &ause of a&tion. @en&e,on&e the failure to pa# rent is esta0lished, a &auseof a&tion for unlawful detainer arises. he C(should have therefore li-ited itself to the

deter-ination of whether ater;elds failed to pa#rents for the -onths of De&e-0er 1++= to "a#1++% as &o-plained of 0# the spouses "ananilla.

Fpon &o-ing up with ananswer to this, the C(should have stopped there sin&e at that point, it&an alread# &on&lude whether there e7ists a &auseof a&tion for unlawful detainer, whi&h as -entionedis the onl# &ontentious issue involved in this &ase.

he pro0le-, however, is that the C( a&ted on its-ista9en notion as to when a &ause of a&tionarises. It did not 0ase its deter-ination of thee7isten&e of the &ause of a&tion fro- the fa&t

thatater;elds failedto pa# rents fro- De&e-0er1++= to "a# 1++%. oit, the &ause of a&tion in this&ase onl# arose after the &ontra&t was ter-inatedand the rental deposit was found su:&ient to &overthe unpaid rentals. his is erroneous sin&e asalread# dis&ussed, it is the failure to pa# rent whi&hgives rise to the &ause of a&tion. Pres&inding fro-this, the C(s a&9nowledge-ent thatater;eldsfailed to pa# rent, as shown 0# itsde&laration that the latter is the de0tor of thespouses "ananilla with respe&t to the unpaidrentals, is &learl# in&onsistent with the &on&lusionthat no &ause of a&tion for e?e&t-ent e7istsagainstater;elds.

5ailure to pa# the rent -ust pre&ede ter-ination of the &ontra&t due to nonpa#-ent of rent.1)*phi1 Ittherefore follows thatthe &ause of a&tion forunlawful detainer in this &ase -ust ne&essaril#arise 0eforethe ter-ination of the &ontra&t and notthe other wa# around as what the C( supposed.Indeed, in going 0e#ond the ter-ination of the&ontra&t, the C( went a 0it too far in its resolutionof this &ase.

In view of the foregoing, the Court need not0ela0or the parties argu-ents respe&ting theprin&iple of &o-pensation, the sa-e having 0eenan&hored 0# the C( on its -ista9en pre-ise as

dis&ussed a0ove.

Be that as it -a#, this Court, in line with its0ounden)dut#, shall in the following dis&ussion putthings in their proper light.

ater;elds &annot now &ontradi&t its ?udi&ialad-ission that the Contra&t of 2ease was a-endedon 8ul# +, 1++=H the do&trine of estoppel li9ewise0ars it fro- falsif#ing "as 8ul# +,1++= letter in thislitigation.

Se&tion ', Rule 1$+ of the Rules of Court provides/

SEC. '. 8udi&ial ad-issions. M (n ad-ission, ver0alor written, -ade 0# a part# in the &ourse of thepro&eedings in the sa-e &ase, does not reuireproof. he ad-ission -a# 0e &ontradi&ted onl# 0#showing that it was -ade through palpa0le-ista9e or that no su&had-ission was -ade. G(part# -a# -a9e ?udi&ial ad-issions in 3a4 thepleadings, 304 during trial, either 0# ver0al orwritten -anifestations orstipulations, or 3&4 in otherstages of the ?udi&ial pro&eeding.G'

@ere, paragraph of the Co-plaint alleges/

. hat, su0seuentl#, the said Contra&t of 2easewas a-ended on !> 8une 1++' and on !+ 8ul#1++=7 7 7.

>




















hereas, paragraph $ of ater;elds (nswerreads/

$. Paragraphs ', , and > of the Co-plaint aread-itted.>

Clearl#, ater;elds ad-itted in its (nswer thetruth of the -aterial allegation that the Contra&t of2ease was a-ended on 8ul# +, 1++=. GIt iswellsettled that ?udi&ialad-issions &annot 0e

&ontradi&ted 0# the ad-itter who is the part#TitselfU and 0inds the person who -a9es the sa-e,and a0sent an# showing that this was -ade thrupalpa0le -ista9e 3as in this &ase4, no a-ount ofrationaliation &an oAset it.G=

"oreover, GTuUnder the do&trine of estoppel, anad-ission or representation is rendered &on&lusiveupon the person -a9ing it, and &annot0e denied ordisproved as against the person rel#ing thereon. (part# -a# not go 0a&9 on his own a&ts andrepresentationsto the pre?udi&e of the other part#who relied upon the-. In the law of eviden&e,whenever a part# has, 0# his own de&laration, a&t,

or o-ission, intentionall# and deli0eratel# ledanother to 0elieve a parti&ular thing Tto 0eU true,and to a&t upon su&h 0elief, he &annot, in an#litigation arising out of su&h de&laration, a&t, oro-ission,0e per-itted to falsif# it.G%

In view of these, an# eAort on the part ofater;elds to i-pugn the 8ul# +, 1++= letter isfutile.

Even without the a0ove)-entioned ad-ission ofater;elds, the &onte-poraneous and su0seuenta&ts of the parties reveal their intention to a-endthe original Contra&t of 2ease.

(rti&le 1=1 of the Civil Code provides that Gto ?udge the intention of the &ontra&ting parties, their&onte-poraneous and su0seuenta&ts shall 0eprin&ipall# &onsidered.G GTIUn doing so, the &ourts-a# &onsider the relations e7isting 0etween theparties and the purpose of the &ontra&t.G+

(s aptl# opined 0# the "C, the intention ofater;elds in &o-ing up with the 8ul# +, 1++=letter isto repress its violation of the &ontra&t sin&eat that ti-e it was alread# in default in thepa#-ent of rent sin&e (pril 1++=. @en&e, asidefro- pro-ising to pa# its rental arrears fro- (pril

1++=to 8ul# 1++=, ater;elds, in order to assuagethe spouses "ananilla, li9ewise pledged to pa#rent in advan&e starting (ugust 1++=. "oresigni;&antl#, it undertoo9 to a-end the original&ontra&t 0# stating that the rental deposit shall 0eused e7&lusivel# for pa#-ent of unpaid utilities andin&idental e7penses. Clearl#, ater;elds intendedto give the spouses "ananilla e7tra advantage 0#virtue of the said lettera-end-ent. his is&onsidering that during those ti-es, the saidspouses -a# at an# ti-e opt to enfor&e their rightto e?e&t ater;elds fro- the pre-ises sin&eater;elds was then ad-ittedl# in default.O0viousl#, ater;elds got what it wanted as it wasnot e?e&ted fro- the pre-ises and instead, itspa#-ent in arrears was a&&epted 0# the spouses"ananilla. On the other hand, the spouses

"ananilla, 0# so doing, agreed to the a-end-entas &ontained in the 8ul# +, 1++= letter and wassupposed to en?o# the advantage of re&eivingadvan&ed rental pa#-ent and of appl#ing therental deposit onl# against the unpaid utilities andin&idental e7penses. Plainl#, 0oth parties e7pe&tedto 0ene;t fro- the 8ul# +, 1++= letter su&h thattheir intention to give eAe&t to the sa-e, in&ludingthe part that a-ends the original &ontra&t whi&h isthe one in issue in this &ase, is evident.

ater;elds &lai- of un?ust enri&h-ent is unworth#of &reden&e.

ater;elds avers that sustaining the trial &ourtsruling would a-ount to un?ust enri&h-ent sin&e itwould 0e &onstrained to hand over to the spouses"ananilla, even 0efore the e7piration of the lease,the su0?e&t pre-ises for whi&h it had alread# spentsu0stantial a-ounts in ter-s of i-prove-ents.

Ghe prin&iple of un?ust enri&h-ent reuires two&onditions/ 314 that a person is 0ene;ted without avalid 0asis or ?usti;&ation,and 3$4 that su&h 0ene;t

is derived at the e7pense of another.G'!

It does not,however, appl# in this &ase sin&e an# 0ene;t thatthe spouses "ananilla -a# o0tain fro- thesu0?e&t pre-ises &annot 0e said to 0e without an#valid 0asis or ?usti;&ation. It is well to re-indater;elds that the# violated the &ontra&t of leaseand that the# failed to va&ate the pre-ises uponde-and. @en&e, the spouses "ananilla are ?usti;ed in re&overing the ph#si&al possessionthereof and &onseuentl#, in -a9ing use of thepropert#. Besides, in violating the lease 0# failing topa# the rent, ater;elds too9 the ris9 of losing thei-prove-ents it introdu&ed thereon in favor of thespouses "ananilla. his is 0e&ause despite thefa&t that the lease &ontra&t provides that in &ase of

ter-ination of the lease agree-ent all per-anenti-prove-ents and stru&tures found in the su0?e&tpre-ises shall 0elong to the lessors,'1 it stillviolated the lease.

(ll told, the Court sustains the RC in a:r-ing the"Cs grant of the spouses "ananillas Co-plaintfor e?e&t-ent against ater;elds.

@ERE5ORE, the Petition is *R(NED. heDe&ision dated Septe-0er 1, $!!> and Resolutiondated (pril 1$, $!!= of the Court of (ppeals in C()*.R. SP No. >!!1! are REJERSED and SE (SIDE. he De&ision dated 8ul# 1', $!!! of the Regional rial Court of "anila, Bran&h '$ in Civil Case No.!!)+>$$%, whi&h a:nned the De&ision dated "a#=, 1+++ of the "etropolitan rial Court of "anila,Bran&h ' in Civil Case No. 1>!'')CJ granting theCo-plaint, is REINS(ED and (55IR"ED.

G.R. No. 20234 S&p(&&r 24, 2014

AMAA C. HACARIAS, Petitioner,vs.<ICTORIA ANACA>, ENA ANACA>,C>NT-IAANACA>GUISIC, ANGELITO ANACA>, !ERMIL ISRAEL, !IMM> RO> ISRAEL "#$ "ll

o(%&r p&r'o#' )l"ii# "+(%ori( +#$&r(%&, Respondents.

=
















D E C I S I O N

<ILLARAMA, !R., J.:

(ssailed in this petition for review under Rule ' isthe De&ision1 dated 8une $!, $!1$ of the Court of(ppeals 3C(4 in C()*.R. SP No. 1$1+ whi&hreversed the De&ision$ dated (ugust $$, $!11 ofthe Regional rial Court 3RC4 of Cavite, Bran&h 1%, aga#ta# Cit# and a:r-ed the De&ision datedO&to0er %, $!1! of the "uni&ipal Cir&uit rial Court3"CC4 of (-adeo)Silang, Cavite, Bran&h 1= inCivil Case No. %>$.

he present &ontrovers# ste--ed fro- a&o-plaint' for E?e&t-ent with Da-agesFnlawfulDetainer ;led on De&e-0er $', $!!% 0# petitioner(-ada a&arias thru her son and attorne#)in)fa&t,Cesar C. a&arias, against the a0ove)na-edrespondents, Ji&toria (na&a# and -e-0ers of herhousehold. Said respondents are the o&&upants ofa par&el of land with an area of seven hundredsi7t#)nine 3=>+4 suare -eters, situated at

Baranga# 2alaan 1st, Silang, Cavite and &overed 0# a7 De&laration No. 1%)!$>)!11%$ in the na-e ofpetitioner and issued0# "uni&ipal (ssessorRe#naldo 2. Ba#ot on (ugust 1, $!!=.

he parties were ordered to pro&eed to thePhilippine "ediation Center pursuant to Se&tion$3a4, Rule 1% of the 1++= Rules of Civil Pro&edure,as a-ended. "ediation was unsu&&essful and thusthe &ase was returned to the &ourt.

(fter due pro&eedings, the "CC rendered aDe&ision dis-issing the &o-plaint, the dispositive

portion of whi&h reads/

@ERE5ORE, pre-ises &onsidered, ?udg-ent is,here0#, rendered in favor of defendants Ji&toria(na&a#, Edna (na&a#, Santiago (-erna, Ra#-ondand C#nthia *uisi&, (ngelito (na&a# and "#rlinda Lalo, and all persons a&ting under the-, andagainst plaintiA (-ada C. a&arias, represented 0#her attorne#)in)fa&t, Cesar C. a&arias, the instantCo-plaint for e?e&t-ent with da-ages, FnlawfulDetainer is, here0#, DIS"ISSED.

SO ORDERED.>

he "CC held that the allegations of the&o-plaint failed to state the essential ele-ents ofan a&tion for unlawful detainer as the &lai- thatpetitioner had per-itted or tolerated respondentso&&upation of the su0?e&t propert# wasunsu0stantiated. It noted that the aver-ents in thede-and letter sent 0# petitioners &ounsel thatrespondents entered the propert# through stealthand strateg#, and in petitioners own GSinu-paangSala#sa#G, are -ore &onsistent withan a&tion forfor&i0le entr# whi&h should have 0een ;led withinone #ear fro- the dis&over# of the alleged entr#.Sin&e petitioner was deprived of the ph#si&alpossession of her propert# through illegal -eansand the &o-plaint was ;led after the lapse of one

#ear fro- her dis&over# thereof, the "CC ruledthat it has no ?urisdi&tion over the &ase.

On appeal to the RC, petitioner argued thatunlawful detainer was the proper re-ed#&onsidering that she -erel# tolerated respondentssta# in the pre-ises after de-and to va&ate was-ade upon the-, and the# had in fa&t entered intoan agree-ent and she was onl# for&ed to ta9elegal a&tion when respondents reneged on their

pro-ise to va&ate the propert# after the lapse ofthe period agreed upon.

In reversing the "CC, the RC pointed out that inher &o-plaint, petitioner did not state thatrespondents entered her propert# through stealthand strateg# 0ut that petitioner was in lawfulpossession and a&&eded to the reuest ofrespondents to sta# in the pre-ises until "a# $!!%0ut respondents reneged on their pro-ise tova&ate the propert# 0# that ti-e. It held that thesuit is one for unlawful detainer 0e&ause therespondents unlawfull# withheld the propert# fro-

petitioner after she allowed the- to sta# there forone #ear.

ith the su0seuent oral agree-ent 0etween theparties, the RC ruled that respondents o&&upationofthe propert# without petitioners &onsent &an 0e&onverted to a &ontra&t, su&h agree-ent not 0eingprohi0ited 0# law nor &ontrar# to -orals or good&usto-s. @aving satis;ed the reuisites for anunlawful detainer a&tion, the RC found thatpetitioners &o-plaint was ;led within thepres&ri0ed one)#ear period &ounted fro- the ti-ethe ;nal de-and to va&ate was re&eived 0# therespondents on 8ul# $', $!!%.

he falloof the De&ision of the RC states/

@ERE5ORE, pre-ises &onsidered, the De&ision ofthe "uni&ipal Cir&uit rial Court of Silang)(-adeodated O&to0er %, $!1! is here0# REJERSED (NDSE (SIDE and a new one is entered ordering thedefendants and all &lai-ing under their rights to/314 va&ate the su0?e&t propert# and surrenderpossession and &ontrol over the sa-e to theplaintiAH Pa# the su- of wo housand 3P$,!!!.!!4Pesos ea&h as rentals or &o-pensation for the usethereof starting fro- 8ul# $!!% until the sa-e ispaid in full, with interests thereon at twelve 31$64per&ent per annu-H 3$4 pa# the su- of 5ift# housand 3P!,!!!.!!4 Pesos, as -oral da-agesH34 pa# the su- of en housand 3P1!,!!!.!!4Pesos, as e7e-plar# da-agesH and 3'4 pa# the su-of went# housand 3P$!,!!!.!!4 Pesos, asattorne#s fees.

SO ORDERED.=

ith the failure of respondents to ;le a noti&e ofappeal within the regle-entar# period, the a0ovede&ision 0e&a-e ;nal and e7e&utor#.%

%




















On Nove-0er $%, $!11, petitioner ;led a -otionfor issuan&e of a writ of e7e&ution. (t the hearingheldon 8anuar# ', $!1$,respondents were given aperiod of ten da#s within whi&h to ;le their&o--ent. (t the ne7t s&heduled hearing on5e0ruar# >, $!1$,respondents &ounsel appearedand su0-itted a 5or-al Entr# of (ppearan&ewith"anifestation infor-ing the &ourt that on the sa-eda# the# had ;led a petition for &ertiorari withpra#er for in?un&tion 0efore the C(, &opies ofwhi&h

were served to petitioner thru her &ounsel and tothe RC. Nonetheless, in its Order dated 5e0ruar#>, $!1$, the RC stated that said -anifestation wasGtanta-ount to TaU &o--ent to the pending-otionG and thus gave petitioners &ounsel aperiod of ten 31!4 da#s within whi&h to ;leher Repl#and thereafter the in&ident will 0e su0-itted forresolution.+

On 8une $!, $!1$, the C( rendered its De&ision, thedispositive portion of whi&h reads/

@ERE5ORE, the petition is *R(NED. (&&ordingl#,

the assailed Order dated (ugust $$, $!11 rendered0# the Regional rial Court of Cavite, 'th 8udi&ialRegion, Bran&h 1%, aga#ta# Cit# is REJERSED andSE (SIDE. he De&ision dated O&to0er %, $!1!rendered 0# the "uni&ipal Cir&uit rial Court,Bran&h 1= is (55IR"ED.

SO ORDERED.1!

he C( held that the "CC &learl#had no ?urisdi&tion over the &ase as the &o-plaint did notsatisf# the ?urisdi&tional reuire-ent of a valid&ause for unlawful detainer. Sin&e the pres&riptive

period for ;ling an a&tion for for&i0le entr# haslapsed, petitioner &ould not &onvert her a&tion intoone for unlawful detainer, re&9oning the one)#earperiod to ;le her a&tion fro- the ti-e of herde-and for respondents to va&ate the propert#.

5urther, the C( said that while petitioner hasshown that she is the lawful possessor of thesu0?e&t propert#,she availed of the wrong re-ed#to re&over possession 0ut nevertheless -a# still;le an a&&ion pu0li&ianaor a&&ion reivindi&atoriawith the proper regional trial &ourt.

Petitioner &ontends that the C( erred and&o--itted grave a0use of dis&retion a-ounting tola&9 andor e7&ess of ?urisdi&tion in nullif#ing the ?udg-ent of the RC whi&h has long 0e&o-e ;naland e7e&utor#. She argues that the suspension ofthe stri&tadheren&e to pro&edural rules &annot 0e ?usti;ed 0# unsupported allegationsof therespondents as to supposed non)re&eipt ofdo&u-ents &on&erning this &ase.

On their part, respondents -aintain that the# werenot aware of the pro&eedings 0efore the RC andwere not furnished a &op# of the said &ourtsadverse de&ision. he# also stress that resort to

&ertiorari was proper and the suspension ofpro&edural rules was ?usti;ed 0# &o-pelling&ir&u-stan&es su&h as the i--inentdestru&tion of

the onl# propert# possessed 0# respondents whoare indigent, respondents la&9 of awareness ofunfavora0le ?udg-ent rendered on appeal 0# theRC, su0stantive -erits of the &ase insofar as the ?urisdi&tional reuire-ents in a suit for unlawfuldetainer, la&9 of showing that resortto &ertioraripetition was frivolous and dilator#, and there 0eingno pre?udi&e &aused to the other part#.

(fter a thorough review of the re&ords and the

parties su0-issions, we ;nd neither reversi0leerror nor grave a0use of dis&retion &o--itted 0#the C(.

he invaria0le rule is that what deter-ines thenature of the a&tion, as well as the &ourt whi&h has ?urisdi&tion over the &ase, are the allegations in the&o-plaint.11 In e?e&t-ent &ases, the &o-plaintshould e-0od# su&h state-ent of fa&ts as to 0ringthe part# &learl# within the &lass of &ases for whi&hSe&tion 11$ of Rule =! provides a su--ar# re-ed#,and -ust show enough on its fa&e to give the &ourt ?urisdi&tion without resort to parol eviden&e.1 Su&h

re-ed# is either for&i0leentr# or unlawful detainer.In for&i0le entr#, the plaintiA is deprived of ph#si&alpossession of his land or 0uilding 0# -eans offor&e, inti-idation, threat, strateg# or stealth. Inillegal detainer, the defendant unlawfull# withholdspossession after the e7piration or ter-ination of hisright thereto under an# &ontra&t, e7press ori-plied.1'

he "CC and C( 0oth ruled thatthe allegations inpetitioners &o-plaint -a9e out a &ase for for&i0leentr# 0ut not for unlawful detainer.

In Ca0rera v. *etaruela,1

the Court held that a&o-plaint su:&ientl# alleges a &ause of a&tion forunlawful detainer if it re&ites the following/

314 initiall#, possession of propert# 0# thedefendant was 0# &ontra&t with or 0# toleran&eofthe plaintiAH

3$4 eventuall#, su&h possession 0e&a-e illegalupon noti&e 0# plaintiA to defendant of theter-ination ofthe latters right of possessionH

34 thereafter, the defendant re-ained in

possession of the propert# and deprived theplaintiA of the en?o#-ent thereofH and

3'4 within one #ear fro- the last de-and ondefendant to va&ate the propert#, the plaintiAinstituted the &o-plaint for e?e&t-ent.1>

In this &ase, the Co-plaint alleged the following/

. PlaintiA is the owner of that par&el of landsituated at Baranga# 2alaan 1st, Silang, Cavite withan area of SEJEN @FNDRED SIL NINE 3=>+4SQF(RE "EERS, and &overed 0# a7 De&laration

No. 1%)!$>)!11%$ issued 0# the "uni&ipal (ssessorof Silang, Cavite. Cop# of said ta7 de&laration ishereto atta&hed as (nne7 GBGH

+

























'. PlaintiA was in lawful possession and &ontrolover the su0?e&t propert#. She had it planted toBananas and other fruit 0earing trees. @owever,so-eti-e in "a#, $!!=, she dis&overed that thedefendants have entered the su0?e&t propert# ando&&upied the sa-eH

. Conseuentl#, PlaintiA de-anded that the#leave the pre-ises. he defendants reuested forti-e toleave and she a&&eded to said reuest. he

defendants &o--itted to va&ate the su0?e&tpropert# 0# the end of "a#, $!!%H

>. Inspite of several repeatedde-ands, defendantsun?usti;a0l# refused to va&ate the su0?e&t pre-isespro-pting the PlaintiA to see9 the assistan&e of alaw#er who wrote the- a 5OR"(2 and 5IN(2DE"(ND to va&ate the pre-ises and to pa#reasona0le &o-pensation for their illegal use ando&&upan&# of the su0?e&t propert#. ( &op# of theDE"(ND 2EER is hereto atta&hed as (nne7 GCGH

=. PlaintiA also referred this -atter to the 2upon

agapa-a#apa of Baranga# 2alaan 1st for possi0le&on&iliation 0ut to no avail as the defendants stillrefused to va&ate the su0?e&t propert#. hus, thesaid Baranga# issued a CERI5IC(ION O5I2E(CION, as eviden&ed 0# a &op# thereto atta&hedas (nne7 GDGH

7 7 7 71=

he a0ove &o-plaint failed to allegea &ause ofa&tion for unlawful detainer as it does not des&ri0epossession 0# the respondents 0eing initiall# legalor tolerated 0# the petitioner and whi&h 0e&a-e

illegal upon ter-ination 0# the petitioner ofsu&hlawful possession. Petitioners insisten&e thatshe a&tuall# tolerated respondents &ontinuedo&&upation after her dis&over# of their entr# intothe su0?e&t pre-ises is in&orre&t. (s she hadaverred, she dis&overed respondentso&&upation in"a# $!!=. Su&h possession &ould not have 0eenlegal fro- the start as it was without her9nowledge or &onsent, -u&h less was it 0ased onan# &ontra&t, e7press or i-plied. e stress that thepossession ofthe defendant in unlawful detainer isoriginall# legal 0ut 0e&a-e illegal due to thee7piration or ter-ination of the right to possess.1%

In Jalde v. Court of (ppeals,1+ the Court ruled thatwhere the &o-plaint did not satisf# the ?urisdi&tional reuire-ent of a valid &ause forunlawful detainer, the -uni&ipal trial &ourt had no ?urisdi&tion over the &ase. hus/

o ?ustif# an a&tion for unlawful detainer, it isessential that the plaintiAs supposed a&ts oftoleran&e -ust have 0een present right fro- thestart of the possession whi&h is later sought to 0ere&overed. Otherwise, if the possession wasunlawful fro- the start, an a&tion for unlawfuldetainer would 0e an i-proper re-ed#. (s

e7plained in Sarona v. Jillegas/

But even where possession pre&eding the suit is 0#toleran&e of the owner, still, distin&tion should 0e-ade.

If right at the in&ipien&#defendants possession waswith plaintiAs toleran&e, we do not dou0t that thelatter -a# reuire hi- to va&ate the pre-ises andsue 0efore the inferior &ourt under Se&tion 1 ofRule =!, within one #ear fro- the date of thede-and to va&ate.

7 7 7 7

( &lose assess-ent of the law and the &on&ept ofthe word Gtoleran&eG &on;r-s our view heretoforee7pressed that su&h toleran&e -ust 0e presentright fro- the start of possession sought to 0ere&overed, to &ategorie a &ause of a&tion as one of unlawful detainer ) not of for&i0le entr#. Indeed, tohold otherwise would espouse a dangerousdo&trine. (nd for two reasons/5irst. 5or&i0le entr#into the land is an open &hallenge tothe right of thepossessor. Jiolation of that right authories the

speed# redress M in the inferior &ourt ) provided forin the rules. If one #ear fro- the for&i0le entr# isallowed to lapse 0efore suit is ;led, then there-ed# &eases to 0espeed#H and the possessor isdee-ed to have waived his right to see9 relief inthe inferior &ourt. Se&ond,if a for&i0le entr# a&tionin the inferior &ourtis allowed after the lapse of anu-0er of #ears, then the result -a# well 0e thatno a&tion of for&i0le entr# &an reall# pres&ri0e. No-atter how long su&h defendant is in ph#si&alpossession, plaintiA will -erel# -a9e a de-and,0ring suit in the inferior &ourt M upon a plea oftoleran&e to prevent pres&ription to set in ) andsu--aril# throw hi- out of the land. Su&h a&on&lusion is unreasona0le. Espe&iall# if we 0ear in-ind the postulates that pro&eedings of for&i0leentr# and unlawful detainer are su--ar# innature, and that the one #ear ti-e)0ar to suit is 0utin pursuan&e of the su--ar# nature of the a&tion.3Itali&s and unders&oring supplied4

It is the nature of defendants entr# into the landwhi&h deter-ines the &ause of a&tion, whether it isfor&i0le entr# or unlawful detainer. If the entr# isillegal, then the a&tion whi&h -a# 0e ;led againstthe intruder is for&i0le entr#. If, however, the entr#is legal 0ut the possession thereafter 0e&o-es

illegal, the &ase is unlawful detainer.

Indeed, to vest the &ourt ?urisdi&tion to eAe&t thee?e&t-ent of an o&&upant, it is ne&essar# that the&o-plaint should e-0od# su&h a state-ent offa&ts as 0rings the part# &learl# within the &lass of&ases for whi&h the statutes provide a re-ed#, asthese pro&eedings are su--ar# in nature. he&o-plaint -ust show enough on its fa&e the &ourt ?urisdi&tion without resort to parol testi-on#.

he ?urisdi&tional fa&ts -ust appear on the fa&e ofthe &o-plaint. hen the &o-plaint fails to aver

fa&ts &onstitutive of for&i0le entr# or unlawfuldetainer, as where it does not state how entr# wasaAe&ted or how and when dispossession started,

>!










the re-ed# should either 0e an a&&ion pu0li&ianaoran a&&ion reivindi&atoria in the proper regional trial&ourt. hus, in *o, 8r. v. Court of (ppeals,petitioners ;led an unlawful detainer &ase againstrespondent alleging that the# were the owners ofthe par&el of land through intestate su&&essionwhi&h was o&&upied 0# respondent 0# -eretoleran&e of petitioners as well as their de&eased-other. Resolving the issue on whether or notpetitioners &ase for unlawful detainer will prosper,

the &ourt ruled/

Petitioners alleged in their &o-plaint that the#inherited the propert# registered under C No. C)$11! fro- their parentsH that possession thereof0# private respondent was 0# toleran&e of their-other, and after her death, 0# their owntoleran&eH and that the# had served writtende-and on De&e-0er, 1++', 0ut that privaterespondent refused to va&ate the propert#. 7 7 7

It is settled that one whose sta# is -erel# tolerated0e&o-es a defor&iant illegall# o&&up#ing the land

the -o-ent he is reuired to leave. It is essentialin unlawful detainer &ases of this 9ind, thatplaintiAs supposed a&ts of toleran&e -ust have0een present right fro- the start of the possessionwhi&h is later sought to 0e re&overed. his is wherepetitioners &ause of a&tion fails. he appellate&ourt, in full agree-ent with the "C -ade the&on&lusion that the alleged toleran&e 0# their-other and after her death, 0# the-, wasunsu0stantiated. 7 7 7

he eviden&e revealed that the possession ofdefendant was illegal at the in&eption and not-erel# tolerated as alleged in the &o-plaint,&onsidering that defendant started to o&&up# thesu0?e&t lot and then 0uilt a house thereon withoutthe per-ission and &onsent of petitioners and0efore the-, their -other. 777 Clearl#, defendantsentr# into the land was eAe&ted &landestinel#,without the 9nowledge of the owners,&onseuentl#, it is &ategoried as possession 0#stealth whi&h is for&i0le entr#. (s e7plained inSarona vs. Jillegas, &ited in "uKo vs. Court of(ppealsT$$' SCR( $1> 31++$4U toleran&e -ust 0epresent right fro- the start of possession sought to0e re&overed, to &ategorie a &ause of a&tion asone of unlawful detainer not of for&i0le entr# 7 7 7.

7 7 7 7

In the instant &ase, the allegations in the &o-plaintdo not &ontain an# aver-ent of fa&t that wouldsu0stantiate petitioners &lai- that the# per-ittedor tolerated the o&&upation of the propert# 0#respondents. he &o-plaint &ontains onl# 0areallegations that Grespondents without an# &olor oftitle whatsoever o&&upies the land in uestion 0#0uilding their house in the said land there0#depriving petitioners the possession thereof.GNothing has 0een said on how respondents entr#

was eAe&ted or how and when dispossessionstarted. (d-ittedl#, no e7press &ontra&t e7isted0etween the parties. his failure of petitioners to

allege the 9e# ?urisdi&tional fa&ts &onstitutive ofunlawful detainer is fatal. Sin&e the &o-plaint didnot satisf# the ?urisdi&tional reuire-ent of a valid&ause for unlawful detainer, the -uni&ipal trial&ourt had no ?urisdi&tion over the &ase.It is in thislight that this Court ;nds that the Court of (ppeals&orre&tl# found that the -uni&ipal trial &ourt hadno ?urisdi&tion over the &o-plaint. 3E-phasissupplied.4

he &o-plaint in this &ase is si-ilarl# defe&tive asit failed to allege how and when entr# waseAe&ted. he 0are allegation of petitioner thatGso-eti-e in "a#, $!!=, she dis&overed that thedefendants have enterep the su0?e&t propert# ando&&upied the sa-eG, as &orre&tl# found 0# the"CC and C(, would show that respondentsentered the land and 0uilt their houses thereon&landestinel# and without petitioners &onsent,whi&h fa&ts are &onstitutive of for&i0le entr#, notunlawful detainer. Conseuentl#, the "CC has no ?urisdi&tion over the &ase and the RC &learl# erredin reversing the lower &ourts ruling and granting

reliefs pra#ed for 0# the petitioner.

2astl#, petitioners argu-ent that the C( gravel#erred in nullif#ing a ;nal and e7e&utor# ?udg-entof the RC deserves s&ant &onsideration.

It is well)settled that a &ourts ?urisdi&tion -a# 0eraised at an# stage of the pro&eedings, even onappeal. he reason is that ?urisdi&tion is &onferred0# law, and la&9 of it aAe&ts the ver# authorit# ofthe &ourt to ta9e &ognian&e of and to render ?udg-ent on the a&tion.$! Indeed, a void ?udg-entfor want of ?urisdi&tion is no ?udg-ent at all. It&annot 0e the sour&e of an# right nor the &reator of an# o0ligation. (ll a&ts perfor-ed pursuant to itand all &lai-s e-anating fro- it have no legaleAe&t. @en&e, it &an never 0e&o-e ;nal and an#writ of e7e&ution 0ased on it is void.$1

@ERE5ORE, the petition is DENIED for la&9 of-erit. he De&ision dated 8une $!, $!1$ of theCourt of (ppeals in C()*.R. SP No. 1$1+ ishere0# (55IR"ED.

G.R. No. 201286 !+l 18, 2014

INOCENCIA TAGALOG, Petitioner,vs.MARIA LIM <A. E GONHALEH, GAUENCIAL. :UAGAS, RANULFO >. LIM, ON L. CAL<O,SUSAN C. SANTIAGO, INA C. ARANAS, "#$RUFINA C. RAMIREH, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

he Case

Before us is a petition for review on&ertiorari1 assailing the Resolutions dated 1$ "a#

>1









$!11$ and + "ar&h $!1$ of the Court of (ppeals3C(4 in C()*.R. CJ No. !$=%'.

he 5a&ts

he su0?e&t of the litigation involves a par&el ofland 9nown as 2ot No. 1+)( &ontaining an area of $=,1 suare -eters situated in Buano#,Bala-0an, Ce0u and &overed 0# ransferCerti;&ate of itle 3C4 No. )=>!'.

On 5e0ruar# $!!, respondents "aria 2i- Jda.de *onale, *auden&ia 2. Buagas, Ranulfo L. 2i-,Don 2. Calvo, Susan C. Santiago, Dina C. (ranas,and Ru;na C. Ra-ire;led with the Regional rialCourt 3RC4 of oledo Cit#, Ce0u, Bran&h $+, aCo-plaint' for Re&over# of Possession, Preli-inar#"andator# In?un&tion with a Pra#er for a e-porar#Restraining Order with Da-ages and (ttorne#s5ees against petitioner Ino&en&ia agalog 3agalog4.(t the ti-e of the &o-plaint, the land was de&laredfor ta7ation purposes under a7 De&laration No. !1)!%)!'1! with an assessed value of P=,+>! and a

-ar9et value of P$>',+!.

In the Co-plaint, respondents stated that the#were the &o)owners of the land. he# alleged that agalog o&&upied a portion of the land as lesseeand paid rent on a -onth to -onth 0asis 0# virtueof a ver0al &ontra&t. agalog 0uilt a house withlight -aterials on the land and when a strongt#phoon hit Ce0u, agalogs house was da-aged. hereafter, respondents alleged that agalogdis&ontinued pa#ingthe rent and stoppedinha0iting the house.

So-eti-e 0efore De&e-0er $!!$, respondentsde-anded that agalog re-ove the s&atteredde0ris on the land, noti;ed her of their intention touse the land, and su0divide and develop it for theirpersonal use. Respondents infor-ed agalog tova&ate the pre-ises asserting that the ver0al&ontra&t of lease was dee-ed ter-inated upon thee7piration of the -onthl# &ontra&t. @owever, agalog refused to va&ate &lai-ing that she wasstill a lessee.

So-eti-e in 8anuar# $!!, respondents allegedthat agalog &onstru&ted a two)store# residential

house -ade of &e-ent, large steel 0ars, hollow0lo&9s, sand and gravel on the land. Respondentsinfor-ed the O:&e of the "uni&ipal EngineerofBala-0an, Ce0u of agalogs a&t of &onstru&tinga house on the land without their &onsent andwithout the reuired 0uilding per-it. Respondentsalleged that despite the warning given 0# theO:&e of the "uni&ipal Engineer to stop the&onstru&tion, agalog still &ontinued withthe&onstru&tion. Respondents then referred the -atterto the Baranga# Captain of Buano#, Bala-0an,Ce0u 0ut again, as respondents alleged, agalogonl# ignored the advi&e given 0# the Baranga#Captain.

In her (nswer, agalog alleged thatthe lease&ontra&t was still valid and su0sisting and had

never 0een ter-inated 0# the parties. She addedthat she had not a0andoned her possession overthe land and has &ontinuousl# paid the rent on a-onth to -onth 0asis. agalog denied having 0eennoti;ed of the respondents intention to use andsu0divide the land and further alleged that shesought and was granted per-ission to repair herdwelling stru&ture and undertoo9 the repair withoutenlarging the area of her o&&upation. agalogad-itted 0eing su--oned 0# the O:&e of the

"uni&ipal Engineer and Baranga# Captain and shealleged that 0oth o:&es found that she had long&eased the repair wor9. (s a defense, agalogpra#ed for the dis-issal of the &ase on the groundthat the a&tion was for e?e&t-ent and unlawfuldetainer whi&h was 0e#ond the ?urisdi&tion of theRC.

In a De&ision> dated "a# $!!%, the RC de&idedthe &ase in favor of respondents. he RC ruledthat, in the &o-plaint, respondents pra#ed for there&over# of possession of the leased propert# asowners. hus, the issue of ownership, whi&h was

within the original ?urisdi&tion of the &ourt waspri-ordial and the pra#er for evi&tion was -erel#in&idental there 0eing no written &ontra&t of lease0etween the parties. he dispositive portion of theDe&ision states/ @ERE5ORE, ;nding the eviden&efor the plaintiAs to have preponderantl# andgreatl# leaned in their favor, ?udg-ent is here0#rendered against the defendant, Ino&en&ia agalogas follows/

314 Ordering her to va&ate the pre-ises inuestion, deliver the pea&eful possessionthereof to plaintiAs who are its rightfulowners 0ut wrongfull# deprived of it, and

re-ove whatever stru&tures are 0uiltthereon at her own e7penseH

3$4 Dire&ting her 3defendant4 to pa#plaintiAs the a-ount of 5ift# housand3P!,!!!.!!4 Pesos, as -oral da-ages andthe further su- of went# housand3P$!,!!!.!!4 Pesos, as reasona0leattorne#s feesH plus

34 Costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.=

agalog ;led a "otion for Re&onsideration whi&hwas denied 0# the RC in an Order dated ! "a#$!!%. agalog then ;led an appeal% with the Courtof (ppeals. In a Resolution+ dated 1$ "a# $!11, theC( dis-issed the &ase for failure of agalog to;lethe reuired 0rief within the e7tended periodreuested. he dispositive portion of the Resolutionstates/

@ERE5ORE, in view of appellants failure to ;lethe reuired 0rief within the e7tended periodreuested, and pursuant to Se&tion 1 3e4, Rule !

of the 1++= Rules of Civil Pro&edure, the a0ove)entitled &ase is here0# DIS"ISSED.

>$






















SO ORDERED.1!

agalog ;led a "otion for Re&onsideration whi&hwas denied 0# the appellate &ourt in aResolution11 dated + "ar&h $!1$.

@en&e, the instant petition.

he Issue

he -ain issue for our resolution iswhether theRegional rial Court had ?urisdi&tion over thesu0?e&t -atter of the a&tion.

he Courts Ruling


Petitioner &ontends that the su0?e&t of the a&tion isfor unlawful detainer, thus &ognia0le 0# a ;rstlevel &ourt or the "uni&ipal rial Court 3"C4. Sin&ethe &ase was ;led with the RC, a se&ond level

&ourt, the RCs de&ision should 0e rendered voidfor la&9 of ?urisdi&tion over the &ase.

he ?urisdi&tion of a parti&ular &ourt is deter-ined0# the nature of the a&tion pleaded as appearingfro- the allegations in the &o-plaint. In order todeter-ine whether the lower &ourt had ?urisdi&tion,it is ne&essar# to ;rst as&ertain the nature of the&o-plaint ;led 0efore it.

In the present &ase, the &o-plaint was for re&over#of possession, preli-inar# -andator# in?un&tionwith a pra#er for te-porar# restraining order with

da-ages and attorne#s fees. Respondents&o-plaint &ontained the following allegations/

7 7 7 7

. PlaintiAs 3respondents4 are a-ongtheregistered owners and are &oowners of apar&el of land, 7 7 7.

7 7 7 7

>. 5or uite so-eti-e, defendant3petitioner4 has 0een o&&up#ing a portionof the a0ove)des&ri0ed par&el of land, aslessee thereof, where her house was 0eing0uilt withlight -aterials and was pa#ingrentals over the sa-e 0# virtue of a ver0al&ontra&tof lease on a -onth to -onth0asis.

=. he said house of the defendant wasda-aged 0# a strong t#phoon whi&h hitCe0u and was no longer inha0ited 0# herand her fa-il# for uite so-eti-e.

%. Sin&e the destru&tion of the defendants

house, the latter was no longer pa#ingrentals as a &onseuenT&eU ofherpossession of the propert# where her

house was previousl# standing, and thatthe ver0al &ontra&t of lease was dee-edter-inated upon the e7piration of thever0al -onthl# &ontra&t.

+. Due to the ter-ination of the ver0al-onthl# &ontra&t, plaintiAs de-anded thatdefendant re-ove the s&attered de0ris andnoti;ed defendant that the# are alread#intending to use the propert# and

su0divide and develop it for their personaluse.

1!. @owever, defendant refused to va&atethe propert# and &ontinued to possess thesa-e, and refused to re-ove the de0riss&attered thereon despite de-ands for herto do so. Instead, defendant wrongfull#&lai-ed that she is still a lessee of theportion previousl# o&&upied 0# her and thatshe still intends to &ontinue her possession.

11. Instead, so-eti-e in the ;rst wee9 of

8anuar# $!!, defendant 0rought &e-ent,large steel 0ars, hollow 0lo&9s, sand andgravel and other &onstru&tion -aterialsinto the pre-ises in uestion and startedthe &onstru&tion of a two 3$4 store#residential house thereon.

7 7 7 7

1'. PlaintiAs are entitled to the relief 0eingde-anded whi&h is for the defendant tova&ate the pre-isesin uestion and todesist fro- &onstru&ting a residential house

thereon 0e&ause plaintiAs have a right topossess the propert# 0eing the ownersthereof and that defendants possession ofthe sa-e is now unlawful and illegal due tothe ter-ination of the ver0al &ontra&t oflease on a -onth to -onth 0asis.1$

Based on the allegations in respondents&o-plaint, it is &lear that the &ase involves onl# theissue of ph#si&al possession or unlawful detainer asde;ned in Se&tion 1,1 Rule =! of the Rules ofCourt. In De 2eon v. C(,1' we held that unlawfuldetainer is the withholding 0# a person fro-

another of the possession of a land or 0uilding towhi&h the latter is entitled after the e7piration orter-ination of the for-ers right to hold possession0# virtue of a &ontra&t, e7press or i-plied. (ne?e&t-ent suit is 0rought 0efore the "C to re&overnot possession de ?ure 0ut ph#si&al possession onl#or possession de fa&to, where dispossession haslasted for not -ore than one #ear.

he right to re&over possession of the land 0asedon the e7piration of the ver0al -onthl# &ontra&t oflease is governed 0# (rti&le 1>%=1 of the CivilCode. Sin&e the lease is paid -onthl# under aver0al &ontra&t of lease without a ;7ed period, the

lease period is fro- -onth to -onth. Respondentsde-anded that agalog va&ate the land so-eti-e0efore De&e-0er $!!$, after the ter-ination ofthe

>

















-onthl# ver0al lease &ontra&t. he# ;led the&o-plaint with the RC in 5e0ruar# $!!. Sin&e the&o-plaint was ;led within one #ear fro- thee7piration of the right to hold possession, this &aseis &learl# an unlawful detainer suit within the ?urisdi&tion of the "C. he &on&lusion would 0ediAerent ifthe a&tion is for the re&over# of the rightto possess and dispossession lasted for -ore thanone #ear whi&h would ?ustif# resort to the re-ed#of a&&ion pu0li&iana. (&&ion pu0li&iana is the

plenar# a&tion in an ordinar# &ivil pro&eeding todeter-ine the 0etter right of possession of the landindependentl# of the title and is ;led after thee7piration of one #ear fro- the a&&rual of the&ause of a&tion or fro- the unlawful withholding ofpossession of the land. In su&h &ase, the RC has ?urisdi&tion.1>

@owever, in this &ase, the unlawfulwithholding ofpossession of the land 0efore the ;ling of the&o-plaint with the RC lasted onl# for -ore or lessthree -onths.1)*phi1 (lso, neither of the parties0rought forth the issue of ownership whi&h was the

reason given 0# the RC for ta9ing &ognian&e ofthe a&tion. 8urisdi&tion is &onferred 0# law and an# ?udg-ent, order or resolution issued without it isvoid and &annot 0e given an# eAe&t.1= his ruleapplies even if the issue on ?urisdi&tion was raisedfor the ;rst ti-e on appeal or even after ;nal ?udg-ent.1% In this &ase, agalog raised the issue of ?urisdi&tion in her (nswer.

Clearl#, the RC erred in not dis-issing the &ase0efore it.1)*phi1 Fnder the Rules of Court, it is thedut# of the &ourt to dis-iss an a&tion whenever itappears that the &ourt has no ?urisdi&tion over thesu0?e&t -atter.1+

In su-, sin&e respondents &o-plaint should have0een ;led with the "C, the RC seriousl# erred inpro&eeding with the &ase. he pro&eedings 0eforea &ourt without ?urisdi&tion, in&luding its de&ision,are null and void. It then follows that the appeal0rought 0efore the appellate &ourt, as well as thede&isions or resolutions pro-ulgated in a&&ordan&ewith said appeal, is without for&e and eAe&t.

@ERE5ORE, we *R(N the petition. e SE(SIDE the Resolutions dated 1$ "a# $!11 and +"ar&h $!1$ of the Court of (ppeals in C()*.R. CJ

No. !$=%'. e DIS"ISS Civil Case No. )1!+without pre?udi&e to the parties see9ing relief in theproper foru-.

G.R. No. 18293 O)(o&r 11, 2010

CORAHON . SARMIENTA, !OSE ERAMA,CATES RAMA, !OSIE MI7A, TOTO NOLASCO, !ESUS OLIUINO, NOR:ERTO LOPEH, RU:ENESPOSO, :ERNARO FLORESCA, MARINAIMATALO, RO:LE IMANA=O, RICAROPEA, EUARO ESPINO, ANTONIOGALLEGOS, <ICTOR SANO<AL, FELICITAS

A:RANTES, MERC> CRUH, ROSENO ORGANO,RIC=> :ARENO, ANITA TA=SAGON, !OSIERAMA "#$ PA:LO IMANA=O, Petitioners,

vs.MANALITE -OMEO7NERS ASSOCIATION, INC.MA-AD, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

<ILLARAMA, !R., J.:

his petition for review on &ertiorari see9s to nullif#

the De&ision1

dated O&to0er 1+, $!!= andResolution$ dated "a# $1, $!!% of the Court of(ppeals 3C(4 in C()*.R. SP No. +!!. he C( hada:r-ed the De&ision dated 8anuar# 1!, $!!>' ofthe Regional rial Court 3RC4 of (ntipolo Cit#,Bran&h =', in Civil Case No. !)'% whi&h reversedthe De&ision of the "uni&ipal rial Court in Cities3"CC4 of (ntipolo Cit#, Bran&h 1, in Civil Case No.1!')!!.

he &ase ste--ed fro- a &o-plaint> for GorcibleEntrnla*(ul 'etainer G ;led 0# respondent"analite @o-eowners (sso&iation, In&. 3"(@(4against ("(R( CI*E2S(2O (sso&iation 3("(R(4and its -e-0ers. he &o-plaint was ra<ed to the"CC of (ntipolo Cit#, Bran&h 1 and do&9eted asCivil Case No. 1!')!!.

"(@( alleged that it is the registered owner of a&ertain par&el of land &overed 0# ransferCerti;&ate of itle 3C4 No. $$$>!= with an areaof +,+> suare -eters situated in Sitio "analite,Phase I, Baranga# Sta. Cru, (ntipolo Cit#.% hroughfor&e, inti-idation, threat, strateg# and stealth,petitioners entered the pre-ises and &onstru&tedtheir te-porar# houses and an o:&e0uilding.+ Petitioners li9ewise even ;led a &ivil &ase

to annul "(@(s title on Septe-0er $, 1++$, 0utsaid &ase was dis-issed 0# the trial &ourt. (ftersaid dis-issal, "(@( de-anded that petitionersva&ate the land. Petitioners pleaded that the# 0egiven one #ear within whi&h to loo9 for a pla&e totransfer, to whi&h reuest "(@( a&&eded. he saidone)#ear period, however, was repeatedl#e7tended due to the 0enevolen&e of "(@(s-e-0ers. 2ater on, petitioners &a-e up with aproposal that the# 0e&o-e -e-0ers of "(@( sothe# &an 0e uali;ed to a&uire portions of thepropert# 0# sale pursuant to the Co--unit#"ortgage Progra- 3C"P4.1! "(@( again agreedand tolerated petitioners possession, giving the-until De&e-0er 1+++ to &o-pl# with thereuire-ents to avail of the C"P 0ene;ts.Petitioners nonetheless failed to &o-pl# with saidreuire-ents. hus, on (ugust +, $!!!, "(@( sentfor-al de-and letters to petitioners to va&ate thepropert#. Fpon the latters refusal to heed thede-and, "(@( ;led the &o-plaint for GorcibleEntrnla*(ul 'etainer .G

In their (nswer with Counter&lai-s,11 petitionersdenied the said allegations and averred that the#are the owners of the su0?e&t lot, having 0een ina&tual ph#si&al possession thereof for -ore than

thirt# 3!4 #ears 0efore "(@( intruded into theland. he# &lai-ed that as the #ears went 0#, the#esta0lished the ("(R( and 0ought the su0?e&t

>'





http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_182953_2010.html#fnt1







































J. @E@ER OR NO @E "EROPO2I(N RI(2 COFR IN CIIES, BR(NC@ 1,(NIPO2O CIL @(S 8FRISDICION.

JI. @E@ER OR NO @E "EROPO2I(N RI(2 COFR IN CIIES, BR(NC@ 1,(NIPO2O CIL @(S 8FRISDICION OJER (NE8EC"EN C(SE B(SED ON 5ORCIB2EENRL (ND FN2(5F2 DE(INER.1%

Essentiall#, there are two prin&ipal issues for ourresolution/ 314 whether or not the allegations in the&o-plaint are su:&ient to -a9e up a &ase offor&i0le entr# or unlawful detainerH and 3$4 whetheror not the C( was &orre&t in a:r-ing the RCsde&ision ;nding a &ase of unlawful detainer.

Petitioners assert that the ?urisdi&tionalreuire-ent of prior ph#si&al possession in a&tionsfor for&i0le entr# was not alleged with parti&ularit#in the &o-plaint, as it -erel# alleged thatrespondent had 0een deprived of its possessionover the propert#. he# also -aintained that the#

were not withholding possession of the propert#upon the e7piration or ter-ination of their right topossess 0e&ause the# never e7e&uted an#&ontra&t, e7press or i-plied, in favor of therespondent. @en&e, there was also no unlawfuldetainer.

e den# the petition.

ell settled is the rule that what deter-ines thenature of the a&tion as well as the &ourt whi&h has ?urisdi&tion over the &ase are the allegations in the&o-plaint.1+ In e?e&t-ent &ases, the &o-plaint

should e-0od# su&h state-ent of fa&ts as to 0ringthe part# &learl# within the &lass of &ases underSe&tion 1, Rule =! of the 1++= Rules of CivilPro&edure, as a-ended. Se&tion 1 provides/

SECION 1. Lho ma institute procee%ings, an%*hen.// Su0?e&t to the provisions of the ne7tsu&&eeding se&tion, a person deprived of thepossession of an# land or 0uilding 0# for&e,inti-idation, threat, strateg#, or stealth, or alessor, vendor, vendee, or other person againstwho- the possession of an# land or 0uilding isunlawfull# withheld after the e7piration or

ter-ination of the right to hold possession, 0#virtue of an# &ontra&t, e7press or i-plied, or thelegal representatives or assigns of an# su&h lessor,vendor, vendee, or other person, -a#, at an# ti-ewithin one 314 #ear after su&h unlawful deprivationor withholding of possession, 0ring an a&tion in theproper "uni&ipal rial Court against the person orpersons unlawfull# withholding or depriving ofpossession, or an# person or persons &lai-ingunder the-, for the restitution of su&h possession,together with da-ages and &osts.

here are two entirel# distin&t and diAerent &ausesof a&tion under the aforeuoted rule, to wit/ 314 a

&ase for for&i0le entr#, whi&h is an a&tion tore&over possession of a propert# fro- thedefendant whose o&&upation thereof is illegal fro-

the 0eginning as he a&uired possession 0# for&e,inti-idation, threat, strateg# or stealthH and 3$4 a&ase for unlawful detainer, whi&h is an a&tion forre&over# of possession fro- the defendant whosepossession of the propert# was in&eptivel# lawful0# virtue of a &ontra&t 3e7press or i-plied4 with theplaintiA, 0ut 0e&a-e illegal when he &ontinued hispossession despite the ter-ination of his rightthereunder.

In for&i0le entr#, the plaintiA -ust allege in the&o-plaint, and prove, that he was in prior ph#si&alpossession of the propert# in dispute until he wasdeprived thereof 0# the defendant 0# an# of the-eans provided in Se&tion 1, Rule =! ofthe Rules either 0# for&e, inti-idation, threat,strateg# or stealth.$! In unlawful detainer, there-ust 0e an allegation in the &o-plaint of how thepossession of defendant started or &ontinued, thatis, 0# virtue of lease or an# &ontra&t, and thatdefendant holds possession of the land or 0uildingGafter the e7piration or ter-ination of the right tohold possession 0# virtue of an# &ontra&t, e7press

or i-plied.G

In the present &ase, a thorough perusal of the&o-plaint would reveal that the allegations &learl#&onstitute a &ase of unlawful detainer/

7 7 7 7

. PlaintiA is the registered owner of that&ertain par&el of land involved in theinstant &ase &overed 0# C No. $$$>!&ontaining an area of +,+> s.-. situatedin Sitio "analite, Phase I, Barangga# Sta.

Cru, (ntipolo Cit#, whi&h propert# waspla&e under &o--unit# -ortgage progra-3C"P4H

'. Other defendants in the instant &ase areall -e-0er and o:&ers of defendant("(R( who, through for&e, inti-idation,threat, strateg# and stealth entered intothe pre-ises herein and &onstru&ted theirte-porar# houses and o:&e 0uildingrespe&tivel#, pre)e-pting plaintiA fro-using the pre-ises thus, depriving thesa-e of its prior possession thereofH

. On Septe-0er $, 1++$ as an strateg# ofthe &heapest sort defendants, in&onspira&# and &ollusion with ea&h other,defendants as representative of @eirs of(ntonio and @er-ogenes Rodriue, thealleged owner of the propert# at 0ar, ;led&ivil &ase no. +$)$'' against plaintiA,lodge 0efore Bran&h = of the Regional rialCourt of (ntipolo Cit#, see9ing to annulplaintiA titleH

>. I--ediatel# upon ;nal dis-issal of su&hgroundless, 0aseless and -ali&ious suit,

plaintiA de-anded defendants to va&atethe pre-ises, 0ut the latter pleaded withthe for-er to 0e given a one 314 #ear

>>











period within whi&h to loo9 for a pla&e totransfer, whi&h period, upon pleas ofdefendants, &oupled with plaintiAs0enevolen&e was repeatedl# e7tended 0#said plaintiAs toleran&e of o&&upan&#thereof, 0ut under su&h ter-s and&onditions. Due to failure to &o-pl# withtheir underta9ing despite repeatedde-ands therefor plaintiAs sent a for-alde-and letter upon defendantsH

=. Fpon re&eipt of the a0ove)statedde-and, defendants propose to 0e&o-e-e-0ers of plaintiA, as uali;&ation toa&uire portions of the propert# 0# salepursuant to the C"P, to whi&h plaintiAagreed and tolerated defendantspossession 0# giving the sa-e a perioduntil the -onth of De&e-0er 1+++, to&o-pl# with all the reuire-ents pre)reuisite to the availing of the C"P 0ene;ts0ut failed and despite repeated de-andstherefor, thus, the ;ling of a &o-plaint with

the Barangga# and the issuan&e of the&erti;&ate to ;le a&tion dated 5e0ruar# %,$!!!H

%. (s ti-e is of the essen&e, and the fa&tthat the defendants are -ere intruders orusurpers who have no possessor# rightwhatsoever over the land illegall# o&&upied0# the-, triing te&hni&alities that wouldtend to defeat the speed# ad-inistration of ?usti&e for-al de-and is not ne&essar#thereto, 3Repu0li& vs. Cru C.(. *.R. No.$'+1! R 5e0. =, 1+>'4 however, to aAord asu:&ient period of ti-e within whi&h to

va&ate the pre-ises pea&efull# anotheroral and for-al de-ands were -ade uponthe sa-e to that eAe&t, and de-olish thete-porar# o:&e and houses the#&onstru&ted on plaintiAs propert# andinstead defendants again, asrepresentative to alleged GEstate of 8ulian allanoG ;led a &o-plaint for e?e&t-entagainst plaintiAs for-er President, @on."ar&elino (0en whi&h &ase, is do&9eted as&ivil &ase no. '11+, lodged, 0efore 0ran&h11 of this @onora0le &ourt, defendantso0stinatel# refused to pea&efull# turn over

the propert# the# intruded upon in fa&tthe# even dared plaintiA to ;le a &aseagainst the- 0oasting that no0od# &anorder the- to va&ate the pre-isesH

+. Defendants letter dated (ugust +, $!!!,a&9nowledged a&tual re&eipt of plaintiAstwo 3$4 for-al de-ands letters. hus, Gtheissuan&e of ati0a#an Fpang "a9adulog sa@u9u-anG dated Septe-0er $, $!!!H

1!. (s a result thereof, plaintiA was&o-pelled to engage the servi&es of theundersigned &ounsel in order toi--ediatel# institute the instant suit forwhi&h servi&es plaintiA agreed to pa# the

a-ount of P,!!!.!! plus P,!!.!! per&ourt appearan&eH

7 7 7 7$1

( &o-plaint su:&ientl# alleges a &ause of a&tionfor unlawful detainer if it re&ites the following/ 314initiall#, possession of propert# 0# the defendantwas 0# &ontra&t with or 0# toleran&e of theplaintiAH 3$4 eventuall#, su&h possession 0e&a-eillegal upon noti&e 0# plaintiA to defendant of theter-ination of the latters right of possessionH 34thereafter, the defendant re-ained in possessionof the propert# and deprived the plaintiA of theen?o#-ent thereofH and 3'4 within one #ear fro-the last de-and on defendant to va&ate thepropert#, the plaintiA instituted the &o-plaint fore?e&t-ent.$$

2i9ewise, the eviden&e proves that after "(@(a&uired the propert#, "(@( tolerated petitionerssta# and gave the- the option to a&uire portionsof the propert# 0# 0e&o-ing -e-0ers of "(@(.

Petitioners &ontinued sta# on the pre-ises wassu0?e&t to the &ondition that the# shall &o-pl# withthe reuire-ents of the C"P. hus, when the#failed to ful;ll their o0ligations, "(@( had the rightto de-and for the- to va&ate the propert# as theirright of possession had alread# e7pired or had0een ter-inated. he -o-ent "(@( reuiredpetitioners to leave, petitioners 0e&a-e defor&iantsillegall# o&&up#ing the land.$ ell settled is therule that a person who o&&upies the land ofanother at the latters toleran&e or per-ission,without an# &ontra&t 0etween the-, is ne&essaril#0ound 0# an i-plied pro-ise that he will va&ateupon de-and, failing whi&h, a su--ar# a&tion fore?e&t-ent is the proper re-ed# againsthi-.$' hus, the RC and the C( &orre&tl# ruled infavor of "(@(.

(s to petitioners argu-ent that "(@(s title isvoid for having 0een se&ured fraudulentl#, we ;ndthat su&h issue was i-properl# raised. In anunlawful detainer &ase, the sole issue for resolutionis ph#si&al or -aterial possession of the propert#involved, independent of an# &lai- of ownership 0#an# of the parties.$ Sin&e the onl# issue involved isthe ph#si&al or -aterial possession of thepre-ises, that is possession %e (acto and not

possession %e Hure, the uestion of ownership -ust0e threshed out in a separate a&tion.

@ERE5ORE, the instant petition for review on&ertiorari is here0# ENIE for la&9 of -erit. heDe&ision dated O&to0er 1+, $!!= and Resolutiondated "a# $1, $!!% of the Court of (ppeals in C()*.R. SP No. +!! are here0# AFFIRME.

ith &osts against petitioners.

G.R. No. 1863, April 11 ? 2011J

SER<ILLANO E. A:A, PETITIONER, <S.OSCAR C. FARRALES AN AIS> C. FARRALES;

<ILLAMA>OR, RESPONENTS.

>=
















E C I S I O N

A:A, J.?

his &ase is a0out a4 the need, when esta0lishingthe ?urisdi&tion of the &ourt over an a&tion forfor&i0le entr#, for plaintiA to allege in his &o-plaintprior ph#si&al possession of the propert# and 04 theneed for plaintiA to prove as well the fa&t of su&hprior ph#si&al possession.

T%& F")(' "#$ (%& C"'&

Petitioner Servillano (0ad &lai-s that on (ugust >,$!!$ he and his wife, Dr. Estrella E. *avilan)(0ad,0ought a '$%)suare -eter registered propert# on= (d-inistration St., *SIS Jillage, Pro?e&t %,Queon Cit#,T1U fro- eresita, Ro--el, and Dennis5arrales. he latter were the wife and sons,respe&tivel#, of the late 0rother of respondentsOs&ar 5arrales 3Os&ar4 and Dais# 5arrales)Jilla-a#or 3Dais#4.T$U eresita operated a 0oardinghouse on the propert#.TU

Be&ause the (0ads did not &onsider running the0oarding house the-selves, the# agreed to leasethe propert# 0a&9 to eresita for P!,!!!.!! a-onth so she &ould &ontinue with her 0usiness.T'U But, although the lease had a good start, eresitasuddenl# a0andoned the 0oarding house,TU for&ingthe (0ads to ta9e over 0# engaging the servi&es ofBen&io Duran, eresitas helper, to oversee the0oarding house 0usiness.T>U

On De&e-0er =, $!!$, Dr. (0ad went to the0oarding house to have &ertain da-age to so-etoilets repaired. hile she was attending to the-atter, she also hired house painters to give the0oarding house fresh &oat of paint. T=U On De&e-0er%, $!!$ Os&ar and Dais# &a-e, a&&o-panied 0#two -en, and for&i0l# too9 possession of the0oarding house. 5rightened, the painters &alled the(0ads who i--ediatel# sought poli&e help. he(0ads were later appeased, however, when the#learned that the intruders left the pla&e.

wo da#s later or on De&e-0er 1!, $!!$, the da#the (0ads left for a0road, Os&ar and Dais# for&i0l#entered and too9 possession of the propert# on&eagain. Be&ause of this, on "ar&h 1!, $!!petitioner Servillano (0ad 3(0ad4 ;led a&o-plaintT%U for for&i0le entr# against the two0efore the "etropolitan rial Court 3"eC4 of

Queon Cit#.T+U

Os&ar and Dais# vehe-entl# denied that the#for&i0l# seied the pla&e. he# &lai-ed ownershipof it 0# inheritan&e. he# also &lai-ed that the#had 0een in possession of the sa-e fro- the ti-eof their 0irth.T1!U hat Os&ar had 0een residing onthe propert# sin&e 1+>= as attested to 0# a "ar&h1, $!! &erti;&ation issued 0# Baranga# Baha# oro.T11U

hile the defendants ad-itted that Dais# herself&eased to reside on the propert# as earl# as 1+%>,the# pointed out that she did not eAe&tivel# giveup her possession. Os&ar and Dais# further

&lai-ed that when their parents were still alive, thelatter -ortgaged the propert# to a 0an9 to se&urea loan. (fter their -other passed awa#, the#

de&ided to lease portions of the propert# to helppa# the loan. Dais# -anaged the operation of the0oarding house.T1$U o 0olster their &lai-, Os&ar andDais# presented &opies of rental re&eipts T1U going0a&9 fro- $!!1 to $!!. he# would not have 0eena0le to lease the roo-s unless the# were inpossession.T1'U

5urther, Os&ar and Dais# as9ed the "eC todis-iss the a&tion on the ground of failure of (0adto show that he and his wife en?o#ed prior ph#si&alpossession of the propert#, an essential reuisite infor&i0le entr# &ases. (0ads allegation that he andhis wife i--ediatel# leased the propert# after the#0ought it was proof that the# were never inpossession of it for an# length of ti-e.T1U

On "ar&h !, $!! the "eC rendered ade&isionT1>U in favor of (0ad, stating that Os&ar andDais# &ould not a&uire ownership of the propert#sin&e it was registered. (nd, as owner, (0ad wasentitled to possession.

Disagreeing with the "eC, Os&ar and Dais# wentup to the Regional rial Court 3RC4 of Queon Cit#.

In a de&ision1= dated O&to0er $>, $!!, the RCa:r-ed the de&ision of the "eC in its totalit#. Itheld that Os&ar and Dais# &ould no longer i-pugnthe ?urisdi&tion of the "eC over the a&tion sin&ethe# raised the ground of (0ads failure to allegeprior ph#si&al possession in his &o-plaint for the;rst ti-e on appeal. Besides, said the RC, sin&ethe &o-plaint alleged that Servillano owned thepropert#, it -a# 0e presu-ed that he also hadprior possession of it. No eviden&e to the &ontrar#having 0een presented, the presu-ption stood.

(0ad -oved for i--ediate e7e&utionT1%U and partialre&onsiderationT1+U of the de&ision with respe&t tohis &lai- for attorne#s fees, e7e-plar# da-ages,

and reasona0le rents. 5or their part, Os&ar andDais# sought re&onsiderationT$!U of the RC de&isionand -oved to stri9e out (0ads -otions.T$1U OnDe&e-0er 1, $!! the RC issued an Order,T$$U granting (0ads -otion for i--ediate e7e&utionthat would pla&e hi- in possession and orderingthe i--ediate release to hi- of the P+!,!!!.!!supersedeas 0ond that Os&ar and Dais# posted inthe &ase. 5urther, the RC partiall# re&onsideredits de&ision 0# awarding attorne#s fees ofP$!,!!!.!! to (0ad. Os&ar and Dais# -oved forthe re&onsideration of this order.T$U In an Orderdated De&e-0er +, $!!, the RC denied the-otion for re&onsideration ;led 0# Os&ar and Dais#

of its O&to0er $>, $!! De&ision on the ground ofnon)&o-plian&e with Se&tion ', Rule 1 of theRules of Court.

Fndaunted, Os&ar and Dais# ;led a petition forreviewT$'U with the Court of (ppeals 3C(4. On "ar&h%, $!!= the C( rendered a de&ision, T$U annullingthe de&isions and orders of 0oth the "eC and theRC on the ground of la&9 of ?urisdi&tion. he C(pointed out that (0ad -erel# alleged in his&o-plaint that he leased the propert# to eresitaafter he and his wife 0ought the sa-e and that,thereafter, Os&ar and Dais# for&i0l# entered thesa-e. Sin&e (0ad did not -a9e the ?urisdi&tionalaver-ent of prior ph#si&al possession, the "eC

did not a&uire ?urisdi&tion over his a&tion. 5urther,Os&ar and Dais# a0l# proved a&tual possessionfro- 1+>= through the 0aranga# &erti;&ation.

>%



Sin&e the "eC had no ?urisdi&tion over the &ase,all the pro&eedings in the &ase were void.T$>U

(0ad -oved for re&onsideration 0ut the C( deniedthe sa-e,T$=U hen&e, in the present petition forreview.T$%U

+&'(io#' Pr&'&#(&$

he &ase presents the following uestions/

1. hether or not (0ad su:&ientl# allege% in his&o-plaint the ?urisdi&tional fa&t of prior ph#si&alpossession of the disputed propert# to vest the"eC with ?urisdi&tion over his a&tionH and

$. In the a:r-ative, whether or not (0adsu:&ientl# prove% that he en?o#ed prior ph#si&alpossession of the propert# in uestion.

T%& Co+r(@' R+li#'

wo allegations are indispensa0le in a&tions forfor&i0le entr# to ena0le ;rst level &ourts to a&uire ?urisdi&tion over the-/ ;rst, that the plaintiA had

prior ph#si&al possession of the propert#Hand,se&ond, that the defendant deprived hi- ofsu&h possession 0# -eans of for&e, inti-idation,threats, strateg#, or stealth.T$+U

here is no uestion that (0ad -ade an allegationin his &o-plaint that Os&ar and Dais# for&i0l#entered the su0?e&t propert#. he onl# issue is withrespe&t to his allegation, &iting su&h propert# asone "o( *hich the have complete phsical an%material possession o( the same until %eprive%thereo(." (0ad argues that this su0stantiall#alleges plaintiAs prior phsical possession of thepropert# 0efore the dispossession, su:&ient to

&onfer on the "eC ?urisdi&tion over the a&tion. heCourt agrees. he plaintiA in a for&i0le entr# suit isnot reuired to use in his allegations the e7a&tter-inolog# e-plo#ed 0# the rules. It is enoughthat the fa&ts set up in the &o-plaint show thatdispossession too9 pla&e under the reuired&onditions.T!U

It is of &ourse not enough that the allegations ofthe &o-plaint -a9e out a &ase for for&i0le entr#. he plaintiA -ust also 0e a0le to prove hisallegations. @e has to prove that he had priorph#si&al possessionT1U for this gives hi- these&urit# that entitles hi- to re-ain in the propert#until a person with a 0etter right lawfull# e?e&ts

hi-.T$U

@ere, evidentl#, the (0ads did not ta9e ph#si&alpossession of the propert# after 0u#ing the sa-esin&e the# i--ediatel# rented it to eresita whohad alread# 0een using the propert# as a 0oardinghouse. (0ad &lai-s that their renting it to eresitawas an a&t of ownership that a-ounted to theira&uiring full ph#si&al possession of the sa-e.TU

But the (0ads lease agree-ent with eresita0egan onl# in Septe-0er $!!$.T'U Os&ar and Dais#,on the other hand, have proved that the# had 0eenrenting spa&es in the propert# as earl# as $!!1 aseviden&ed 0# re&eipts that the# issued to theirlessees. his was long 0efore the# supposedl#entered the propert#, using for&e, in $!!$.

Of &ourse, (0ad pointed out that the &ited re&eipts&overed rents in a pla&e &alled GDs Condo-iniu-Gin Sa-palo&, "anila, and were onl# -ade toappear through handwritten notations that the#were issued for roo-s in the propert# su0?e&t ofthe suit.TU But a &lose e7a-ination of the re&eiptsshows that GDs Condo-iniu-G was ?ust the na-ethat Dais# e-plo#ed in her 0usiness of rentingroo-s. he re&eipts did not ne&essaril# des&ri0eanother pla&e. Indeed, the# provided 0lan9 spa&esfor des&ri0ing as the su0?e&t of rent the propert#su0?e&t of this &ase. (nd, e7&ept for (0ads 0are&lai- that eresita and his sons had long 0een inpossession 0efore the# sold it to hi- and his wife,he oAered no eviden&e to show that this was in fa&tthe &ase.

(0ad assails as irregularl# issued the 0aranga#&erti;&ation that Os&ar had 0een residing on thesu0?e&t propert# sin&e 1+>=. @e &lai-s that it &ouldhave 0een issued as a -ere favor to a friend, the0aranga# &hair-an having 0een Os&ars &hildhoodpla#-ateT>U But (0ad has no proof of theseallegations. @e has not over&o-e the presu-ptionthat the 0aranga# &hair-an perfor-ed his o:&ial

dut# and a&ted regularl# in issuing su&h&erti;&ation.T=U

5inall#, (0ad argued that with the title to thepropert# in his na-e, he has in his favor the rightto the a&tual, ph#si&al, e7&lusive, &ontinuous, andpea&eful possession of the sa-e. @e pointed outthat his possession %e (acto 0egan fro- the ti-e of the signing and notariation of the deed ofa0solute sale, 0e&o-ing %e Hure on&e the title wasissued in his na-e.T%U

It is of &ourse true that a propert# owner has theright to e7er&ise the attri0utes of ownership, one of whi&h is the right to possess the propert#. But (0ad

is -issing the point. @e is referring to possessionowing fro- ownership whi&h is not in issue in this&ase. Possession in for&i0le entr# &ases -eansnothing -ore than ph#si&al possession orpossession %e (acto, not legal possession in thesense &onte-plated in &ivil law. Onl# prior ph#si&alpossession, not title, is the issue.T+U

5or these reasons, the Court ;nds that Servillanoutterl# failed to prove prior ph#si&al possession inhis favor. he a0sen&e of prior ph#si&al possession0# the plaintiA in a for&i0le entr# warrants thedis-issal of the &o-plaint.T'!U

7-EREFORE, the Court ENIES the petition forreview of petitioner Servillano E. (0adandAFFIRMS in their entiret# the de&ision dated"ar&h %, $!!= and resolution dated 8une 1+, $!!=of the Court of (ppeals in C()*.R. SP +$>1=.G.R. No. 1819 M"r)% 2, 2011

SPS. <ICENTE IONISIO AN ANITAIONISIO, Petitioner,vs.7ILFREO LINSANGAN, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

A:A, J.:

>+



he &ase is a0out a4 a-end-ents in the &o-plaintthat do not alter the &ause of a&tion and 04 theeAe&t in an unlawful detainer a&tion of thetolerated possessors assign-ent of his possessionto the defendant.

T%& F")(' "#$ (%& C"'&

*orgonio ". Cru 3Cru4 owned agri&ultural lands inSan Rafael, Bula&an, that his tenant, Ro-ualdo San"ateo 3Ro-ualdo4 &ultivated. Fpon Ro-ualdosdeath, his widow, E-iliana, got Crus per-issionto sta# on the propert# provided she would va&ateit upon de-and.

In Septe-0er 1+%+ spouses Ji&ente and (nitaDionisio 3the Dionisios4 0ought the propert# fro-Cru.1 In (pril $!!$, the Dionisios found out thatE-iliana had left the propert# and that it wasalread# ilfredo 2insangan 3ilfredo4 whoo&&upied it under the strength of a GQasun%uan ngBilihan ng QarapatanG$ dated (pril =, 1+==.

he Dionisios wrote ilfredo on (pril $$, $!!$,de-anding that he va&ate the land 0ut the latterde&lined, pro-pting the Dionisios to ;le an evi&tionsuit against hi- 0efore the "uni&ipal rial Court3"C4 of San Rafael, Bula&an. ilfredo ;led ananswer with &ounter&lai-s in whi&h he de&laredthat he had 0een a tenant of the land as earl# as1+==.

(t the pre)trial, the Dionisios orall# as9ed leave toa-end their &o-plaint. Despite initial -isgivingsover the a-ended &o-plaint, ilfredo as9ed forti-e to respond to it. he Dionisios ;led their

a-ended &o-plaint on (ugust , $!!H ilfredo-aintained his original answer.

he "C issued a pre)trial order' spe&if#ing theissues. 5or the plaintiAs/ 314 whether or not thedefendant &an 0e e?e&ted fro- the propert# and 3$4whether or not the plaintiAs are entitled toreasona0le rent for the use of the propert#,da-ages, and attorne#s fees. 5or the defendant/314 whether or not the "C has ?urisdi&tion to tr#this &aseH 3$4 whether or not the defendant &an 0ee?e&ted fro- the uestioned propert#H and 34whether or not the defendant is entitled to

da-ages and attorne#s fees.

On "a# , $!!' the "C rendered ?udg-ent,ordering ilfredo to va&ate the land and re-ovehis house fro- it. 5urther, the "C orderedilfredo to pa# the Dionisios P,!!!.!! a -onth asreasona0le &o-pensation for the use of the landand P$!,!!!.!! as attorne#s fees and to pa# the&ost of suit.

On appeal, the Regional rial Court 3RC4 of"alolos, Bula&an, a:r-ed the "C de&ision,holding that the &ase was one for for&i0le entr#. Onreview,> however, the Court of (ppeals 3C(4rendered ?udg-ent on 8ul# >, $!!>, reversing thede&isions of the &ourts 0elow, and ordering the

dis-issal of the Dionisios a&tion. he C( held that,0# a-ending their &o-plaint, the DionisioseAe&tivel# &hanged their &ause of a&tion fro-unlawful detainer to re&over# of possession whi&hfell outside the ?urisdi&tion of the "C. 5urther,sin&e the a-end-ent introdu&ed a new &ause ofa&tion, its ;ling on (ugust , $!! -ar9ed thepassage of the one #ear li-it fro- de-andreuired in e?e&t-ent suits. "ore, sin&e ?urisdi&tionover a&tions for possession depended on the

assessed value of the propert# and sin&e su&hassessed value was not alleged, the C( &annotdeter-ine what &ourt has ?urisdi&tion over thea&tion.

T%& I''+&' Pr&'&#(&$

he issues presented in this &ase are/

1. hether or not the Dionisiosa-end-ent of their &o-plaint eAe&tivel#&hanged their &ause of a&tion fro- one ofe?e&t-ent to one of re&over# of possessionH

and

$. hether or not the "C had ?urisdi&tionover the a&tion 0efore it.

T%& R+li#' o* (%& Co+r(

O#&. (n a-ended &o-plaint that &hanges theplaintiAs &ause of a&tion is te&hni&all# a new&o-plaint. Conseuentl#, the a&tion is dee-ed;led on the date of the ;ling of su&h a-endedpleading, not on the date of the ;ling of its originalversion. hus, the statute of li-itation resu-es its

run until it is arrested 0# the ;ling of the a-endedpleading. he Court a&9nowledges, however, thatan a-end-ent whi&h does not alter the &ause ofa&tion 0ut -erel# supple-ents or a-pli;es thefa&ts previousl# alleged, does not aAe&t there&9oning date of ;ling 0ased on the original&o-plaint. he &ause of a&tion, un&hanged, is not0arred 0# the statute of li-itations that e7piredafter the ;ling of the original &o-plaint.=

@ere, the original &o-plaint alleges that theDionisios 0ought the land fro- Cru on Septe-0er!, 1+%+H that Ro-ualdo used to 0e the lands

tenantH that when he died, the Dionisios allowedhis widow, E-iliana, to sta# under a pro-ise thatshe would leave the land upon de-andH that in(pril $!!$ the Dionisios dis&overed on visit to theland that E-iliana had left it and that ilfredo nowo&&upied it under a &lai- that he 0ought the rightto sta# fro- E-iliana under a Gasunduan ngBilihan ng arapatanHG that the Dionisios did not9now of and gave no &onsent to this sale whi&h hadnot 0een annotated on their titleH that the Dionisiosver0all# told ilfredo to leave the propert# 0# (pril1, $!!$H that their law#er reiterated su&h de-andin writing on (pril $$, $!!$H that ilfredo did notheed the de-andH that the Dionisios wanted to get

possession so the# &ould till the land and de-olishilfredos house on itH that ilfredo did not givethe Dionisios ?ust share in the harvestH and that

=!

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_178159_2011.html#fnt1


















the Dionisios were &o-pelled to get the servi&es of&ounsel for P1!!,!!!.!!.

he a-ended &o-plaint has essentiall# identi&alallegations. he onl# new ones are that theDionisios allowed E-iliana, Ro-ualdos widow tosta# Gout of their 9indness, toleran&e, andgenerosit#HG that the# went to the land in (pril$!!$, after de&iding to o&&up# it, to tell E-iliana of their planH that ilfredo &annot den# that Cru was

the previous registered owner and that he sold theland to the DionisiosH and that a person o&&up#inganothers land 0# the latters toleran&e orper-ission, without &ontra&t, is 0ound 0# ani-plied pro-ise to leave upon de-and, failingwhi&h a su--ar# a&tion for e?e&t-ent is theproper re-ed#.

o deter-ine if an a-end-ent introdu&es adiAerent &ause of a&tion, the test is whether su&ha-end-ent now reuires the defendant to answerfor a lia0ilit# or o0ligation whi&h is &o-pletel#diAerent fro- that stated in the original

&o-plaint.%

@ere, 0oth the original and thea-ended &o-plaint reuired ilfredo to defend hispossession 0ased on the allegation that he hadsta#ed on the land after E-iliana left out of theowners -ere toleran&e and that the latter hadde-anded that he leave. Indeed, ilfredo did not;nd the need to ;le a new answer.

To. ilfredo points out that the "C has no ?urisdi&tion to hear and de&ide the &ase sin&e itinvolved tenan&# relation whi&h &o-es under the ?urisdi&tion of the D(R(B.+ But the ?urisdi&tion ofthe &ourt over the su0?e&t -atter of the a&tion isdeter-ined 0# the allegations of the&o-plaint.1! Besides, the re&ords show thatilfredo failed to su0stantiate his &lai- that hewas a tenant of the land. he "C re&ords showthat aside fro- the assertion that he is a tenant, hedid not present an# eviden&e to prove the sa-e. o&onsider eviden&e presented onl# during appeal isoAensive to the idea of fair pla#.

he re-aining uestion is the nature of the a&tion0ased on the allegations of the &o-plaint. he RC&hara&teried it as an a&tion for for&i0le entr#,ilfredo having entered the propert# and ta9enover fro- widow E-iliana on the sl#. he pro0le-

with this &hara&teriation is that the &o-plaint&ontained no allegation that the Dionisios were inpossession of the propert# 0efore ilfredoo&&upied it either 0# for&e, inti-idation, threat,strateg#, or stealth, an ele-ent of that 9ind ofevi&tion suit.11 Nowhere in the re&itation of thea-ended &o-plaint did the Dionisios assert thatthe# were in prior possession of the land and wereousted fro- su&h possession 0# ilfredos unlawfulo&&upation of the propert#.

Is the a&tion one for unlawful detainer[ (n a&tion isfor unlawful detainer if the &o-plaint su:&ientl#

alleges the following/ 314 initiall#, the defendanthas possession of propert# 0# &ontra&t with or 0#toleran&e of the plaintiAH 3$4 eventuall#, however,

su&h possession 0e&a-e illegal upon plaintiAsnoti&e to defendant, ter-inating the latters rightof possessionH 34 still, the defendant re-ains inpossession, depriving the plaintiA of the en?o#-entof his propert#H and 3'4 within a #ear fro-plaintiAs last de-and that defendant va&ate thepropert#, the plaintiA ;les a &o-plaint fordefendants e?e&t-ent.1$ If the defendant hadpossession of the land upon -ere toleran&e of theowner, su&h toleran&e -ust 0e present at the

0eginning of defendants possession.1

@ere, 0ased on the allegations of the a-ended&o-plaint, the Dionisios allowed E-iliana, tenantRo-ualdos widow, to sta# on the land for the-eanti-e and leave when as9ed to do so. But,without the 9nowledge or &onsent of the Dionisios,she sold her Gright of tenan&#G to ilfredo. henthe Dionisios visited the land in (pril $!!$ andfound ilfredo there, the# de-anded that he leavethe land. he# did so in writing on (pril $$, $!!$0ut he refused to leave. he Dionisios ;led theirevi&tion suit within the #ear.

It is pointed out that the original &o-plaint did notallege that the Dionisios GtoleratedG E-ilianaspossession of the land after her hus0and died,-u&h less did it allege that the# GtoleratedGilfredos possession after he too9 over fro-E-iliana. But the rules do not reuire the plaintiAin an evi&tion suit to use the e7a&t language ofsu&h rules. he Dionisios alleged that Ro-ualdoused to 0e the lands tenant and that when hedied, the Dionisios allowed his widow, E-iliana, tosta# under a pro-ise that she would leave uponde-and. hese allegations &learl# i-pl# theDionisios Gtoleran&eG of her sta# -eanti-e that

the# did not #et need the land.

(s for ilfredo, it is &lear fro- the allegations ofthe &o-plaint that E-iliana assigned to hi- herright to o&&up# the propert#. In fa&t thatassign-ent was in writing. Conseuentl#, his &lai-to the land was 0ased on the Dionisios Gtoleran&eGof the possession of E-iliana and, i-pliedl#, of allpersons &lai-ing right under her.

rue, the GQasun%uan ng Bilihan ng QarapatanGunder whi&h E-iliana transferred her tenan&# rightto ilfredo appears to have 0een e7e&uted in

1+==, #ears 0efore Cru sold the land to theDionisios, i-pl#ing that ilfredo had alread# 0eenin possession of the propert# 0efore the sale. Butwhat is &ontrolling in as&ertaining the ?urisdi&tion of the &ourt are the allegations of the &o-plaint. heDionisios alleged in their &o-plaint that the# werethe ones who allowed E-iliana 3and all persons&lai-ing right under her4 to sta# on the land-eanti-e that the# did not need it. he "C andthe RC gave &reden&e to the Dionisios version. he Court will respe&t their ?udg-ent on a uestionof fa&t.

7-EREFORE, the Court *R(NS the petition,REJERSES and SES (SIDE the De&ision of theCourt of (ppeals in C()*.R. SP +$>' dated 8ul# >,

=1




















$!!>, and REINS(ES the De&ision of the"uni&ipal rial Court of San Rafael, Bula&an, in CivilCase 11>!)SRB)$!! dated "a# , $!!'.

G.R. No. 16341 !+l , 2014

PRO;GUAR SECURIT> SER<ICES

CORPORATION, Petitioner,vs.TORMIL REALT> AN E<ELOPMENTCORPORATION, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

EL CASTILLO, J.:

Contending that it is o0liged to pa# 0a&9 rentalsonl# fro- the ti-e the de-and to va&ate wasserved upon it and not fro- the ti-e it 0egano&&up#ing the disputed pre-ises, petitioner Pro)

*uard Se&urit# Servi&es Corporation 3Pro*uard4see9s re&ourse to this Court.

his is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 of theSepte-0er >, $!!> De&ision$ of the Court of(ppeals 3C(4 in C()*.R. SP No. %%>= whi&h deniedthe Petition for Review ;led therewith 0# Pro)*uardas one of the petitioners. 2i9ewise assailed is theC(s 8anu]l4 $, $!!= Resolution den#ing the-otion for re&onsideration thereto.

5a&tual (nte&edents

On 8ul# $', 1+%', "anuel (.orres, 8r.,3"anuel4assigned to respondent or-il Realt# andDevelop-ent Corporation 3or-il4 three par&els ofland lo&ated in Pasa# Cit#and all the i-prove-entsthereon in e7&hange for shares of sto&9 in the said&orporation.' Despite the assign-ent, however,title to the real properties re-ained in "anuelsna-e as he neither registered the transa&tion inthe Registr# of Deeds nor provided or-il thene&essar# do&u-ents to have the titles over theproperties transferred inits na-e. 2ater,"anuelunilaterall# revo9ed the transa&tion.

Su0seuentl#, "anuel, together with two otherpersons, one of who- is Edgardo Pa0alan3Edgardo4, esta0lished orres Pa0alan Realt#,In&orporated 3orres)Pa0alan4. (s part of his &apital&ontri0ution, "anuelassigned the sa-e aforesaidpar&els of land to orres)Pa0alan.In the -eanti-e,&onstru&tion of the orres Building on the su0?e&treal properties was &o-pleted in1+% and its unitsrented out. Edgardo, who was also then the*eneral "anager and (d-inistrator of or-il, a&tedas the 0uilding ad-inistrator and o&&upied the $nd oor. @e later resigned fro- his position inor-ilin Septe-0er 1+%>.

In "ar&h 1+%=, or-il ;led a &ase 0efore theSe&urities and E7&hange Co--ission 3SEC4do&9eted as SEC Case No. 1 3SEC &ase4 to

&o-pel "anuel to ful;ll his o0ligation 0# turningover the do&u-ents ne&essar# to eAe&t theregistration and transfer of titles in its na-e of theproperties assigned to it 0# "anuel.

"eanwhile, Edgardo &ontinued to a&tas thead-inistrator of orres Building allegedl# on 0ehalfof orres)Pa0alan. @e then set up in O&to0er 1+%+ alaw o:&e 3law o:&e4 with (tt#. (ugustus Cesar(ura 3(ugustus4 in the $ nd oor of the 0uilding.

orres Building was thereafter de&lared 0# orres)Pa0alan for ta7 purposes.>

On "ar&h >, 1++1, the SEC rendered ?udg-ent infavor of or-il,= and this was later a:r-ed 0# theSEC en 0an&.% "anuel appealed to the C(. Duringthe penden&# thereof, Pro)*uard entered into anagree-ent with Edgardo in "ar&h 1++' for therentof a unit in the rd oor of orres Building. (spa#-ent, Pro)*uard was to provide se&urit#servi&esto orres)Pa0alan. Su0seuentl#, theC(,+ and later this Court,1! upheld the ruling in theSEC &ase su&h that it 0e&a-e ;nal and e7e&utor#

on De&e-0er 1$, 1++=.11

B# O&to0er 1++%, notonl# were the titles to the su0?e&t par&els of landregistered in or-ils na-e,1$ 0ut also the ta7de&laration over the orres Building.1

On Nove-0er , 1++%, or-il sent letters1' toEdgardo and (ugustus 3for the law o:&e4 and Pro)*uard as9ing the- to validate theirpossessionenter into a lease &ontra&t with or-iland at the sa-e ti-e settle their past and &urrentrentals. Sin&e these letters were ignored, or-il, onNove-0er 1>, 1++% sent the- separate de-andsto va&ate the pre-ises and pa# the -onthl#rentalof P$!,!!!.!! fro- the ti-e of theiro&&upation thereof untilthe sa-e are a&tuall#turned over to or-il.1 (s these were unheeded, or-il asserting right of possession 0ased on itsownership of the Pasa# properties, ;led 0efore thePasa# Cit# "etropolitan rial Court 3"eC4 separatee?e&t-ent suits against Edgardo and (ugustus, andPro)*uard1> whi&h were ra<ed to Bran&h''. he&ases were later on &onsolidated. In its &o-plaints, or-il stated that it dee-ed prudent to have theownership issue over the pre-ises resolved ;rst inthe SEC &ase 0efore it ;led the e?e&t-ent &ases inorder to prevent &o-pli&ation. It thus averred thatthe o&&upan&# 0# defendants of units in orres

Building pending resolution of the SEC Case wasout of toleran&e.

Edgardo and (ugustus disputed or-ils ownershipof the par&els of land where the 0uilding standsand asserted that orres)Pa0alan was the owner ofthe sa-e. It was also the onewho funded the0uildings &onstru&tion. Fnfortunatel#, its ta7de&larations over the 0uilding weresurreptitiousl#and unlawfull# &an&elled on the sole0asis of the SEC Case. Pro)*uard, for its part,&lai-ed that it was pa#ing rentals to theowner,orres)Pa0alan, in the for- of se&urit#servi&es provided to the latter. It li9ewise &alledattention to the fa&t that it was no longer in thepre-ises as or-il for&i0l# ousted ittherefro-.

=$






































Ruling of the "etropolitan rial Court

he "eC ad?udged that or-il has proven its rightto possess the propert#. Said &ourt 0rushed asidethe &lai- that orres)Pa0alan owns the 0uildingsin&e its SEC Certi;&ate of Registration was alread#&an&elled, and that the &onstru&tion of the 0uildingwas &o-pleted in 8ul# 1+% or prior to the ti-esaid &orporation was in&orporated in Septe-0er1+%>. 5inding the defendants o&&upan&# of the

units as onl# upon or-ils toleran&e, the "eC&on&luded that their possession 0e&a-e unlawfulwhen or-il de&ided to assert its right of ownershipover the 0uilding after the ruling in the SEC &asewas upheld with ;nalit# 0# this Court.

hus, in its 8une $%, 1+++ De&ision,1= the "eCordered Edgardo and (ugustus to va&ate the unitthe# possessed, as well as topa# attorne#s feesand &osts. ith respe&t to Pro)*uard, it ad?udged/

$. ordering defendant Pro)*uard Se&urit#Servi&es Corporation and all persons

&lai-ing rights under TitU to va&ate andsurrender possession of Fnit ", rd 5loor, orres Building, 1= Buendia E7t., Sen. *ilPu#at (venue, Pasa# Cit#H

7 7 7 7

'. ordering defendant Pro)*uard Se&urit#Servi&es Corp. to pa# Tor-ilU the fair andreasona0le rental of the pre-ises TinU thea-ount of P$!,!!!.!! per -onth with legalinterest fro- 8une, 1++ until the pre-isesis full# va&atedH1%

Contending that or-il has no right to possess the0uilding, the defendants appealed to the Regional rial Court 3RC4 of Pasa# Cit# and the sa-e wasra<ed to Bran&h 1!+ thereof. In the -eanti-e,Pro)*uard infor-ed the "eC that it had alread#va&ated the pre-ises as earl# as"ar&h $!, 1+++.1+

Ruling of the Regional rial Court

In its De&ision$! dated De&e-0er 1,1+++, the RCdid not ;nd -erit in the appeal, vi/

In view of the foregoing and pursuant to severalde&isionTsU of the Supre-e Court and the provisionof Rule =! of the Revised Rules of Court to theeAe&t TthatU the o&&upan&# and possession of thesu0?e&t pre-ises 0# the defendants)appellants0e&a-e illegal when the# failed and refused toheed the de-and letters of herein plaintiA)appelleeto va&ate the sa-e and surrender possessionpea&efull#, the Court ;nds no &ogent reason toreverse the de&ision of the trial &ourt and here0#a:r-s the sa-e IN OO.

SO ORDERED.$1

On appeal to the C(, Edgardo, (ugustus and Pro)*uard reiterated their argu-ents on orres)

Pa0alans ownership of the 0uilding and on its rightto possess it.

Ruling of the Court of (ppeals

he C( ad?udged or-il tohave su:&ientl# provenits &ase for unlawful detainer. It held that 0ased onits orrens titles over the su0?e&t par&els of landand the ta7 de&larations over the 0uilding thereon, or-il has the right to possess the disputedproperties. It de0un9ed the &lai- of Edgardo,(ugustus and Pro)*uard that the ta7 de&larationsin or-ils na-eare invalid, ratio&inating that theirissuan&e 0# the Cit#(ssessor are presu-ed to have0een regularl# perfor-ed.

Flti-atel#, the C( denied the petition and a:r-edthe RC De&ision,$$ vi/

@ERE5ORE, PRE"ISESCONSIDERED, @E Petitionis DENIED DFE COFRSE and ordered DIS"ISSED forla&9 of -erit. he De&ision dated 1 De&e-0er1+++ and Order dated !$ "a# $!!! of the Regional rial Court of Pasa# Cit#, Bran&h 1!+ in Civil CaseNos. ++)!>1% V ++)T!>1+U are here0# (55IR"ED.Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.$

In as9ing for a re&onsideration, one aspe&t whi&hEdgardo, (ugustus and Pro)*uard o0?e&ted to wasthe order for the- to pa# P$!,!!!.!! -onthl#rental and the re&9oning point of pa#-ent. Pro)*uard, in its Supple-ental "otion forRe&onsideration,$' argued that the C( shouldhave-odi;ed the RC ?udg-ent 0# re&9oning the

pa#-ent fro- the date of or-ils noti&e to va&ate.

he C( found no reason to reverse its ?udg-ent,$ i-pelling Pro)*uard to elevate the&ase to this Court.

Issue

@E@ER @E TC(U ERRED @EN I (55IR"ED @EDECISION O5 @E T"ECU (ND @E TRCU ON @E((RD O5 @E T"ECU IN RECONIN* @E D(EO5P(L"EN O5 REN(2S IN @E ("OFNO5 P$!,!!!.!! PER "ON@ I@ 2E*(2 INERES5RO" 8FNE 1++ FNI2 @E PRE"ISES IS 5F22LJ(C(ED CONR(RL O PREJ(I2IN* 2( (ND 8FRISPRFDENCE.$>

Parties (rgu-ents

Pro)*uard stresses that the C( erred in a:r-ingthe lower &ourts award of P$!,!!!.!! -onthl#rental re&9oned fro- the ti-e it o&&upied the unit.It &ontends that it &annot 0e 0la-ed if it relied onthe representations of orresPa0alan when itentered into a lease &ontra&t with it, the latter0eing then in possession of the 0uilding. Pro)*uard

-aintains that in an# &ase, it owes no unpaidrentals to or-il for the entire period of its sta# inthe 0uilding out of or-ils toleran&e. On the other

=


























hand, or-il argues that Pro)*uards sta# \out oftoleran&e does not 0ar it fro- &lai-ing arrearsfro- the ti-e the latter o&&upied a unit in the0uilding. It &ontends that the de-and to va&atewas not for the purpose of &ounting the re&9oningperiod for pa#-ent of rental arrears, 0ut onl# forthe purpose of &ounting the pres&riptive period to;le a &ase for unlawful detainer. Besides, Pro)*uards rentalpa#-ents to orres)Pa0alan were notvalid as the latter was not its

authoriedrepresentative. o it, Pro)*uard, full#aware of the pending legal dispute 0etween or-iland orres)Pa0alan, should have &onsigned therental pa#-ents.

It would appear that Pro)*uard no longer i-pugnsthe unifor- rulings of the "eC, RC, and C(, onthe right of or-il to possessthe su0?e&t pre-ises. he onl# uestion it 0rought 0efore this Court iswhen to re&9on its rental pa#-ents.

Our Ruling

hile indeed or-il, as the vi&tor inthe unlawfuldetainer suit, is entitled to the fair rental value forthe use and o&&upation of the unit in the 0uilding,su&h &o-pensation should not 0e re&9oned fro-the ti-e Pro)*uard 0egan to o&&up# the sa-e, 0utfro- the ti-e of the de-and to va&ate. GInunlawful detainer &ases, the defendant isne&essaril# in prior lawful possession of thepropert# 0ut his possession eventuall# 0e&o-esunlawful upon ter-ination or e7piration of his rightto possess.G$= In other words, the entr# is legal 0utthe possession thereafter 0e&a-e illegal.(dditionall#, the Rules of Court reuires the ;ling of su&h a&tion within a #ear after the withholding ofpossession,$% -eaning that Gif the dispossessionhas not lasted for -ore than one #ear, TthenU ane?e&t-ent pro&eeding 3in this &ase unlawfuldetainer4 is proper 7 7 7.G$+ @ere, fro- the -o-entPro)*uard started to o&&up# the unit in "ar&h 1++'up to Nove-0er 1, 1++%, the right ofPro)*uard topossess the pre-ises was not &hallenged. It wasonl# after or-il prevailed over "anuel in itsownership of the sa-e that it ter-inated Pro)*uards right to possess the unit it was o&&up#ingthrough a letter to va&ate dated Nove-0er 1>,1++%. @en&e, it is onl# fro- that point that or-il is&onsidered to have withdrawn its toleran&e of Pro)

*uards o&&upation. Conversel#, Pro)*uardspossession 0e&a-e unlawful at that sa-e -o-ent. his is supported 0# the allegation in the &o-plaintfor e?e&t-ent that or-il initiated the sa-e not0e&ause of non)pa#-ent of rentals, 0ut 0e&ause ofwithdrawal oftoleran&e. oleran&e or GTtUolerationisde;ned as \the a&t or pra&ti&e ofper-itting orenduring so-ething not wholl# approvedof,G! while tolerated a&ts are Gthose whi&h 0#reason of neigh0orliness or fa-iliarit#, the owner of the propert# allowshis neigh0or or another personto do on the propert#H the# are generall# thoseparti&ular servi&es or 0ene;ts whi&h ones propert#&an give to another without -aterial in?ur# or

pre?udi&e to the owner, who per-itsthe- out offriendship or &ourtes#.G1

ith regard to the eAe&ts of withdrawal oftoleran&e, it is settled that/

7 7 7 ( person who o&&upies the land ofanother atthe latters toleran&e or per-ission, without an#&ontra&t 0etween the-, is ne&essaril# 0ound 0# ani-plied pro-ise that he will va&ate upon de-and,failing whi&h a su--ar# a&tion for e?e&t-ent is theproper re-ed# against hi-. @is status is analogousto that of a lessee or tenant whose ter- of lease

has e7pired 0ut whose o&&upan&# &ontinued 0#toleran&e of the owner. In su&h a &ase, the date ofunlawful deprivation or withholding of possessionisto 0e &ounted fro- the date of the de-and tova&ate.$

hus, in Sps. 8i-ene v. Patri&ia, In&., the lessorended its toleran&e of the su0lessees o&&upationof the propert# and de-anded that the# va&ate thepre-ises on "ar&h $+, 1++. e upheld thee?e&t-ent of the su0lessees and ordered the- topa# -onthl# rentals 0eginning (pril 1++ until the#va&ate the pre-ises. Indeed, it is in&onsistent to

de-and pa#-ent of rentals during the period oftoleran&e.

In&identall#, or-il -entioned that Pro)*uard iso0liged to &onsign the pa#-ent of rentals. Onelegal &ause for &onsignation is when two ot -orepersons &lai- the sa-e right to &olle&t.' Jarious&lai-ants to a de0tors pa#-ent -ust have theappearan&e of a right to &olle&t su&h that thede0tor would have a reasona0le dou0t, not 0asedon negligen&e, as to who is entitled to thepa#-ent.

hether Pro)*uard was indeed aware of the legaldispute then pending 0efore the SEC andsu0seuentl# 0efore the &ourts is of no -o-ent.hen the dispute regarding the validit# of"anuelsassign-ent to onnil of the realties was pending0efore the SEC, or-il did not &lai- to Pro)*uardthat it is the true owner of the pre-ises. It neithersought pa#-ent of rentals whi&h it now &lai-s Pro)*uard should have &onsigned during the penden&#of its suit against "anuel. (s su&h, fro- theviewpoint of Pro)*uard, the lease &ontra&tre-ained to 0e then 0etween it and orres)Pa0alan. he latter was o&&up#ing and running the 0uilding,as eviden&ed 0# several ta7 de&larations in its

na-e whi&h, while not &on&lusive proofs ofownership, nevertheless, are good indi&ia ofpossession in the &on&ept of owner.> "oreover,Edgardo, who &lai-ed to a&t on 0ehalf of orresPa0alan, ad-inistered the pre-ises. Pro)*uard is not per-itted to den# the title of hislandlord at the ti-e of the &o--en&e-ent of therelation of landlord and tenant 0etween the-.=

='




























@ERE5ORE, the instant Petition is *R(NED. heassailed De&ision and Resolution of the Court of(ppeals in C()*.R. No. SP %%>= are "ODI5IED inthat Pro)*uard is to pa# for the fair and reasona0lerental of the pre-ises in the a-ount of P$!,!!!.!!per -onth with legal interest 0eginning Nove-0er1>, 1++% up to the ti-e that the pre-ises are full#va&ated.

G.R. No. 1280 !"#+"r 26, 1998

MARIA ARCAL, !OSEFINA ARCAL, MARCIANAARCAL, "#$ <IRGILIO ARCAL, petitioners,vs.COURT OF APPEALS, ANILO :UCAL, COSTAN LETT> RICAFRENTE, RENIE CEN>RICAFRENTE, SANC-O "#$ LANIERICAFRENTE, CORA GONEH, SOLL> GONEH,ENIE "#$ FLORIA RICAFRENTE, CARMENTAM:OC, :O> AGUILAR, NORMING ARCAL,NORA "#$ ALEK :OCITA, EL<IE TA-IMIC,ANC-ANG ARGUSON, IRENG "#$ !ULIAARGUSON, LIHA ARGUSON, ACION ARGUSON,

:ALENG "#$ FEL> ARGUSON, FIENG "#$CILENG MURANIA, ROSIE "#$ ALO CALAGO,ENGA> "#$ S-IRLE> RICAFRENTE, NENITA "#$NARSING AGUILAR, OIE OHA, NENENG "#$RAMON LUNGCA>, TISA> "#$ A:ET ONES, >OLL> "#$ E PAULINO, ERIC "#$ !ENNIFERPAULINO, C-ARLIE PANGANI:AN, ELIA "#$PATRICIO :UEHA, ELLEN UEHA, :ERTING "#$NORMA :UEHA, ALICE "#$ PILO RICAFRENTE,ELL> "#$ FREO NUNEH, ANRO "#$ ELLEN !IMENEH, CRISELA "#$ GORIO CLARETE,NENA <ELASCO, ANN> CLARETE, ERLIN "#$NONONG I:ONG, C-ITA "#$ RESTIE RE>ES,SONN> "#$ ONG RE>ES, "#$ 7ALL> "#$

AIS> RE>ES, respondents.

=APUNAN, J.:

his petition see9s the review of thede&ision of the Court of (ppeals in C()*.R.SP No. '!%$' dated Nove-0er 1, 1++>and its Resolution dated 8anuar# 1, 1++=.

Petitioners as plaintiAs ;led on (ugust 1,

1++ a &o-plaint for unlawful detainerdo&9eted as Civil Case No. =! 0efore the"uni&ipal rial Court of ana, Caviteagainst private respondents as defendants.Su0?e&t of the &o-plaint was a $1,'suare -eter par&el of land designated as2ot No. =%! of the Santa Cru de "ala0onEstate Su0division, Cavite and &overed 0# ransfer Certi;&ate of itle No. $>$== in thena-es of "aria, 8ose;na, "ar&iana and"ar&elina 1 (r&al. 2

he &o-plaint alleged, a-ong others, that/

. Defendants herein o&&upied thesu0?e&t par&el of land des&ri0ed

a0ove thru plaintiAs i-pliedtoleran&e, or per-ission 0utwithout &ontra&t with hereinplaintiAs. 5ro- the dates of theiro&&upan&#, plaintiAs did not &olle&tan# single &entavo fro-defendants, nor the latter pa# toplaintiAs an# rental for theiro&&upan&# thereinH

>. On 8une 1%, 1+%', plaintiAsherein, e7&ept Jirgilio (r&al, ;ledan e?e&t-ent suit againstsu0stantiall# all of defendantsherein with the "uni&ipal rialCourt of ana, Cavite, do&9eted asCivil Case No. $% &overing thesu0?e&t par&el of land in dispute/

=. "eanwhile, on Septe-0er 1%,T1+%'U, 3 2u&io (rvisu the allegedson of *auden&io (rvisu andNatalia Ri&afrente (rvisu, and

su0stantiall# all defendants herein;led with the Regional rial Court,Bran&h $, re&e "artires, Cavite, a&ivil &ase for G(nnul-ent of itle,with Re&onve#an&e and Da-agesGagainst Salud (r&al (r0olante,"ar&elina (r&al 3de&eased4, "aria(r&al, 8ose;na (r&al and "ar&iana(r&al whi&h was do&9eted as CivilCase No. ")+. Defendantstherein, plaintiAs herein, ;led their(nswer with Co-pulsor#Counter&lai-. On "a# $%,T1+%U, 4 the said &o-plaint was

ordered to 0e dis-issed 0# the trial&ourt for failure to prose&ute. . . .(n appeal was -ade to the Courtof (ppeals 0ut in the resolution ofthe latter Court pro-ulgated onNove-0er $%, 1+%>, said appealwas &onsidered a0andoned anddis-issed for failure of appellantsto ;le their 0rief. . . .

%. Dissatis;ed therefro-, on "ar&h1!, 1+%=, 2u&io Ri&afrente (rvisu,one of the plaintiAs in the

i--ediatel# &ited Civil Case No. ")+, ;led another &ase forGRegistration of Clai- FnderSe&tion %, R( $>G, entitled G2u&io R.(rvisu vs. "ar&elina (r&al3de&eased4, "aria (r&al, 8ose;na(r&al, "ar&iana (r&al, and theRegister of Deeds of re&e "artiresCit#G, do&9eted as Civil Case No. ")1'> 0efore the Regional rialCourt of Bran&h $, re&e "artiresCit#. Private respondent therein;led a "otion to Dis-iss 0asi&all#on the ground of la&9 of &ause of

a&tion and res a%Hu%icata. In theOrder of the trial &ourt dated 8ul#$$, 1+%%, the &o-plaint ;led 0#

=



2u&io (rvisu was dis-issed thoughhe thereafter ;led an appeal withthe Court of (ppeals. . . . H

+. ith regard to the e?e&t-ent suit;led 0# plaintiAs herein, e7&eptJirgilio (r&al, with the "uni&ipal rial Court of ana, Cavite, thesaid &ourt rendered a favora0le ?udg-ent in favor of plaintiAs

ordering defendants therein,a-ong others, to va&ate thepropert# in uestion and re-overesidential houses andi-prove-ents introdu&ed thereinand return the possession thereofto plaintiAs. . . . Fnfortunatel#, onappeal with the RC, Bran&h $, re&e "artires Cit#, 0# defendantstherein, the foregoing de&ision wasreversed and set aside, and thesaid &o-plaint for e?e&t-ent wasdis-issed without pre?udi&e to the

;ling of the proper a&tion after thepre?udi&ial uestion in Civil CaseNo. ")1'> is resolved in a fair andadversar# pro&eeding. Saidde&ision attained ;nalit# for failureof plaintiAs for-er &ounsel tointerpose an appeal. . . . H

1!. Fpon the other hand, thede&ision in Civil Case No. ") 1'>whi&h dis-issed the petition of2u&io (rvisu was sustained 0# theCourt of (ppeals in its De&isionpro-ulgated on O&to0er $%,

1++'. . . H

11. Several de-ands were -ade0# plaintiAs for defendants tova&ate the pre-ises in uestion,the last written de-and was -ade0# plaintiAs law#er on 8ul# $,1++, 0ut the# proved futile asthe# refused and failed, and stillrefuse and fail to va&ate thepre-ises, to the da-age andpre?udi&e of plaintiAs . . . .

Private respondents failed to ;le theiranswer within the regle-entar# period,pro-pting petitioners to ;le a -otion torender ?udg-ent. In a De&ision datedO&to0er $>, 1++, the -uni&ipal trial &ourtheld that petitioners are registered ownersof the propert# and as su&h the# have theright to en?o# possession thereof. hedispositive position of the de&ision reads/

herefore, ;nding the allegationsof the plaintiAs to 0e with -erits3sic4, ?udg-ent is here0# rendered

in favor of the plaintiAs ordering allthe defendants . . . /

1. o va&ate the propert# inuestion whi&h the# are o&&up#ingH

$. o re-ove their residentialhouses and i-prove-entintrodu&e3d4 therein and return thepossession of the lot to theplaintiA3s4H

. o pa# the plaintiAs the su- ofP$!!.!! as -onthl# rental for theuse and o&&up#ing 3sic4 of thepropert# fro- the date of thede-and letter -ade 0# theplaintiA3s4H

'. o pa# plaintiAs the su- ofP$!,!!!.!! 0# wa# of attorne#sfees and P,!!!.!! as litigatione7pensesH and

. Ordering the &ost of suit.

On appeal, the Regional rial Court ofCavite, Bran&h $, a:r-ed in toto the-uni&ipal trial &ourts de&ision.6

Private respondents ;led a petition forreview with the Court of (ppeals,arguing inter alia that Gthe respondent trial&ourt erred in not dis-issing the &ase forla&9 of ?urisdi&tion, the &o-plaint 0eing onefor re&over# of right of possession.G

he appellate &ourt, ruling in favor ofprivate respondents, granted the petition,reversed and set aside the de&ision of thetrial &ourt and dis-issed Civil Case No.=!. 8

In &onsidering that the &o-plaint was notone for unlawful detainer, adverting thatprivate respondents had previousl# ;led&o-plaints uestioning petitionersownership of the land, the appellate &ourt-ade the following disuisitions/

In &o--en&ing this suit forunlawful detainer, privaterespondents are 0an9ing on theirallegation that the# -erel#tolerated petitioners to sta# on thepre-ises in uestion, 0ut whi&htoleran&e the# alread# withdrew on 8ul# $, 1++. @owever, the otherallegations and ad-issions ofprivate respondents in their&o-plaint would show that the&ase is not one of unlawful detaineras petitioners did not a&tuall#o&&up# the su0?e&t propert# uponthe toleran&e of private

respondents.

=>





he ?urisdi&tion of the &ourt, as well as thenature of the a&tion, are deter-ined 0# theaver-ents in the &o-plaint. 11 e e7a-inethe allegations of the &o-plaint ;led 0#petitioners 0efore the -uni&ipal trial &ourt.

o give the &ourt ?urisdi&tion to eAe&t thee?e&t-ent of an o&&upant or defor&iant onthe land, it is ne&essar# that the &o-plaintshould e-0od# su&h a state-ent of fa&ts

as 0rings the part# &learl# within the &lassof &ases for whi&h the statutes provide are-ed#, as these pro&eedings aresu--ar# in nature. he &o-plaint -ustshow enough on its fa&e to give the &ourt ?urisdi&tion without resort to paroltesti-on#. 12

5ro- a reading of the allegations of the&o-plaint uoted a0ove, we ;nd that thea&tion is one for unlawful detainer.

Petitioners alleged in their &o-plaint that

the# are the registered owners of thesu0?e&t propert#. he &ases ;led 0# a&ertain 2u&io (rvisu and several of theprivate respondents &asting dou0t onpetitioners ownership of the propert#,na-el# Civil Case No. ")+ for(nnul-ent of itle, with Re&onve#an&eand Da-ages and Civil Case No. ")1'>for Registration of Clai- Fnder Se&tion %,R.(. No. $>, were resolved with ;nalit#adverse to private respondents. 13

Petitioners also alleged in the &o-plaint

that the possession of the propert# 0#private respondents was with petitionerstoleran&e, 14 and that the# 3petitioners4 hadserved written de-ands upon privaterespondents, the latest de-and 0eing on 8ul# $, 1++, 0ut that private respondentsrefused to va&ate the propert#. 1

he appellate &ourt, however, -ade the&on&lusion that fro- the allegations in the&o-plaint, it &an 0e gleaned that privaterespondents Gdid not a&tuall# o&&up# thesu0?e&t propert# upon the toleran&e ofTpetitionersUG, 16 as toleran&e waswithdrawn so-eti-e in 1+%' whende-ands to va&ate were -ade on privaterespondents prior to the &o--en&e-ent of Civil Case No. $%H therefore, unlawfuldetainer is not the proper re-ed#.

e disagree with the appellate &ourt.

he rule is that possession 0# toleran&e islawful, 0ut su&h possession 0e&o-esunlawful upon de-and to va&ate -ade 0#the owner and the possessor 0# toleran&erefuses to &o-pl# with su&h de-and. 1 (

person who o&&upies the land of another atthe latters toleran&e or per-ission,without an# &ontra&t 0etween the-, is

ne&essaril# 0ound 0# an i-plied pro-isethat he will va&ate upon de-and, failingwhi&h, a su--ar# a&tion for e?e&t-ent isthe proper re-ed# against hi-. he statusof the possessor is analogous to that of alessee or tenant whose ter- of lease hase7pired 0ut whose o&&upan&# &ontinued 0#toleran&e of the owner. In su&h &ase, theunlawful deprivation or withholding ofpossession is to 0e &ounted fro- the date

of the de-and to va&ate. 18

he ;ling of the ;rst e?e&t-ent &ase, CivilCase No. $%, in 1+%' signi;ed thatpetitioners sought the ouster of privaterespondents fro- possession of thepropert#. Pro&eedings in the &ase werehowever suspended with the ;ling of CivilCase No. ")+ for G(nnul-ent of itle withRe&onve#an&e and Da-agesG 0# 2u&io(rvisu and several of privaterespondents. 19 Civil Case No. ")+ waseventuall# dis-issed and the ?udg-ent of

dis-issal attained ;nalit#.

20

he e?e&t-ent&ase was later resolved in favor ofpetitioners, 0ut on appeal, the &ase wasdis-issed on 8ul# >, 1++$ Gwithoutpre?udi&e to the ;ling of the proper a&tionafter the pre?udi&ial uestion in Civil CaseNo. ")1'> T;led 0# 2u&io (rvisu againstpetitioners following the dis-issal of CivilCase No. ")+U is resolved in a fair andadversar# pro&eeding.G 21 Civil Case No. ")1'> whi&h also sought the annul-entof petitioners title to the propert#, waseventuall# resolved against privaterespondents on O&to0er $%, 1++'. 22

Be&ause of the penden&# of the &asesinvolving ownership, the pro&eedings in the;rst e?e&t-ent &ase were suspended.Petitioners &ould not 0ut await the out&o-eof these &ases and preserve the statusquo in the -eanti-e these were pending.(s the Court has stated/

In giving re&ognition to the a&tionof for&i0le entr# and detainer thepurpose of the law is to prote&t theperson who in fa&t has a&tual

possessionH and in &ase of&ontroverted right, it reuires theparties to preserve the statusquo until one or the other of the-sees ;t to invo9e the de&ision of a&ourt of &o-petent ?urisdi&tionupon the uestion of ownership. Itis o0viousl# ?ust that the personwho has ;rst a&uired possessionshould re-ain in possessionpending this de&isionH and theparties &annot 0e per-itted-eanwhile to engage in a pett#warfare over the possession of the

propert# whi&h is the su0?e&t of thedispute. o per-it this would 0ehighl# dangerous to individual

=%



se&urit# and distur0ing to so&ialorder. herefore, where a personsupposes hi-self to 0e the ownerof a pie&e of propert# and desiresto vindi&ate his ownership againstthe part# a&tuall# in possession, itis in&u-0ent upon hi- to institutean a&tion to this end in a &ourt of&o-petent ?urisdi&tionH and he&annot 0e per-itted, 0# invading

the propert# and e7&luding thea&tual possessor, to pla&e upon thelatter the 0urden of instituting ana&tion to tr# the propert# right. 23

he pro&eedings involving ownership of thesu0?e&t propert# too9 all of ten #ears. hrough all these ten #ears, petitioners,giving due respe&t to the ?udi&ial pro&ess,allowed the -atter of ownership to 0ethreshed out, without &reating an#distur0an&e whatsoever on privaterespondents possession.

he &o-plaint alleges that after theter-ination of the se&ond &ase ;led 0#2u&io (rvisu in 1++', petitioners sentwritten de-ands upon privaterespondents, the last 0eing on 8ul# $,1++. 24 he rule is that a &o-plaint forunlawful detainer -ust 0e ;led within one#ear fro- de-and, de-and 0eing ?urisdi&tional. 2 his one)#ear period is&ounted fro- the lastde-and. 26 Petitioners letters of de-andpre&eded the ;ling of the &o-plaint withthe -uni&ipal trial &ourt on (ugust 1,

1++.

(n unlawful detainer suit involves solel#the issue of ph#si&al or -aterial possessionover the propert# or possession %e (acto,that is, who 0etween the plaintiA and thedefendant has a 0etter right to possess thepropert# in uestion. 2 here, however,the issue is who has the 0etter and legalright to possess or to who- possession %e Hure pertains, accion publiciana isproper. 28 In the &ase at 0ar, petitioners&o-plaint for unlawful detainer was

&on;ned to re&over# of %e (acto or ph#si&alpossession of the propert# and wasresorted to after private respondents hadindu0ita0l# failed in their suits assailingpetitioners right of ownership.

Nota0l#, inferior &ourts retain ?urisdi&tionover e?e&t-ent &ases even if the defendantraises the uestion of ownership and theuestion of possession &annot 0e resolvedwithout de&iding provisionall# the issue ofownership. 29 ( &ontrar# rule would pavethe wa# for the defendant to trie with thee?e&t-ent suit, whi&h is su--ar# innature, as he &ould easil# defeat the sa-ethrough the si-ple e7pedient of asserting

ownership. 30 (lso, the issue of ownershipraised in a separate &ase, su&h asan accion publiciana or an a&tion foruieting of title, 31 is not pre?udi&ial to ane?e&t-ent suit and does not a0ate thee?e&t-ent &ase.

In Lilman Auto Suppl Corporation, etal., vs. Court o( Appeals, et al., the Court,spea9ing through Chief 8usti&e Narvasa,

enu-erated the &ases whi&h should not 0eregarded as pre?udi&ial to an e?e&t-entsuit/

1. nHunction suits instituted in theRC 0# defendants in e?e&t-enta&tions in the -uni&ipal trial &ourtsor other &ourts of the ;rst level3Na&orda v. Lat&o, 1= SCR( +$!T1+>>U do not a0ate the latter, andneither do pro&eedings on&onsignation of rentals 32i- Si v.2i-, +% Phil. %>% T1+>U, &iting Pue,

et al. v. *onales, %= Phil. %1T1+!U.

$. (n Gaccion publicianaG does notsuspend an e?e&t-ent suit againstthe plaintiA in the for-er 3Ra-irev. Blea, 1!> SCR( 1%= T1+%1U.

. ( G*rit o( possession caseGwhere ownership is &on&ededl# theprin&ipal issue 0efore the Regional rial Court does not pre&lude nor0ar the e7e&ution of the ?udg-ent

in an unlawful detainer suit wherethe onl# issue involved is the-aterial possession orpossession %e (acto of the pre-ises3heirs of 5. *u0alla, Sr., v. C.(., 1>%SCR( 1+ T1+%%U.

'. (n action (or quieting o( title tothe propert# is not a 0ar to ane?e&t-ent suit involving the sa-epropert# 3Qui-po v. de la Ji&toria,'> SCR( 1+ T1+=$U.

. Suits (or speciGc per(ormance*ith %amages do not aAe&te?e&t-ent a&tions 3e.g., to &o-pelrenewal of a lease &ontra&t43Desa-ito v. Cu#eg9eng, 1% SCR(11%' T1+>>UH Pardo de avera v.En&arna&ion, $$ SCR( >$ T1+>%UHRosales v. C5I, 1' SCR( 1T1+%=UH Co--ander Realt#, In&. v.C.(., 1>1 SCR( $>' T1+%%UH

>. (n action (or re(ormation o(instrument 3e.g., fro- deed ofa0solute sale to one of sale

with pacto %e retro4 does notsuspend an e?e&t-ent suit 0etween

=+



the sa-e parties 38udith v.(0ragan, >> SCR( >!! T1+=U.

=. (n action (or reconveance o( propert or Gaccion reivin%icatoriaGalso has no eAe&t on e?e&t-entsuits regarding the sa-e propert#3Del Rosario v. 8i-ene, % SCR( '+T1+>UH Salinas v. Navarro, 1$>SCR( 1>=H De la Cru v. C.(., 1

SCR( $! T1+%'UH Drilon v.*aurana, 1'+ SCR( $ T1+%=UHChing v. "ala#a, 1 SCR( '1$T1+%=UH Philippine 5eeds "illing Co.,In&. v. C.(., 1=' SCR( 1=' SCR(1!%, Dante v. Sison, 1=' SCR( 1=T1+%+UH *u-an v. C.(. Tannul-entof sale and re&onve#an&eU, 1==SCR( >!' T1+%+UH De-a-a# v.C.(., 1%> SCR( >!% T1++!UH2eopoldo S# v. C.(. et al.Tannul-ent of sale andre&onve#an&eU, *.R. No. +%1%,

(ug. $, 1++14.

%. Neither do suits (or annulment o( sale, or title, or %ocument aAe&tingpropert# operate to a0atee?e&t-ent a&tions respe&ting thesa-e propert# 3Salinas v. NavarroTannul-ent of deed of sale withassu-ption of -ortgage andor tode&lare the sa-e an euita0le-ortgageU, 1$> SCR( 1>= T1+%UH(ng Ping v. RC Tannul-ent of saleand titleU, 1' SCR( 1 T1+%=UHCaparros v. C.(. Tannul-ent of

titleU, 1=! SCR( =% 31+%+4H Dantev. Sison Tannul-ent of sale withda-agesU 1=' SCR( 1=H *algalav. Benguet Consolidated, In&.Tannul-ent of do&u-entU, 1==SCR( $%% T1+%+U4.

@ere, the appellate &ourt &on&eded thatpetitioners are the registered owners of thesu0?e&t propert# with the preferential rightto possession as an attri0ute of ownership.No other issue is involved in the &ase, asthe uestion of ownership of the su0?e&t

propert# had 0een ?udi&iall# settled. Quitesi-pl#, the onl# -atter for &onsideration of the &ourt is the issue of possession %e(acto.

@ERE5ORE, in view of the foregoing, theinstant petition is *R(NED. he De&isiondated Nove-0er 1, 1++> and Resolutiondated 8anuar# 1, 1++= of the Court of(ppeals in C()*.R. No. '!%$' is here0#REJERSED and SE (SIDE. he ?udg-entdated O&to0er $>, 1++ of the "uni&ipal rial Court in Civil Case No. =! and the ?udg-ent dated "ar&h , 1++> of theRegional rial Court of Cavite, Bran&h $

a:r-ing said disposition of the inferior&ourt are here0# REINS(ED.

G.R. No. 1642 O)(o&r 8, 2014

FE U. UI!ANO, Petitioner,vs.ATT>. AR>LL A. AMANTE, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

:ERSAMIN, J.:

here the plaintiA does not prove her allegedtoleran&e of the defendants o&&upation, thepossession is dee-ed illegal fro- the 0eginning.@en&e, the a&tion for unlawful detainer is ani-proper re-ed#. But the a&tion &annot 0e&onsidered as one for for&i0le entr# without an#allegation in the &o-plaint that the entr# of thedefendant was 0# -eans of for&e, inti-idation,threats, strateg# or stealth.

(nte&edents

he petitioner and her si0lings, na-el#/ Eliseo, 8oseand *loria, inherited fro- their father, the lateBi0iano Qui?ano, the par&el of land registered in thelatters na-e under Original Certi;&ate of itle3OC4 No. !)1%% of the Registr# of Deeds in Ce0uCit# with an area of 1,=+! suare -eters, -ore orless.1 On (pril $, 1++!, prior to an# partitiona-ong the heirs, Eliseo sold a portion of his share,-easuring >!! suare -eters, to respondent (tt#.Dar#ll (. (-ante 3respondent4, with the aAe&tedportion 0eing des&ri0ed in the deed of a0solutesale Eliseo e7e&uted in the following -anner/

( portion of a par&el of land lo&ated at the 0a&9 ofthe Pleasant @o-es Su0division and also at the0a&9 of Don Bos&o Se-inar#, Punta Prin&esa, Ce0uCit#, to 0e ta9en fro- -# share of the whole lotHthe portion sold to (tt#. (-ante is onl# >!! suare-eters whi&h is the area near the 0oundar# fa&ingthe Pleasant @o-es Su0division, Ce0u Cit#.$

On 8ul# $, 1++1, Eliseo, si&9l# and in need of-one#, sold an additional 1 portion of his shareinthe propert# to the respondent, with their deed of a0solute sale stating that the sale was with the

approval of Eliseos si0lings, and des&ri0ing theportion su0?e&t of the sale as/

%!







hat the portion &overed under this transa&tion isSpe&i;&all# lo&ated right at the 0a&9 of these-inar# fa&ing 8aper "e-orial S&hool and wherethe fen&e and house of (tt#. (-ante is lo&ated.

On Septe-0er !, 1++$, 5e, Eliseo, 8ose and *loriae7e&uted a deed of e7tra?udi&ial partition to dividetheir fathers estate 3&onsisting of theafore-entioned par&el of land4 a-ongthe-selves.' Pursuant to the deed e7tra?udi&ial

partition, OC No. O)1%% was &an&elled, and on 8ul#1$, 1++' the Register of Deeds issued ransferCerti;&ate of itle 3C4 No. >, C No.>>, C No. >= and C No. >% to thepetitioner, *loria, 8ose, and Eliseo, respe&tivel#. hepartition resulted in the portions earlier sold 0#Eliseo to the respondent 0eing ad?udi&ated to thepetitioner instead of to Eliseo.>

Due to the petitioners needing her portion thatwas then o&&upied 0# the respondent, shede-anded that the latter va&ate it. Despite severalde-ands, the last of whi&h was 0# the letter dated

Nove-0er ', 1++',=

the respondent refused tova&ate, pro-pting her to ;le against hi- on5e0ruar# 1', 1++ a &o-plaint for e?e&t-ent andda-ages in the "uni&ipal rial Court in Cities ofCe0u Cit# 3"CC4, do&9eted as Civil Case No. R)''$>.%She alleged therein that she was theregistered owner of the par&el of land &overed 0# C No. >, a portion of whi&h was 0eingo&&upied 0# the respondent, who had &onstru&teda residential 0uilding thereon 0# the -eretoleran&e of Eliseo when the propert# she and hersi0lings had inherited fro- their father had not #et0een su0divided, and was thus still &o)owned 0#the-H and that the respondents o&&upation had

0e&o-e illegal following his refusal to va&atedespite repeated de-ands.

he respondent denied that his possession of thedisputed portion had 0een 0# -ere toleran&e ofEliseo. @e even asserted that he was in fa&t theowner and lawful possessor of the propert#, having0ought it fro- EliseoH that the petitioner and hersi0lings &ould not den# 9nowing a0out the sale inhis favor 0e&ause the# &ould plainl# see his housefro- the roadH and that the deed of a0solute saleitself stated that the sale to hi- was with theirapproval, and that the# had alread# 9nown that his

house and fen&e were e7istingH that 0efore hepur&hased the propert#, Eliseo infor-ed hi- thathe and his &o)heirs had alread# orall# partitionedthe estate of their father, and that the portion0eing sold to hi- was Eliseos shareH and that withhis having alread# pur&hased the propert# 0eforethe petitioner a&uired it under the deed ofe7tra?udi&ial partition, she should respe&t hisownership and possession of it.+

8udg-ent of the "CC

On 5e0ruar# , 1++>, the "CC rendered its

de&ision in favor of the petitioner,1!

ruling that thedeeds of sale e7e&uted 0# Eliseo in favor of therespondent did not have the eAe&t of &onve#ing

the disputed propert# to hi- inas-u&h as at theti-e of the sale, the par&el of land left 0# theirfather, whi&h in&luded the disputed propert#, hadnot #et 0een partitioned, rendering Eliseo a -ere&o)owner of the undivided estate who had no rightto dispose of a de;nite portion thereofH that as a&o)owner, Eliseo eAe&tivel# &onve#ed to therespondent onl# the portion that would ulti-atel#0e allotted to hi- on&e the propert# would 0esu0dividedH that 0e&ause the disputed propert#

was ad?udi&ated to the petitioner under the deed of e7tra?udi&ial settle-ent and partition, she was itsowner with the &onseuent right of possessionH andthat, as su&h, she had the right to de-and that therespondent va&ate the land.

he "CC disposed as follows/

@ERE5ORE, in view of all the foregoing pre-ises,and on the 0asis thereof, ?udg-ent is here0#rendered in favor of the plaintiA and against thedefendant, ordering the defendantH to/

14 va&ate fro- the portion, presentl#o&&upied 0# hi- and whereon his 0uildingstands, of that par&el of land lo&atedinCe0u Cit# &overed 0# C No. > andregistered in the na-eof the plaintiAH andto re-ove andor de-olish the 0uildingand all the stru&tures that -a# have 0een0uilt on said portionH

$4 pa# the plaintiA the rentalof P1,!!!.!! a-onth for the portion in litigation fro-Nove-0er $1, 1++' until su&h ti-e thatthe defendant shall have va&ated, and

have re-oved all stru&tures fro- saidportion, and have &o-pletel# restoredpossession thereof to the plaintiAH and

4 pa# unto the plaintiA the su-of P1!,!!!.!! as attorne#s feesH and thesu- of P,!!!.!! for litigation e7pensesHand

'4 to pa# the &osts of suit.

SO ORDERED.11

De&ision of the RC

On appeal, the Regional rial Court 3RC4 reversedthe ?udg-ent of the "CC, and dis-issed the&o-plaint,1$holding that the su--ar# pro&eedingfor e?e&t-ent was not proper 0e&ause the seriousuestion of ownership of the disputed propert# wasinvolved, vi/

In the &ase at 0ar, 0# virtue of the deed of a0solutesale e7e&uted 0# Eliseo Qui?ano, one of the &o)heirsof 5e Qui?ano, in 1++! and 1++1, the defendant(tt#. (-ante too9 possession of the portion in

uestion and 0uilt his residential house thereat.Itwas onl# in 1++$ that the heirs of Bi0iano Qui?anoe7e&uted the deed of e7tra?udi&ial partition, and

%1




























instead of giving to Eliseo Qui?ano the portion thathe alread# sold to the defendant, the sa-e wasad?udi&ated toplaintiA, 5e Qui?ano to the greatpre?udi&e of the defendant herein who had 0een inpossession of the portion in uestion sin&e 1++!and whi&h possession is notpossession de fa&to 0utpossession de ?ure 0e&ause it is 0ased on $ deedsof &onve#an&es e7e&uted 0# Eliseo Qui?ano. hereis, therefore, a serious uestion of ownershipinvolved whi&h &annot 0e deter-ined in a

su--ar# pro&eeding for e?e&t-ent. Sin&e thedefendantis in possession of the portion in uestionwhere his residential house is 0uilt for several#ears, and 0efore the e7tra?udi&ial partition, thepossession of the defendant, to repeat, is one ofpossession de ?ure and the plaintiA &annot e?e&tthe defendant in a su--ar# pro&eeding fore?e&t-ent involving onl# possession de fa&to. hatthe plaintiA should have done was to ;le an a&tionpu0li&iana or a&tion reinvindi&atoria 0efore theappropriate &ourt for re&over# of possession andownership. @owever, sin&e there is a pending&o-plaint for uieting of title ;led 0# thedefendant against the plaintiA herein 0efore theRegional rial Court, the -atter of ownershipshould 0e ;nall# resolved in saidpro&eedings.1 Fndaunted, the petitioner -oved forre&onsideration, 0ut the RC denied her -otion onNove-0er 1, 1++>.1'

De&ision of the C(

he petitioner appealed to the C( 0# petition forreview.

On "a# $>, $!!', the C( pro-ulgated itsde&ision,1 a:r-ing the de&ision of the RC, anddis-issing the &ase for e?e&t-ent, 0ut on theground that the respondent was either a &o)owneror an assignee holding the right of possession overthe disputed propert#.

he C( o0served that the RC &orre&tl# dis-issedthe e?e&t-ent &ase 0e&ause a uestion ofownership over the disputed propert# was raisedHthat the rule that inferior &ourts &ould pass uponthe issue of ownership to deter-ine the uestion of possession was well settledH that the institution ofa separate a&tion for uieting of title 0# therespondent did not divest the "CC of its authorit#

to de&ide the e?e&t-ent &aseH that Eliseo, as a&oowner, had no right to sell a de;nite portion ofthe undivided estateH that the deeds of sale Eliseoe7e&uted in favor of the respondent were valid onl#with respe&t to the alienation of Eliseos undividedshareH that after the e7e&ution of the deeds of sale,the respondent 0e&a-e a &o)owner along withEliseo and his &o)heirs, giving hi- the righttoparti&ipate in the partition of the estate owned in&o--on 0# the-H that 0e&ause the respondentwas not given an# noti&e of the pro?e&t of partitionor of the intention to eAe&t the partition, thepartition -ade 0# the petitioner and her &o)heirsdid not 0ind hi-H and that, as to hi-, the entireestate was still &o)owned 0# the heirs, giving hi-

the right to the &o)possession of the estate,in&luding the disputed portion.

Issues

he petitioner has &o-e to the Court on appeal 0#&ertiorari,1> &ontending that the C( grossl# erred inholding that the respondent was either a &o)owneror an assignee with the right of possession over thedisputed propert#.1=

he petitioner e7plains that the respondent, 0einga law#er, 9new that Eliseo &ould not validl# transferthe ownership of the disputed propert# to hi-0e&ause the disputed propert# was then still a partof the undivided estate &o)owned 0# all the heirs of the late Bi0iano Qui?anoH that the respondents9nowledge of the defe&t in Eliseos title and hisfailure to get the &o)heirs &onsent to the sale in aregistra0le do&u-ent tainted his a&uisition with0ad faithH that 0eing a 0u#er in 0ad faith, therespondent ne&essaril# 0e&a-e a possessor and0uilder in 0ad faithH that she was not aware of the

sale to the respondent, and it was her ignoran&e ofthe sale that led her to 0elieve that the respondentwas o&&up#ing the disputed propert# 0# the -eretoleran&e of EliseoH thatthe partition was &learl#done in good faithH and that she was entitled to thepossession of the disputed propert# as its owner,&onseuentl# giving her the right to re&over it fro-the respondent.1%

o 0e resolved is the issue ofwho 0etween thepetitioner and the respondent had the 0etter rightto the possession of the disputed propert#.

Ruling

he petition for review on &ertiorarila&9s -erit.

(n e?e&t-ent &ase &an 0e eitherfor for&i0le entr# orunlawful detainer. It is a su--ar# pro&eedingdesigned to provide e7peditious -eans to prote&tthe a&tual possession or the right to possession ofthe propert# involved.1+ he sole uestion forresolution in the &ase is the ph#si&al or -aterialpossession 3possession de fa&to4of the propert# inuestion, and neither a &lai- of ?uridi&alpossession 3possession de ?ure4nor an aver-ent of

ownership 0# the defendant &an outrightl# deprivethe trial &ourt fro- ta9ing due &ognian&e of the&ase. @en&e,even if the uestion of ownership israised in the pleadings, li9e here, the &ourt -a#pass upon the issue 0ut onl# to deter-ine theuestion of possession espe&iall# if the uestion ofownership is insepara0l# lin9ed with the uestionof possession.$! he ad?udi&ation of ownership inthat instan&e is -erel# provisional, and will not 0aror pre?udi&e an a&tion 0etween the sa-e partiesinvolving the title to the propert#.$1

%$























Considering that the parties are 0oth &lai-ingownership of the disputed propert#, the C(properl# ruled on the issue of ownership for thesole purpose of deter-ining who 0etween the-had the 0etter right to possess the disputedpropert#.

he disputed propert# originall# for-ed part of theestate of the late Bi0iano Qui?ano, and passed onto his heirs 0# operation of law upon his

death.$$ Prior to the partition, the estate wasowned in &o--on 0# the heirs, su0?e&t to thepa#-ent of the de0ts of the de&eased.$ In a &o)ownership, the undivided thing or right 0elong todiAerent persons, with ea&h of the- holding thepropert# pro indivisoand e7er&ising her rights overthe whole propert#. Ea&h &o)owner -a# use anden?o# the propert# with no other li-itation thanthat he shall not in?ure the interests of his &o)owners. he underl#ing rationale is that until adivision is a&tuall# -ade, the respe&tive share ofea&h &annot 0e deter-ined, and ever# &o)ownere7er&ises, together with his &o)parti&ipants, ?oint

ownership of the pro indiviso propert#, in additionto his use and en?o#-ent of it.$'

Even if an heirs right in the estate of the de&edenthas not #et 0een full# settled and partitioned andis thus -erel# in&hoate, (rti&le '+$ of the CivilCodegives the heir the right to e7er&ise a&ts ofownership. (&&ordingl#, when Eliseo sold thedisputed propert# to the respondent in 1++! and1++1, he was onl# a &o)owner along with hissi0lings, and &ould sell onl# that portion that would0eallotted to hi- upon the ter-ination of the &o)ownership. he sale did not vest ownership of thedisputed propert# in the respondent 0ut transferred

onl# the sellers pro indiviso share to hi-,&onseuentl# -a9ing hi-, as the 0u#er, a &o)owner of the disputed propert# until it ispartitioned.$>

(s Eliseos su&&essor)in)interest or assignee, therespondent was vested with the right under (rti&le'+= of the Civil Codeto ta9e part in the partition ofthe estate and to &hallenge the partitionunderta9en without his &onsent.$=(rti&le '+=states/

(rti&le '+=. he &reditors or assignees of the &o)

owners -a# ta9e part in the division of the thingowned in &o--on and o0?e&t to its 0eing eAe&tedwithout their &on&urren&e. But the# &annot i-pugnan# partition alread# e7e&uted, unless there has0een fraud, or in &ase it was -ade notwithstandinga for-al opposition presented to prevent it, withoutpre?udi&e to the right of the de0tor or assignor to-aintain its validit#.

he respondent &ould not den# that at the ti-e ofthe sale he 9new that the propert# he was 0u#ingwas note7&lusivel# owned 0# Eliseo.1)*phi1 @e9new, too, that the &o)heirs had entered into an

oral agree-ent of partition vis)W)vis the estate,su&h 9nowledge 0eing e7pli&itl# stated in hisanswer to the &o-plaint, to wit/

1$. hat defendant, 0efore he a&uired the landfro- Eliseo Qui?ano was infor-ed 0# the latter thatthe portion sold to hi- was his share alread#H thatthe# have orall# partitioned the whole lot 0eforedefendant a&uired the portion fro- hi-.$%

@is 9nowledge of Eliseos &o)ownership with his &o)heirs, and of their oral agree-ent of partitionnotwithstanding, the respondent still did note7er&ise his right under (rti&le '+=. (lthough Eliseo

-ade it appear to the respondent that the partitionhad alread# 0een &o-pleted and ;nalied, the &o)heirs had not ta9en possession #et oftheirrespe&tive shares to signif# that the# had rati;edtheir agree-ent, if an#. 5or sure, the respondentwas no stranger to the Qui?anos, 0e&ause hehi-self had served as the law#er of Eliseo and thepetitioner herself.$+ In that sense, it would have0een eas# for hi- to as&ertain whether therepresentation of Eliseo to hi- was true. (s itturned out, there had 0een no prior oral agree-enta-ong the heirs to partition the estateH otherwise,Eliseo would have uestioned the deed of

e7tra?udi&ial partition 0e&ause it did not &onfor- towhat the# had supposedl# agreed upon. @ad therespondent 0een vigilant in prote&ting his interest,he &ould have availed hi-self of the rightsreserved to hi- 0# law, parti&ularl# the right tota9e an a&tive part in the partition and to o0?e&t tothe partition if he wanted to. It was onl# onSepte-0er !, 1++$, or two #ears and ;ve -onthsfro- the ti-e of the ;rst sale transa&tion, and a#ear and two -onths fro- the ti-e of the se&ondsale transa&tion, that the &o)heirs e7e&uted thedeed of e7tra?udi&ial partition. @aving 0een silentdespite his a-ple opportunit# to parti&ipate in ortoo0?e&t to the partition of the estate, the

respondent was 0ound 0# whatever was ulti-atel#agreed upon 0# the Qui?anos.

here is no uestion that the holder of a orrenstitle is the rightful owner of the propert# there0#&overed and is entitled to itspossession.! @owever, the Court &annot ignorethatthe state-ents in the petitioners &o-plainta0out the respondents possession of the disputedpropert# 0eing 0# the -ere toleran&e of Eliseo&ould 0e the 0asis for unlawful detainer. Fnlawfuldetainer involves the defendants withholding ofthe possession of the propert# to whi&h the plaintiA

is entitled, after the e7piration or ter-ination of thefor-ers right tohold possession under the&ontra&t, whether e7press or i-plied. ( reuisitefor a valid &ause of a&tion of unlawful detainer isthat the possession was originall# lawful, 0utturned unlawful onl# upon the e7piration of theright to possess.

o show that the possession was initiall# lawful, the0asis of su&h lawful possession -ust then 0eesta0lished. ith the aver-ent here that therespondents possession was 0# -ere toleran&e ofthe petitioner, the a&ts of toleran&e -ust 0eproved, for 0are allegation of toleran&e did not

su:&e. (t least, the petitioner should show theovert a&ts indi&ative of her or her prede&essorstoleran&e, or her &o)heirs per-ission for hi- to

%






















o&&up# the disputed propert#.1 But she did notaddu&e su&h eviden&e. Instead, she appeared to 0eherself not &lear and de;nite as to his possessionof the disputed propert# 0eing -erel# tolerated 0#Eliseo, as the following aver-ent of her petition forreview indi&ates/

>.+. heir ignoran&e of the said transa&tion of sale,parti&ularl# the petitioner, as the# were not dul#infor-ed 0# the vendor)&oT)Uowner Eliseo Qui?ano,

TledU the- to 0elieve that the respondentso&&upan&# of the su0?e&t pre-ises was 0# -eretoleran&e of Eliseo, so that upon partition of thewhole propert#,said o&&upan&# &ontinued to 0eunder toleran&e of the petitioner when the su0?e&tpre-ises 0e&a-e a part of the land ad?udi&ated tothe latterH$ 3e-phasis supplied4 In &ontrast, therespondent &onsistentl# stood ;r- on his assertionthat his possession of the disputed propert# was inthe &on&ept of an owner, not 0# the -ere toleran&eof Eliseo, and a&tuall# presented the deeds of saletransferring ownership of the propert# to hi-.

Considering that the allegation ofthe petitionerstoleran&e of the respondents possession of thedisputed propert# was not esta0lished, thepossession &ould ver# well 0e dee-ed illegal fro-the 0eginning. In that &ase, her a&tion for unlawfuldetainer has to fail.' Even so, the Court would not0e ?usti;ed to treat this e?e&t-ent suit as one forfor&i0le entr# 0e&ause the &o-plaint &ontained noallegation thathis entr# in the propert# had 0een0# for&e, inti-idation, threats, strateg# or stealth.

Regardless, the issue of possession 0etween theparties will still re-ain. o ;nall# resolve su&hissue,the# should review their options and de&ideon their proper re&ourses. In the -eanti-e, it iswise for the Court to leave the door open to the-in that respe&t. 5or now, therefore, this re&ourse ofthe petitioner has to 0e dis-issed.

@ERE5ORE, the Court (55IR"S the de&isionpro-ulgated on "a# $>, $!!' su0?e&t to the"ODI5IC(ION that the unlawful detainer a&tion isdis-issed for 0eing an i-proper re-ed#H andORDERS the petitioner to pa# the &osts of suit.

G.R. No. 204926 &)&&r 3, 2014

ANACLETO C. MANGASER, r&pr&'&#(&$ %i'A((or#&;i#;*")( EUSTAUIOUGENIA, Petitioner,vs.IONISIO UGA>, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

MENOHA, J.:

his is a petition for review on &ertiorari see9ing toreverse and set aside the 8une 1, $!1$

De&ision1

and the De&e-0er , $!1$ Resolution$

ofthe Court of (ppeals 3C(4 in C()*.R. SP No.1$$1, entitled GDionisio Fga# v. (na&leto C.

"angaser, represented 0# his (ttorne#)in)fa&tEustauio Dugenia, Ga &ase of for&i0le entr# andda-ages.

he 5a&ts

On O&to0er !, $!!=, petitioner (na&leto"angaser, represented 0# his attorne#)in)fa&t,Eustauio Dugenia 3petitioner4, ;led a &o-plaintfor 5or&i0le Entr# with Da-ages againstrespondent Dionisio Fga# 3respondent4 0efore the"uni&ipal rial Court of Ca0a, 2a Fnion 3"C4. In his&o-plaint, petitioner alleged that he was theregistered owner and possessor of a par&el of landsituated in Santiago Sur, Ca0a, 2a Fnion, with anarea of 1!,>$ suare -eters and &overed 0# OCNo. RP)1=' 35P)1 =%=4 and a7 De&laration No.!1')!!=!=H that on O&to0er 1, $!!>, petitioner,dis&overed that respondent stealth# intruded ando&&upied a portion of his propert# 0# &onstru&ting aresidential house thereon without his 9nowledgeand &onsentH that he referred the -atter to theO:&e of 2upong agapa-a#apa for &on&iliation,

0ut no settle-ent was rea&hed, hen&e, a&erti;&ation to ;le a&tion was issued 0# the 2uponHand that de-and letters were sent to respondent0ut he still refused to va&ate the pre-ises, thus, hewas &onstrained to see9 ?udi&ial re-ed#.

Respondent denied the -aterial allegations of the&o-plaint and put up the following defenses, towit/ that he had 0een a resident of Sa-ara,(ringa#, 2a Fnion, sin&e 0irth and when he rea&hedthe age of reason, he started o&&up#ing a par&el ofland in that pla&e then 9nown as Sta. 2u&ia,(ringa#, 2a FnionH that #ears later, this par&el ofland was designated as part of Santiago Sur, Ca0a,2a Fnion due to a surve# -ade 0# the govern-entHthat he introdu&ed -ore i-prove-ents on thepropert# 0# &ultivating the land, and in "ar&h$!!>, he put up a G0aha# 9u0oGH that in O&to0er$!!>, he installed a fen&e -ade of G0oloG to se&urethe propert#H that in installing the fen&e, he wasguided 0# the &on&rete -onu-ents whi&h he 9newto 0e indi&ators of the 0oundaries of petitionerspropert#H that while he &ould not lo&ate so-e ofthe -onu-ents, he 0ased the 0oundaries on hisre&olle&tion sin&e he was around when these wereinstalledH that he 9new the 0oundaries ofpetitioners propert# 0e&ause he 9new the e7tent

of the Giron -iningG a&tivities done 0# a &o-pan#on the said propert#H that petitioner was never ina&tual possession of the propert# o&&upied 0# hi-,and it was onl# on O&to0er 1, $!!> when hedis&overed the al leg&&l intrusionH that it was not&orre&t to sa# that he refused to va&ate andsurrender the pre-ises despite re&eipt of thede-and letters 0e&ause in his letter)repl#, heassured petitioner that he would voluntaril# va&atethe pre-ises if he would onl# 0e shown to haveintruded into petitioners titled lot after the0oundaries were pointed out to hi-H and thatinstead of sh-ving the 0oundaries to hi-,petitioner ;led an a&tion for for&i0le entr# 0efore

the "C.'

%'







http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/dec2014/gr_204926_2014.html#fnt1















"C Ruling

On (pril $>, $!11, the "C ruled in favor ofrespondent. It stated that petitioner failed toaddu&e an# eviden&e to prove that the lot o&&upied0# respondent was within his lot titled under OCNo. RP)1=' 31 =%+4. he "C opined thatpetitioner &ould have presented a relo&ationsurve#, whi&h would have pinpointed the e7a&tlo&ation of the house and fen&e put up 0#

respondent, and resolved the issue on&e and forall.> It also e7plained that petitioner failed to provehis prior ph#si&al possession of the su0?e&tpropert#. he OC No. RP)1='31=%+4 registeredunder petitioners na-e and the a7 De&larationwere not proof of a&tual possession of the propert#. he dispositive portion of whi&h reads/

@ERE5ORE, the plaintiA 3petitioner4 having failedto esta0lish his &ase 0# preponderan&e ofeviden&e, the &o-plaint is here0# DIS"ISSED.=

RC Ruling

(ggrieved, petitioner appealed to the Regional rialCourt of Bauang, 2a Fnion 3RC4 and the &ase wasra<ed to Bran&h .

In its (ugust $, $!11 De&ision,% the RC reversedthe "C de&ision and ruled in favor of petitioner. Itrelied on the &ases of Bar0a v. Court of(ppeals+ and Nune v. S2E(S Phoeni7 Solutions,In&.,1! whi&h held that in e?e&t-ent &ases,possession of the land did not onl# -ean a&tual orph#si&al possession 0ut also in&luded the su0?e&t of the thing to the a&tion of ones will or 0# the proper

a&ts and legal for-alities esta0lished for a&uiringsu&h right. he RC stated that petitioner had&learl# shown his possession of the propert# aseviden&ed 0# his OC No. RP)1='31 =%+4 issued in"ar&h 1+%= and ta7 de&laration, dating 0a&9 asearl# as 1++.11 It added that the 0oundaries of thepropert# were &learl# indi&ated in the title, thus,there was no need to &ondu&t a surve#. (s theowner, petitioner 9new the e7a&t -etes and0ounds of his propert# so that when respondentintruded stealthil#, he ;led the su0?e&t suit.1$ hedispositive portion of the RC de&ision reads/

@ERE5ORE, after a thorough perusal of the fa&tsand eviden&e in this &ase, this Court reverses thede&ision of the "C, Ca0a, 2a Fnion, dated (pril$>, $!11 and rules in favor of plaintiAappellant3petitioner4 and against defendant)appellee3respondent4, ordering the latter and all otherpersons &lai-ing rights under hi- to/

1. J(C(E the portion of the su0?e&tpropert# en&roa&hed 0# hi-H

$. SFRRENDER a&tual ph#si&al possessionof the su0?e&t portion pea&efull# toplaintiA)appellantH

. RE"OJE all the i-prove-ents heintrodu&ed thereinH

'. P(L attorne#s fees in the a-ountPhp$!,!!!.!! to plaintiA)appellant, andpa# the &ost of suit.

SO ORDERED.1

Fndaunted, respondent appealed to the C(.

C( Ruling

he C( reversed and set aside the de&ision of theRC. Citing Quion v. 8uan,1' it e-phasied thatpetitioner -ust allege and prove that he was inprior ph#si&al possession of the propert# in dispute. he word Gpossession,G as used in for&i0le entr#and unlawful detainer &ases, -eant nothing -orethan ph#si&al possession, not legal possession inthe sense &onte-plated in &ivil law. he C( wrotethat petitioner was not in ph#si&al possession

despite the presentation of the OC No. RP)1='31=%+4 and his ta7 de&larations.1 It reiteratedthat when the law would spea9 of possession infor&i0le entr# &ases, it is prior ph#si&al possessionor possession de fa&to, as distinguished fro-possession de 8ure. hat petitioner proved waslegal possession, not his prior ph#si&al possession.5urther-ore, the C( stated that the RC -isuotedNune v. S2E(S Pheoni7 Solutions1> 0# giving thewrong notion of what 9ind of possession was&onte-plated in for&i0le entr# &ases. In otherwords, ph#si&al possession was the &ru7 in for&i0leentr#, not possession that ste--ed uponownership.1= he dispositive portion of the assailed

de&ision reads/

@ERE5ORE, pre-ises &onsidered, the Petition forReview is *R(NED, a&&ordingl#, the De&isiondated (ugust $, $!11 and Order dated O&to0er$, $!11, of the RC Bran&h , Bauang, 2a Fnionin Civil Case No. $!$+)B* are REJERSED and SE(SIDE. he De&ision of the "C dated (pril $>,$!11 is here0# REINS(ED.

SO ORDERED.1%

Petitioner ;led a -otion for

re&onsideration,1+ dated 8ul# >, $!1$, 0ut it wassu0seuentl# denied 0# the C( in aResolution,$! dated De&e-0er , $!1$. It reads/

his Court, after a -eti&ulous stud# of theargu-ents set forth in the "otion forRe&onsideration ;led 0# respondent, ;nds no&ogent reason to revise, a-end, -u&h less reverse,the assailed De&ision dated 8une 1, $!1$. he"otion for Re&onsideration is, thus, DENIED

SO ORDERED.$1

@en&e, this petition, an&hored on the following

%










































S(E"EN O5 ISSFES

I

@E@ER OR NO @E COFR O5 (PPE(2S 5(I2ED O CONSIDER @E EJIDENCE O5 ONERS@IP O5PEIIONER @IC@ "(L ES(B2IS@ PRIORPOSSESSION OJER @E PROPERL BL @EREINPEIIONER.

II

@E@ER OR NO @E RESO2FION D(EDDECE"BER , $!1$ O5 @E COFR O5 (PPE(2S,5OR"ER SPECI(2 5OFR@ DIJISION, DENLIN* @E"OION 5OR RECONSIDER(ION IS J(2ID.$$

Petitioner argues that in e?e&t-ent &ases,possession of the land does not onl# -ean a&tualor ph#si&al possession or o&&upation 0ut also 0#the fa&t that a land is su0?e&t to the a&tion of oneswill or 0# proper a&ts and legal for-alities

esta0lished for a&uiring su&h rightH that the C(should have &onsidered OC No. RP)1='31=%+4 hista7 de&laration as proofs of prior ph#si&alpossession over the propert#H and that theissuan&e of the sa-e are &onsidered to 0# law asproper a&ts and legal for-alities esta0lished fora&uiring su&h right. Petitioner &ited olentino, asone of the authors and e7perts in Civil law, statingthat the Gproper a&ts and for-alitiesG refer to ?uridi&al a&ts, or the a&uisition of possession 0#su:&ient title, inter vivas or -ortis &ausa, onerousor lu&rative. hese are the a&ts whi&h the law givesthe for&e of a&ts of possession.

Petitioner also avers that the De&e-0er , $!1$ C(Resolution was not valid as it did not state the legal0asis reuired 0# the Constitution.

On "a# $%, $!1, respondent ;led hisCo--ent$ 0efore this Court. @e stated that theissues raised and the argu-ents presented 0#petitioner have 0een thoroughl# resolved and ruledupon 0# the C(. he appellate &ourt did not err inreversing the RC de&ision 0e&ause petitioner wasnever in prior ph#si&al possession of the propert#in dispute. Respondent asserts that he has 0een inprior, a&tual, &ontinuous, pu0li&, notorious,

e7&lusive and pea&eful possession in the &on&eptof an owner of the propert# in dispute.$'

On "ar&h $%, $!1', petitioner ;led hisRepl#,$ reiterating the &ase of Nune v. S2E(SPhoeni7 Solutions, In&.,$>where a part# was a0le tode-onstrate that it had e7er&ised a&ts ofownership over the propert# 0# having it titled inits na-e and 0# pa#ing real propert# ta7es on it.Petitioner also la-ents the wrongful insisten&e ofrespondent that his possession over the propert#was one in the &on&ept of an owner. o petitioners-ind, respondent failed to adeuatel# addu&eeviden&e to show proof of his right to possess thepropert# when his possession &a-e under atta&9with the ;ling of the su0?e&t &ase.$=

he Courts Ruling

he Court ;nds the petition -eritorious.

5or a for&i0le entr# suit to prosper, the plaintiAs-ust allege and prove/ 3a4 that the# have priorph#si&al possession of the propert#H 304 that the#were deprived of possession either 0# for&e,inti-idation, threat, strateg# or stealthH and, 3&4that the a&tion was ;led within one 314 #ear fro-the ti-e the owners or legal possessors learned oftheir deprivation of the ph#si&al possession of thepropert#.$%

here is onl# one issue in e?e&t-ent pro&eedings/who is entitled to ph#si&al or -aterial possession of the pre-ises, that is, to possession de fa&to, notpossession de 8ure[ Issues as to the right ofpossession or ownership are not involved in thea&tionH eviden&e thereon is not ad-issi0le, e7&eptonl# for the purpose of deter-ining the issue ofpossession.$+

(s a rule, the word GpossessionG in for&i0le entr#suits indeed refers to nothing -ore than priorph#si&al possession or possession de fa&to, notpossession de 8ure or legal possession in the sense&onte-plated in &ivil law. itle is not the issue, andthe a0sen&e of it Gis not a ground for the &ourts towithhold relief fro- the parties in an e?e&t-ent&ase.G!

he Court, however, has &onsistentl# ruled in anu-0er of &ases1 that while prior ph#si&alpossession is an indispensa0le reuire-ent infor&i0le entr# &ases, the dearth of -erit in

respondents position is evident fro- the prin&iplethat possession &an 0e a&uired not onl# 0#-aterial o&&upation, 0ut also 0# the fa&t that athing is su0?e&t to the a&tion of ones will or 0# theproper a&ts and legal for-alities esta0lished fora&uiring su&h right. he &ase of Quion v. 8uan,$ whi&h surprisingl# was relied on 0# the C(,also stressed this do&trine.

Possession &an 0e a&uired 0# ?uridi&al a&ts. heseare a&ts to whi&h the law gives the for&e of a&ts ofpossession. E7a-ples of these are donations,su&&ession, e7e&ution and registration of pu0li&

instru-ents, ins&ription of possessor# infor-ationtitles and the li9e. he reason for this e7&eptionalrule is that possession in the e#es of the law doesnot -ean that a -an has to have his feet on ever#suare -eter of ground 0efore it &an 0e said thathe is in possession.' It is su:&ient that petitionerwas a0le to su0?e&t the propert# to the a&tion of hiswill. @ere, respondent failed to show that he fallsunder an# of these &ir&u-stan&es. @e &ould noteven sa# that the su0?e&t propert# was leased tohi- e7&ept that he pro-ised that he would va&ateit if petitioner would 0e a0le to show the0oundaries of the titled lot.

In the &ase of Nune v. S2E(S Phoeni7 Solutions,in&., > the su0?e&t par&el was a&uired 0# therespondent 0# virtue of the 8une ', 1+++ Deed of

%>





































(ssign-ent e7e&uted in its favor 0# Spouses Ong i9o and E-eren&iana S#lianteng. he petitioner inthe said &ase argued that, aside fro- thead-ission in the &o-plaint that the su0?e&t par&elwas left idle and unguarded, the respondents&lai- of prior possession was &learl# negated 0#the fa&t that he had 0een in o&&upan&# thereofsin&e 1+++. he Court disagreed with the petitionerand said/ (lthough it did not i--ediatel# put thesa-e to a&tive use, respondent appears to have

additionall# &aused the propert# to 0e registered inits na-e as of 5e0ruar# $=, $!!$ and to have paidthe real propert# ta7es due thereon alongside thesundr# e7penses in&idental thereto. Jiewed in thelight of the foregoing ?uridi&al a&ts, it &onseuentl#did not -atter that, 0# the ti-e respondent&ondu&ted its o&ular inspe&tion in O&to0er $!!,petitioner h-l alread# 0een o&&up#ing the landsin&e 1+++.

TE-phasis and unders&oring suppliedU

@en&e, in that &ase, the Court ruled that su&h

?uridi&al a&ts were su:&ient to esta0lish therespondents prior possession of the su0?e&tpropert#.

he &ase of @a0agat *rill v. D"C)Fr0an Propert#Developer, In&.,= also involves an a&tion forfor&i0le entr#. On 8une 11, 1+%1, David ". Consun?i,In&. a&uired a residential lot situated in "atin a,Davao Cit#, whi&h was &overed 0# C No. )%$%. On 8une 1, 1+%1, it transferred the said lotto respondent D"C. (lleging that the petitionerfor&i0l# entered the propert# in De&e-0er 1++,the respondent ;led on "ar&h $%, 1++' a&o-plaint for for&i0le entr#. One of the issuesraised therein was whether respondent D"C hadprior possession of the su0?e&t propert#, to whi&hthe Court answered in the a:r-ative. It ruled that/

Prior possession of the lot 0# respondentsprede&essor was su:&ientl# proven 0# eviden&e ofthe e7e&ution and registration of pu0li&instru-ents and 0# the fa&t that the lot wassu0?e&t to its will fro- then until De&e-0er 1,1++, when petitioner unlawfull# entered thepre-ises and deprived the for-er of possessionthereof.

TE-phasis and unders&oring suppliedU

In the &ase at 0en&h, the Court ;nds thatpet1t1oner a&uired possession of the su0?e&tpropert# 0# ?uridi&al a&t, spe&i;&all#, through theissuan&e of a free patent under Co--onwealth (&tNo. 1'1 and its su0seuent registration with theRegister of Deeds on "ar&h 1%, 1+%=.%

Before the Court &ontinues an# further, it -ust 0edeter-ined ;rst whether the issue of ownership is-aterial and relevant in resolving the issue ofpossession. he Rules of Court in fa&t e7pressl#

allow this/ Se&tion 1>, Rule =! of the Rules of Courtprovides that the issue of ownership shall 0eresolved in de&iding the issue of possession if the

uestion of possession is intertwined with the issueof ownership. But this provision is onl# ane7&eption and is allowed onl# in this li-itedinstan&e ) to deter-ine the issue of possession andonl# if the uestion of possession &annot 0eresolved without de&iding the issue of ownership.+

his Court is of the strong view that the issue ofownership should 0e provisionall# deter-ined inthis &ase. 5irst, the ?uridi&al a&t fro- whi&h the

right of ownership of petitioner arise would 0e theregistration of the free patent and the issuan&e ofOC No. RP)1='31=%+4. (pparentl#, the orrenstitle suggests ownership over the land. Se&ond,respondent also asserts ownership over the land0ased on his prior, a&tual, &ontinuous, pu0li&,notorious, e7&lusive and pea&eful possession in the&on&ept of an owner of the propert# indispute.'! Be&ause there are &oni&ting &lai-s ofownership, then it is proper to provisionall#deter-ine the issue of ownership to settle theissue of possession de fa&to.

Returning to the &ase, this Court &annot agree withthe C( that petitioners OC No. RP)1='31=%+4and his ta7 de&larations should a0solutel# 0edisregarded. he issuan&e of an original &erti;&ateof title to the petitioner eviden&es ownership andfro- it, a right to the possession of the propert#ows. ell)entren&hed is the rule that a personwho has a orrens title over the propert# is entitledto the possession thereof.'1

"oreover, his &lai- of possession is &oupled withta7 de&larations. hile ta7 de&larations are not&on&lusive proof of possession of a par&el of land,the# are good indi&ia of possession in the &on&eptof an owner, for no one in his right -ind would 0epa#ing ta7es for a propert# that is not in his a&tualor &onstru&tive possession.'$ ogether with the orrens title, the ta7 de&larations dated 1++onwards presented 0# petitioner strengthens his&lai- of possession over the land 0efore hisdispossession on O&to0er 1, $!!> 0# respondent.

he C( was in error in &iting the &ase of De *ranov. 2a&a0a' to support its ruling. In that &ase, therespondent tried to prove prior possession, 0#presenting onl# his ta7 de&larations, ta7 re&eiptand a &erti;&ation fro- the -uni&ipal assessor

attesting that he had paid real propert# ta7 fro-previous #ears. he Court did not give &reden&e tohis &lai- 0e&ause ta7 de&larations and realt# ta7pa#-ents are not &on&lusive proof of possession. he situation in the present &ase diAers 0e&auseaside fro- presenting his ta7 de&larations, thepetitioner su0-itted OC No. RP)1='31 =%+4whi&h is the 0est eviden&e of ownership fro-where his right to possession arises.

(gainst the orrens title and ta7 de&larations ofpetitioner, the 0are allegations of respondent thathe had prior, a&tual, &ontinuous, pu0li&, notorious,

e7&lusive and pea&eful possession in the &on&eptof an owner, has no leg to stand on. hus, 0#provisionall# resolving the issue of ownership, the

%=



















Court is satis;ed that petitioner had priorpossession of the su0?e&t propert#. hen petitionerdis&overed the stealth# intrusion of respondentover his registered prope1i#, he i--ediatel# ;led a&o-plaint with the 2upong agapa-a#apa andsu0seuentl# ;led an a&tion for for&i0le entr# withthe "C. Instead of ta9ing the law into his ownhands and for&efull# e7pelling respondent fro- hispropert#, petitioner &o-posed hi-self and followedthe esta0lished legal pro&edure to regain

possession of his land.

If the Court were to follow the ruling of the C( anddisregard ?uridi&al a&ts to o0tain prior possession,then it would &reate an a0surd situation. It would0e putting pre-iu- in favor of land intrudersagainst orrens title holders, who spent -onths, oreven #ears, in order to register their land, and whoreligiousl# paid real propert# ta7es thereon. he#&annot i--ediatel# repossess their propertiessi-pl# 0e&ause the# have to prove their literal andph#si&al possession of their propert# prior to the&ontrovers#. he orrens title holders would have to

resort to ordinar# &ivil pro&edure 0# ;ling either ana&&ion pu0li&iana or a&&ion reinvidi&atoria andundergo arduous and protra&ted litigation while theintruders &ontinuousl# en?o# and rip the 0ene;ts of another -ans land. It will defeat the ver# purposeof the su--ar# pro&edure of an a&tion for for&i0leentr#.

he underl#ing philosoph# 0ehind e?e&t-ent suitsis to prevent 0rea&h of the pea&e and &ri-inaldisorder and to &o-pel the part# out of possessionto respe&t and resort to the law alone to o0tainwhat he &lai-s is his. E?e&t-ent pro&eedings aresu--ar# in nature so the authorities &an speedil#

settle a&tions to re&over possession 0e&ause of theoverriding need to uell so&ial distur0an&es.''

(s to the other reuire-ents of an a&tion forfor&i0le entr#, the Court agrees with the RC thatpetitioner had su:&ientl# &o-plied with the-.Petitioner proved that he was deprived ofpossession of the propert# 0# stealth.1)*phi1 he&o-plaint was also ;led on O&to0er !, $!!=,within the one #ear regle-entar# period &ountedfro- the dis&over# of the stealth# entr# 0#respondent to the propert# on O&to0er 1, $!!>.

he se&ond issue raised is the validit# of the C(Resolution dated De&e-0er , $!1$. Petitioneralleges that the C( denied his re&onsiderationwithout indi&ating its legal 0asis in violation of the-andate of Se&tion 1', (rti&le JIII of theConstitution, whi&h provides that no petition forreview or -otion for re&onsideration of a de&isionof the &ourt shall 0e refused due &ourse or deniedwithout stating the legal 0asis therefor. hisreuire-ent, however, was &o-plied with when theC(, in its resolution den#ing petitioners -otion forre&onsideration, stated that it G;nds no &ogentreason to reverse, a-end, -u&h less reverse theassailed De&ision, dated 8une 1, $!1$.G'

@ERE5ORE, the petition is *R(NED. he 8une1, $!1$ De&ision and the De&e-0er , $!1$Resolution of the Court of (ppeals in C()*.R. SPNo. 1$$1 are here0# REJERSED and SE (SIDE. he (ugust $, $!11 De&ision of the Regional rialCourt, Bran&h , Bauang, 2a Fnion, is here0#REINS(ED.

G.R. No. 20360 &)&&r 3, 2014

-OMER C. !A<IER, r&pr&'&#(&$ %i' o(%&r"#$ #"(+r"l +"r$i"#, SUSAN G.CANENCIA, Petitioner,vs.SUSAN LUMONTA, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

PERLAS;:ERNA:E, J.:

(ssailed in this petition for review on &ertiorari1 arethe De&ision$ dated Septe-0er $+, $!11 and the

Resolution

dated O&to0er 1, $!1$ of the Court of(ppeals 3C(4 in C()*.R. SP No. 11!'> whi&h setaside the De&ision'dated (ugust $!, $!!+ and theOrder dated 8anuar# 1%, $!1! of the Regional rialCourt of (ntipolo Cit#, Bran&h =' 3RC4 in Sp. CivilCase No. !%)='', ;nding that the a&tion instituted0# petitioner was not one for for&i0le entr#, 0ut forre&over# of ownership and possession, hen&e,within the original ?urisdi&tion of the latter.Conseuentl#, the C( ordered the re-and of the&ase to the R C for trial on the -erits.

he 5a&ts

his &ase originated fro- a for&i0le entr#Co-plaint> dated 8ul# , $!!= ;led 0# petitioner@o-er C. 8avier, represented 0# his -other andnatural guardian Susan *. Canen&ia 3petitioner4,against respondent Susan 2u-ontad 3respondent40efore the "uni&ipal rial Court of a#ta#, Rial3"C4, do&9eted as Civil Case No. 1+$+.

In his &o-plaint, petitioner alleged that he is one of the sons of the late Ji&ente . 8avier 3Ji&ente4, whowas the owner of a >!)suare -eter 3s. -.4par&el of land lo&ated at Corner "ala#a and*onaga Streets, Baranga# Dolores, a#ta# Rial

3su0?e&t land4,= &overed 0# a7 De&laration 3D4 No.!!)L)!!$)11'%.% Sin&e his 0irth, petitionersfa-il# has lived in the residential house ere&tedthereon.+ Fpon Ji&entes death, petitioner,together with his -other, &ontinued theirpossession over the sa-e. On "ar&h $>, $!!=,respondent gained entr# into the su0?e&t land andstarted to 0uild a two 3$4)store# 0uilding 3su0?e&t0uilding4 on a 1! s. -. portion thereof, despitepetitioners vigorous o0?e&tions and protests.1! hedispute was su0-itted to 0aranga# &on&iliation 0utno a-i&a0le settle-ent was rea&hed 0etween theparties.11 hus, petitioner was &onstrained to ;leagainst respondent the instant for&i0le entr#&o-plaint, averring, in addition to the foregoing,that reasona0le &o-pensation for the use and

%%


































o&&upan&# of the a0ove)said portion -a# 0e ;7edat ,!!!.!! per -onth.1$

In her (nswer1 dated 8ul# !, $!!=, respondentad-itted that during Ji&entes lifeti-e, he indeedwas the owner and in ph#si&al possession of thesu0?e&t land.1' Nevertheless, she &lai-ed to0e theowner of the portion where the su0?e&t 0uildingwas 0eing &onstru&ted, as eviden&ed 0# D No. !!) L)!!$)1!11 in her na-e.1> @en&e, she too9

possession of the said portion not as an illegalentrant 0ut as its owner.1=

he "C Ruling

In a 8udg-ent1% dated Nove-0er 11, $!!=, the "Cdis-issed the &o-plaint for want of &ause of a&tionand la&9 of ?urisdi&tion.1+

It found that Ji&ente a&tuall# su0divided thesu0?e&t land into two 3$4 lots/ the ;rst lot, with anarea of 1%=.$! s. -., was given to petitioner,while the se&ond lot, with an area of 1=$.%! s. -.and where the su0?e&t 0uilding was ere&ted, wasgiven toone (nthon# de la Pa 8avier 3(nthon#4,son of Ji&ente 0# a previous failed -arriage, 0utwas eventuall# a&uired 0# respondent fro- thelatter through sale.$! Based on this ;nding, the "C&on&luded that petitioner had no &ause of a&tionagainst respondent sin&e she was -erel#e7er&ising her rights asthe owner of the 1=$.%! s.-. su0divided lot.$1

(lso, the "C o0served that petitioners &o-plaintfailed to aver the reuired ?urisdi&tional fa&ts as it-erel# &ontained a general allegation that

respondents entr# into the disputed portion was-ade 0# -eans of for&e and inti-idation, withoutspe&i;&all# stating how, when, and where weresu&h -eans e-plo#ed. ith su&h failure, the "Cinti-ated that petitioners re-ed# should either 0ean a&&ion pu0li&iana or an a&&ion reivindi&atoriainstituted 0efore the proper foru-.$$ Dissatis;ed,petitioner appealed to the RC.

he RC Ruling

In a De&ision$ dated (ugust $!, $!!+, the RCreversed and set aside the "C ruling, and

a&&ordingl# ordered respondent to va&ate thedisputed portion and surrender possession thereofto petitioner. 2i9ewise, it ordered respondent to pa#petitioner the a-ounts of P,!!!.!! a -onth fro-"ar&h $!!=, until she va&ates said portion, asreasona0le &o-pensation for its use ando&&upation, and P$!,!!!.!! as attorne#s fees,in&luding &osts of suit.$'

Preli-inaril#, the RC ruled that the fa&ts averredin petitioners &o-plaint M na-el#, that petitioner,through his late father, owned and possessed thesu0?e&t land, and that 0# -eans of for&e andinti-idation, respondent gainedentr# thereto$ Mshow that his &ause of a&tion is indeed one offor&i0le entr# that falls within the ?urisdi&tion of the"C.$>

On the -erits, the RC found that petitioner, 0eing

the owner and possessor of the propert# inuestion, has the right to 0e respe&ted in hispossession and that respondent for&i0l# andunlawfull# deprived hi- of the sa-e.$=

Fn&onvin&ed, respondent -oved forre&onsideration,$% whi&h was, however, denied inan Order$+ dated 8anuar# 1%, $!1!, pro-ptingpetitioner to ;le an appeal 0efore the C(.

he C( Ruling

In a De&ision! dated Septe-0er $+, $!11, the C(set aside the RC ruling and re-anded the &ase tothe latter &ourt for trial on the -erits.1

It held that the issue of possession of the su0?e&tland is inti-atel# intertwined with the issue ofownership, su&h that the for-er issue &annot 0edeter-ined without ruling on who reall# owns su&hland. hus, it re-anded the &ase to the RC for trialon the -erits in the e7er&ise of the latters original ?urisdi&tion in an a&tion for re&over# of ownershipand possession pursuant to Se&tion % 3$4, Rule '!of the Rules of Court.$

his notwithstanding, the C( still &on&luded thatrespondent had the su0?e&t 0uilding &onstru&ted inthe &on&ept of 0eing the owner of the 1=$.%! s.-. portion of the su0?e&t land. In this relation, itwas o0served that petitioner gave a -isleadingdes&ription of D No. !!)L)!!$)11'%, &onsideringthat said ta7 de&laration onl# &overed petitionersfa-il# house and not the su0?e&t land where saidi-prove-ent was 0uilt, as petitioner alleged in his&o-plaint.' In truth, the C( found that the su0?e&tland is separatel# &overed 0# D No. !!)L)!!$)+>>!, whi&h was &an&elled when the land wassu0divided into two 3$4 lots, na-el#/ 3a4 the 1%=.$!

s. -. lot &overed 0# D No. !!)L)!!$)1$%$> given 0# Ji&ente to petitionerH and 304 the1=$.%! s. -. lot &overed 0# D No. !!)L)!!$)1$%$'= given 0# Ji&ente to (nthon#, whi&h thelatter sold to respondent, resulting in the issuan&eof D No. !!)L)!!$)1!1% in her na-e.

5urther, the C( stated that petitioner was not a0leto su:&ientl# esta0lish that respondent e-plo#edfor&e and inti-idation in entering the 1=$.%! s. -.portion of the su0?e&t landas he failed tode-onstrate the fa&tual &ir&u-stan&es thato&&urred during his dispossession of saidpropert#.+

%+




































































(ggrieved, petitioner ;led a -otion forre&onsideration,'! whi&h was, however, denied in aResolution'1 dated O&to0er 1, $!1$, hen&e, thispetition.

he Issue Before the Court

he -ain issue for the Courts resolution is whetheror not the C( &orre&tl# set aside the RC Ruling andordered the re-and of the &ase to the latter &ourtfor trial on the -erits in ana&tion for re&over# ofownership and possession.

he Courts Ruling

(lthough the Court ;nds that the &o-plaint wasindeed one for for&i0le entr#, petitioners &asenonetheless fails to i-press on the -erits.

(. Nature of the Case/ 5or&i0le Entr#.

he Court disagrees with the ;ndings of 0oth the

"C and the C( that the allegations in thepetitioners &o-plaint do not -a9e a &ase forfor&i0le entr# 0ut another a&tion &ognia0le 0# theRC.'$

(s e7pli&ated in the &ase of Pagadora v.Ilao,' GTtUhe invaria0le rule is that what deter-inesthe nature of the a&tion, as well as the &ourt whi&hhas ?urisdi&tion over the &ase, are the allegations inthe &o-plaint. In e?e&t-ent &ases, the &o-plaintshould e-0od# su&h state-ent of fa&ts as to 0ringthe part# &learl# within the &lass of &ases for whi&hTSe&tion 1, Rule =! of the Rules of CourtU provides asu--ar# re-ed#, and -ust show enough on itsfa&e to give the &ourt ?urisdi&tion without resort toparol eviden&e. @en&e, in for&i0le entr#, the&o-plaint -ust ne&essaril# allege that one inph#si&al possession of a land or 0uilding has 0eendeprived of that possession 0# another throughfor&e, inti-idation, threat, strateg# or stealth. It isnot essential, however, that the &o-plaint shoulde7pressl# e-plo# the language of the law, 0ut itwould su:&e that fa&ts are set up showing thatdispossession too9 pla&e under said &onditions. Inother words, the plaintiA -ust allege that he, priorto the defendants a&t of dispossession 0# for&e,inti-idation, threat, strateg# or stealth, had 0een

in prior ph#si&al possession of the propert#. hisreuire-ent is ?urisdi&tional, and as long as theallegations de-onstrate a &ause of a&tion forfor&i0le entr#, the &ourt a&uires ?urisdi&tion overthe su0?e&t -atter.G''

( plain reading of petitioners &o-plaint shows thatthe reuired ?urisdi&tional aver-ents, so as tode-onstrate a &ause of a&tion for for&i0le entr#,have all 0een &o-plied with. Said pleading allegesthat petitioner, as the original owners, i.e.,Ji&entes, su&&essor)in)interest, was in priorph#si&al possession of the su0?e&t land 0ut waseventuall# dispossessed of a 1! s. -. portionthereof on "ar&h $>, $!!= 0# respondent who,through for&e and inti-idation, gained entr# into

the sa-e and, thereafter, ere&ted a 0uildingthereon. Clearl#, with these details, the -eans 0#whi&h petitioners dispossession was eAe&ted&annot 0e said to have 0een insu:&ientl# allegedas -ista9enl# ruled 0# the "C and later a:r-ed0# the C(. he GhowG 3through unlawful entr# andthe &onstru&tion of the su0?e&t 0uilding4, GwhenG3"ar&h $>, $!!=4, and GwhereG 3a 1! s. -.portion of the su0?e&t land4 of the dispossession allappear on the fa&e of the &o-plaint. In (r0io v.

Sps. Santillan,' the Court held that the a&ts ofunlawfull# entering the disputed pre-ises, ere&tinga stru&ture thereon, and e7&luding therefro- theprior possessor, would ne&essaril# i-pl# the use offor&e,'> as what had, in fa&t, 0een alleged in theinstant &o-plaint. @en&e, it was erroneous to&on&lude that petitioner onl# -ade a generalallegation that respondents entr# in the pre-iseswas -ade 0# -eans of for&e andinti-idation'= and, &onseuentl#, that a for&i0leentr# &ase was not instituted 0efore the "C.*iven that a for&i0le entr# &o-plaint had 0eenproperl# ;led 0efore the "C, the C( thus erred inordering the re-and of the &ase to the RC for trialon the -erits in an a&tion for re&over# ofpossession and ownership, otherwise 9nown as ana&&ion reivindi&atoria,'% pursuant to Paragraph $,Se&tion %, Rule '! of the Rules of Court whi&hreads/

SEC. %. (ppeal fro- orders dis-issing &ase withouttrialH la&9 of ?urisdi&tion.M 7 7 7.

If the &ase was tried on the -erits 0# the lower&ourt without ?urisdi&tion over the su0?e&t -atter,the Regional rial Court on appeal shall not dis-issthe &ase if it has original ?urisdi&tion thereof, 0ut

shall de&ide the &ase in a&&ordan&e with thepre&eding se&tion, without pre?udi&e to thead-ission of a-ended pleadings and additionaleviden&e in the interest of ?usti&e.

Jeril#, e?e&t-ent &ases fall within the original ande7&lusive ?urisdi&tion of the ;rst level &ourts 0#e7press provision of Se&tion 3$4'+ of BatasPa-0ansa Blg. 1$+,! in relation to Se&tion 1,1 Rule=!, of the Rules of Court.$ Even in &ases where theissue of possession is &losel# intertwined with theissue of ownership, the ;rst level &ourts -aintaine7&lusive and original ?urisdi&tion over e?e&t-ent

&ases,

as the# are given the authorit# to -a9e aninitial deter-ination of ownership for the purposeof settling the issue of possession.' It -ust 0e&lari;ed, however, that su&h ad?udi&ation is -erel#provisional and would not 0ar or pre?udi&e ana&tion 0etween the sa-e parties involving titletothe propert#. It is, therefore, not &on&lusive as tothe issue of ownership.

B. "erits of the 5or&i0le Entr# Co-plaint.

Notwithstanding petitioners proper &lassi;&ation of his a&tion, his for&i0le entr# &o-plaint,

nonetheless, &annot 0e granted on its -erits,&onsidering that he had failed to ?ustif# his right to

+!







































the de fa&to possession 3ph#si&al or -aterialpossession4 of the disputed pre-ises.1)*phi1

(s pointed out 0# the C(, D No. !!)L)!!$)11'%,or the supposed do&u-ent fro- whi&h petitionerhinges his right to the de fa&to possession of thesu0?e&t land, onl# &overs his house and not theentire land itself. Nothing appears on re&ord toshow that he has the right to the de fa&topossession of the 1=$.%! s. -. portion whi&h, on

the &ontrar#, appears to 0e &onsistent with the&lai- of ownership of respondent in view of D No.OOL)!!$)1!1 &overing the sa-e propert# asregistered in her na-e. hus, with no eviden&e insupport of petitioners stan&e, and the &ounter)eviden&e showing respondents right to the defa&to possession of the 1=$.%! s. -. portion as itsostensi0le owner, the for&i0le &o-plaint -ustne&essaril# fail.

@ERE5ORE, the petition is DENIED. (&&ordingl#,petitioners for&i0le entr# &o-plaint in Sp. CivilCase No. !%)='' is DIS"ISSED for la&9 of -erit.

G.R. No. 18231 !+#& 19, 200

:A:> ARLENE LARANO,^ Petitioner,vs.SPS. ALFREO CALENACION "#$ RAFAELA T.CALENACION,^^ Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

AUSTRIA;MARTINEH, J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Reviewon Certiorari under Rule ' of the Revised Rules ofCourt assailing the De&ision1 dated "a# 1, $!! of the Court of (ppeals 3C(4 in C()*.R. SP No. >%$=$whi&h dis-issed the &o-plaint for unlawfuldetainer of Ba0# (rlene 2araKo 3petitioner4 againstSpouses (lfredo and Rafaela Calenda&ion3respondents4.

he fa&tual 0a&9ground of the &ase is as follows/

Petitioner owns a par&el of ri&eland situated inBaranga# Daniw, "uni&ipalit# of Ji&toria, 2aguna&overed 0# C No. 1=$'1 of the Register ofDeeds of 2aguna. On Septe-0er 1', 1++%,petitioner and respondents e7e&uted a Contra&t toSell where0# the latter agreed to 0u# a !,!!!)suare -eter portion of petitioners ri&elandforP"illion, with P!!,!!!.!! as down pa#-entand the 0alan&e pa#a0le in nine install-entsof P!!,!!!.!! ea&h, until Septe-0er $!!1.$

Pending full pa#-ent of the pur&hase pri&e,possession of the ri&eland was transferred torespondents under the &ondition that the# shalla&&ount for and deliver the harvest fro- saidri&eland to petitioner. Respondents, however, failed

to pa# the install-ents and to a&&ount for anddeliver the harvest fro- said ri&eland.

On "ar&h =, $!!!, petitioner sent respondents ade-and letter' to va&ate the ri&eland within 1!da#s fro- re&eipt thereof, 0ut as her de-and wentunheeded, she ;led on (pril , $!!! aCo-plaint against respondents for unlawfuldetainer 0efore the "uni&ipal rial Court 3"C4,Ji&toria, 2aguna, do&9eted as Civil Case No. %$>,pra#ing that respondents 0e dire&ted to va&ate theri&eland and to pa# P'!!,!!!.!! per #ear fro-Septe-0er 1++% until the# va&ate, as reasona0le

&o-pensation for the use of thepropert#, P1$!,!!!.!! as attorne#s fees,and P!,!!!.!! as litigation e7penses.>

In their (nswer= dated (pril $>, $!!!, respondentsad-it the e7e&ution of the Contra&t to Sell 0utden# that it &ontains all the agree-ents of theparties. he# allege that petitioner has no &ause ofa&tion against the- 0e&ause the three)#ear periodwithin whi&h to pa# the pur&hase pri&e has not #etlapsedH that the "C has no ?urisdi&tion over the&ase 0e&ause the &o-plaint failed to allege that ade-and to pa# and to va&ate the ri&eland was

-ade upon the-.

%

On (ugust $, $!!1, the "C rendered aDe&ision,+ the dispositive portion of whi&h reads/

@ERE5ORE, ?udg-ent is here0# renderedordering defendants, as follows/

1.4 o i--ediatel# va&ate the pre-ises in uestionH

$.4 o pa# the a-ount of @REE @FNDRED SIL5IJE @OFS(ND 3P>,!!!.!!4 PESOS as areasona0le &o-pensation for the use and

o&&upation of the propert#H

.4 o pa# ENL @OFS(ND 3P$!,!!!.!!4 PESOSfor and attorne#s feesH and

'.4 o pa# 5IJE @OFS(ND 3P,!!!.!!4 PESOS aslitigation e7penses, plus &osts.

SO ORDERED.1!

Respondents ;led an appeal with the Regional rialCourt 3RC4, Bran&h $>, Sta. Cru, 2aguna,do&9eted as Civil Case No. SC)'1'1.11 OnDe&e-0er , $!!1, the RC rendered aDe&ision,1$ the dispositive portion of whi&h reads/

@ERE5ORE, the ?udg-ent of the trial &ourt ishere0# a:r-ed su0?e&t to the -odi;&ation thatdefendants are ordered to pa# plaintiA the a-ountof 5OFR @FNDRED @OFS(ND 3P'!!,!!!.!!4, as#earl# reasona0le &o-pensation for the use ando&&upation of said ri&eland &o-puted fro- 1+++until su&h ti-e that defendants have a&tuall#va&ated the sa-e.

SO ORDERED.1

+1






























Fndaunted, respondents ;led a Petition for Reviewwith the C(.1' 5or failure to ;le her &o--entdespite re&eipt of C( Resolution1 dated "a# %,$!!$ whi&h reuired her to ;le a &o--ent,petitioner was dee-ed to have waived her right to;le &o--ent to the petition in C( Resolution dated(ugust $%, $!!$.1>

On "a# 1, $!!, the C( rendered aDe&ision1= setting aside the De&ision of the RC and

dis-issing the &o-plaint for unlawful detainer. heC( nulli;ed the pro&eedings 0efore the "C forwant of ?urisdi&tion. It held that the issues in the&ase ) whether or not there was a violation of theContra&t to Sell, whether or not su&h violationgives the petitioner the right to ter-inate the&ontra&t and &onseuentl#, the right to re&overpossession and the value of the harvest fro- theri&eland ) e7tend 0e#ond those &o--onl# involvedin unlawful detainer suits where onl# the issue ofpossession is involvedH that the &ase is not a -eredetainer suit 0ut one in&apa0le of pe&uniar#esti-ation, pla&ing it under the e7&lusive original

?urisdi&tion of the RC, not the "C.

Dissatis;ed, petitioner ;led the present petitionan&hored on the following grounds/

1. he respondent Court of (ppeals &o--ittedgrave error in giving due &ourse to the privaterespondents petition for review notwithstandingthe fa&t that said petition &ontains no veri;&ationto the eAe&t that the allegations therein were readand understood 0# the private respondents andthat the# are true and &orre&t of their own orpersonal 9nowledge or 0ased on authenti& re&ords,as reuired 0# the rules.

$. he respondent Court of (ppeals grievousl#erred in dis-issing the &ase on the ground that the"uni&ipal rial Court has no ?urisdi&tion over the&ase for unlawful detainer, and thus the Regional rial Court li9ewise has no ?urisdi&tion on appeal tode&ide the &ase for unlawful detainer, whi&hallegedl# involves a -atter in&apa0le of pe&uniar#esti-ation.

. he respondent Court of (ppeals erred in nota:r-ing the de&ision of the Regional rial Courtdated De&e-0er , $!!1, -odif#ing the de&ision of the "uni&ipal rial Court dated (ugust $, $!!! 0othordering the evi&tion of private respondents fro-the su0?e&t propert# and pa#-ent of thereasona0le value of the use of the su0?e&tpre-ises.1%

Petitioner &ontends that the C( should havedis-issed outright the petition for review ;led0efore it sin&e it &ontains no veri;&ation asreuired 0# the RulesH and that the C(, in ;ndingthat the &o-plaint 0efore the "C was not one forunlawful detainer 0ut for spe&i;& perfor-an&e, didnot li-it itself to the allegations in the &o-plaint

0ut resorted to unrestrained referen&es, dedu&tionsandor &on?e&tures, undul# inuen&ed 0# theallegations in the answer.

Respondents, on the other hand, &ontend thatveri;&ation is ?ust a for-al reuire-entH thatpetitioner waived her right to uestion the defe&twhen she failed to su0-it her &o--entH that theC( &orre&tl# pointed out that the present &aseinvolves one that is in&apa0le of pe&uniar#esti-ation sin&e the &ru7 of the -atter is the rightsof the parties 0ased on the Contra&t to Sell.

he petition is 0ereft of -erit.

(s to the &ontention of petitioner that the C(should not have ta9en &ognian&e of the petitionfor review 0e&ause it was not veri;ed, as reuired0# the Rules, this Court has held in a nu-0er ofinstan&es that su&h a de;&ien&# &an 0e e7&used ordispensed with in -eritorious &ases, the defe&t0eing neither ?urisdi&tional nor alwa#s fatal.1+ hereuire-ent regarding veri;&ation of a pleading isfor-al.$! Su&h reuire-ent is si-pl# a &onditionaAe&ting the for- of pleading, the non)&o-plian&ewith whi&h does not ne&essaril# render thepleading fatall# defe&tive.$1Jeri;&ation is si-pl#

intended to se&ure an assuran&e that theallegations in the pleading are true and &orre&t andnot the produ&t of the i-agination or a -atter ofspe&ulation, and that the pleading is ;led in goodfaith.$$ he &ourt -a# order the &orre&tion of thepleading if veri;&ation is la&9ing or a&t on thepleading although it is not veri;ed, if the attending&ir&u-stan&es are su&h that stri&t &o-plian&e withthe Rules -a# 0e dispensed with in order that theends of ?usti&e -a# there0# 0e served.$

Besides, petitioner did not raise the issue of la&9 of veri;&ation 0efore the C(. She did not ;le a&o--ent to the petition and it is too late in the da#to assail su&h defe&t, as she is dee-ed to havewaived an# o0?e&tion to the for-al aws of thepetition. Points of law, theories, issues andargu-ents not 0rought to the attention of thelower &ourt &annot 0e raised for the ;rst ti-e onappeal.$'

he -ain issue 0eing raised in the present petitionis whether the &o-plaint is one for unlawfuldetainer.

Settled is the rule that ?urisdi&tion in e?e&t-ent&ases is deter-ined 0# the allegations pleaded inthe &o-plaint.$It &annot 0e -ade to depend uponthe defenses set up in the answer or pleadings ;led0# the defendant.$>Neither &an it 0e -ade todepend on the e7&lusive &hara&teriation of the&ase 0# one of the parties.$= he test fordeter-ining the su:&ien&# of those allegations iswhether, ad-itting the fa&ts alleged, the &ourt &anrender a valid ?udg-ent in a&&ordan&e with thepra#er of the plaintiA .$%

he fa&ts upon whi&h an a&tion for unlawfuldetainer &an 0e 0rought are spe&iall# -entioned inSe&tion 1, Rule =! of the Revised Rules of Court,

whi&h provides/

+$





































Se&tion 1. ho -a# institute pro&eedings, andwhen. M Su0?e&t to the provisions of the ne7tsu&&eeding se&tion, a person deprived of thepossession of an# land or 0uilding 0# for&e,inti-idation, threat, strateg#, or stealth, or alessor, vendor, /&#$&&, or other person againstwho- the possession of an# land or 0uilding isunlawfull# withheld after the e7piration orter-ination of the right to hold possession, 0#virtue of an# &ontra&t, e7press or i-plied, or the

legal representatives or assigns of an# su&h lessor,vendor, vendee or other person -a#, at an# ti-ewithin one 314 #ear after su&h unlawful deprivationor withholding of possession, 0ring an a&tion in theproper "uni&ipal rial Court against the person orpersons unlawfull# withholding or depriving ofpossession, or an# person or persons &lai-ingunder the-, for the restitution of su&h possession,together with da-ages and &osts. 3E-phasissupplied4

In unlawful detainer, the possession was originall#lawful 0ut 0e&a-e unlawful 0# the e7piration or

ter-ination of the right to possessH hen&e, theissue of rightful possession is de&isive for, in su&ha&tion, the defendant is in a&tual possession andthe plaintiAs &ause of a&tion is the ter-ination ofthe defendants right to &ontinue in possession.$+

(pplied to the present &ase, petitioner, as vendor,-ust &o-pl# with two reuisites for the purpose of0ringing an e?e&t-ent suit/ 3a4 there -ust 0efailure to pa# the install-ent due or &o-pl# withthe &onditions of the Contra&t to SellH and 304 there-ust 0e de-and 0oth to pa# or to &o-pl# andva&ate within the periods spe&i;ed in Se&tion $!ofRule =!, na-el#/ 1 da#s in &ase of land and

da#s in &ase of 0uildings. he ;rst reuisite refersto the e7isten&e of the &ause of a&tion for unlawfuldetainer, while the se&ond refers to the ?urisdi&tionreuire-ent of de-and in order that said &ause ofa&tion -a# 0e pursued.1

Both de-ands M to pa# install-ent due or adhereto the ter-s of the Contra&t to Sell and to va&ateare ne&essar# to -a9e the vendee defor&iant inorder that an e?e&t-ent suit -a# 0e ;led.$ It is thevendors de-and for the vendee to va&ate thepre-ises and the vendees refusal to do so whi&h-a9es unlawful the withholding of the

possession.

Su&h refusal violates the vendorsright of possession giving rise to an a&tion forunlawful detainer.' @owever, prior to theinstitution of su&h a&tion, a de-and fro- thevendor to pa# the install-ent due or &o-pl# withthe &onditions of the Contra&t to Sell and to va&atethe pre-ises is reuired under the aforeuotedrule.

hus, -ere failure to pa# the install-ent due orviolation of the ter-s of the Contra&t to Sell doesnot auto-ati&all# render a persons possessionunlawful. 5urther-ore, the giving of su&h de-and-ust 0e alleged in the &o-plaintH otherwise, the"C &annot a&uire ?urisdi&tion over the &ase.

( review of the Co-plaint of petitioner dis&losesthese pertinent allegations/ petitioner owns thesu0?e&t ri&elandH she e7e&uted a Contra&t to Sell infavor of respondentsH pending full pa#-ent of thepur&hase pri&e, possession of su0?e&t ri&eland wastransferred to respondents su0?e&t to a&&ountingand deliver# of the harvest to petitionerHrespondents failed to pa# the install-ents and toa&&ount for and deliver the harvestH petitioneras9ed respondents to va&ate the su0?e&t ri&eland,

0ut the# failed to do so. (&&ordingl#, petitionerpra#ed for ?udg-ent ordering respondents tova&ate the su0?e&t ri&eland and to pa# P'!!,!!!.!!per #ear fro- Septe-0er 1++% until the# va&ate asreasona0le &o-pensation for the use of thepropert#, P1$!,!!!.!! as attorne#s fees,andP!,!!!.!! as litigation e7penses.

It is &lear fro- the foregoing that the allegations inthe Co-plaint failed to &onstitute a &ase ofunlawful detainer. hat is &lear is that in theCo-plaint, petitioner alleged that respondents hadviolated the ter-s of the Contra&t to Sell. @owever,

the Co-plaint failed to state that petitioner -adede-ands upon respondents to &o-pl# with the&onditions of the &ontra&t M the pa#-ent of theinstall-ents and the a&&ounting and deliver# of theharvests fro- the su0?e&t ri&eland. he 1!)da#period granted respondents to va&ate even fellshort of the 1)da# period -andated 0# law. henthe &o-plaint does not satisf# the ?urisdi&tionalreuire-ents of a valid &ause for unlawful detainer,the "C does not have ?urisdi&tion to hear the&ase.>

(n allegation of a violation of a &ontra&t oragree-ent in a detainer suit -a# 0e proved 0# the

presentation of &o-petent eviden&e, upon whi&han "C ?udge -ight -a9e a ;nding to that eAe&t,0ut &ertainl#, that &ourt &annot de&lare and holdthat the &ontra&t is res&inded. he res&ission of&ontra&t is a power vested in the RC.= heres&ission of the &ontra&t is the 0asis of, andtherefore a &ondition pre&edent for, the illegalit# of a part#s possession of a pie&e of realt#.% ithout ?udi&ial intervention and deter-ination, even astipulation entitling one part# to ta9e possession of the land and 0uilding, in &ase the other part#violates the &ontra&t, &annot &onfer upon thefor-er the right to ta9e possession thereof, if that

-ove is o0?e&ted to.

+

Clearl#, the 0asi& issue raised in the &o-plaint ofpetitioner is not of possession 0ut interpretation,enfor&e-ent andor res&ission of the &ontra&t, a-atter that is 0e#ond the ?urisdi&tion of the "C tohear and deter-ine.

7-EREFORE, the instant petition is ENIE. heDe&ision dated "a# 1, $!! of the Court of(ppeals in C()*.R. SP No. >%$=$ is AFFIRME.Costs against petitioner.

G.R. No. 1041 O)(o&r 18, 1996

+





























FRANCISCO :ERNARTE, :ENEICTO ANAN,:IEN<ENIO :ELLEHA, RO:ERTO MALLARI,FELICIANO MALLARI, PESCASIO IMARUCUT,RE>NALO TIM:ANG, ALFREO SANTOS,FEERICO SANTOS, LAM:ERTO ANAN, !ESUSCASTRO, <ICTORINO TALA, MARIANOSANTOS, IGNACIO CASTRO E LA CRUH,7ILFREO TAPALLA, RE>NALO OS:UAL,ANTONIO SANTOS, TEOFILO MUNOH, MANUELNAGUIAT, FELISICIMO MACASPAC, ROMAN

:ERNAL, !R., FAUSTINO PANGAN, FRANCISCOMACASPAC, CARLITO AGUILUH, FIELCASTRO, SAL<AOR TALA, ROMEO TALA,LUCIANO MANLAPAH, TOMAS PAULE, ANN>MANUEL, :ENIGNO PORTALES, CONRAOMALLARI, MARTA ANAN, REGINA TIM:ANG,CONC-ITA <ISA, AMELIA ALFARO, <IOLETAALFARO, CONC-ITA MALIT, SE<ERINA RI<ERA,FLORENCIA PAULE, ROSITA :ERNAL, GLORIAMALLARI, LILIA SERRANO, NORMA CA:UAN;:AUTISTA "#$ ANITA MANGANIT,petitioner,vs.T-E COURT OF APPEALS, T%& -o#. CARLOS:ARTOLO, M+#i)ip"l !+$& o* (%& M+#i)ip"lTri"l Co+r( o* L+"o, P"p"#", T-EPRO<INCIAL 7AREN OF T-E PRO<INCE OFPAMPANGA, MA!OR !ESUS MANINANG PNPD,SPO3 CARLOS GUINTO PNPD, SPO1 !ESUS=A:ILING PNPD, SPO4 EGARO LALIC PNPD SPO4 OMINAOR LACANLALE PNPD "#$REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, :RANC- 0,GUAGUA, PAMPANGA, respondents.

ROMERO, J.: p

his is a petition for review of thede&ision 1 dated Nove-0er 1+, 1++$ of theCourt of (ppeals in C()*.R. SP No. $+$%'dis-issing for la&9 of -erit the petitionfor habeas corpus of petitioners.

he re&ords show that on O&to0er , 1+%+,Estrella (rastia, in her own 0ehalf and asattorne#)in)fa&t of the heirs of eodori&aReinares (rastia, 2eti&ia (rastia)"ontenegro and 8uanita (rastia, ;led a&o-plaint for violation of Se&tion = 304 ofRepu0li& (&t No. >>= 3Co-prehensive

(grarian Refor- 2aw of 1+%%4 0efore theRegional rial Court of San 5ernando,Pa-panga, Bran&h '% in its &apa&it# as aSpe&ial (grarian Court.

Do&9eted as (grarian Case No. $!!!, the&o-plaint 2 alleged that after the EDS(Revolution, herein petitioners, whoorganied the-selves into the (ni0ang"anggagawa sa (gri&ultura 3(.".(.4,illegall# intruded into the land lo&ated at2u0ao, Pa-panga 3with an aggregate areaof around $1! he&tares4 of the plaintiAs,

0urned the e7isting sugar&ane plants andstarted to &ultivate s-all portions thereof.(s a result, the land was a0andoned 0#

Rusti&o Coronal, the &ivil lessee, and ta9enover 0# plaintiA)owners. (lleging furtherthat there had 0een Gde;niteG ;ndings andrulings 0# the Depart-ent of (grarianRefor-G that Gno tenan&# relationshipGe7isted 0etween the parties, petitionersherein &ontinued to for&i0l# enter, intrudeinto and -olest the possession of the overthe land in uestion in violation of Se&tion= 304 of Repu0li& (&t No. >>=. he

&o-plaint pra#ed for the issuan&e of ate-porar# restraining order to en?oinpetitioners fro- entering into the land andintruding in the possession thereof and,after hearing, the issuan&e of a writ ofpreli-inar# in?un&tion whi&h should 0e-ade per-anent after a full)0lown trial.

In their answer, 3 petitioners averred thatthe# had 0een in &ontinuous and pea&efulpossession of their respe&tive tillages sin&e1+! when the late eodori&a (rastia wasstill the ad-inistratri7 of the landholding in

uestion. he# -oved for the dis-issal ofthe &o-plaint on the ground that the trial&ourt had no ?urisdi&tion as it was theDepart-ent of (grarian Refor- 3D(R4,through the Depart-ent of (grarianRefor- (d?udi&ation Board 3D(R(B4,pursuant to Se&tion ! of Repu0li& (&t No.>>=, that had ?urisdi&tion over the &ase."oreover, petitioners asserted that due tothe -ali&ious and evil intentions ofplaintiAs in harassing and e?e&ting the-fro- the land, the# suAered a&tual, as wellas -oral da-ages, for their failure toharvest their standing &rops.

Inas-u&h as the &o-plaint was ver#spe&i;& as regards petitioners &o--issionof a&ts prohi0ited 0# Se&tion = 304 ofRepu0li& (&t No. >>= and pursuant toSe&tion = thereof, 4 the lower &ourt deniedthe -otion to dis-iss on Nove-0er $,1+%+. It issued a writ of preli-inar#in?un&tion ordering petitioners Gandor an#other person a&ting in their &o--andandor their 0ehalf to desist and refrainfro- o&&up#ing their respe&tive portionsthe# are allegedl# &ultivating pending the

ter-ination of this litigation, andor unlessa &ontrar# order is issued 0# this Court.G

Petitioners -otion for re&onsiderationpra#ing that the writ of preli-inar#in?un&tion 0e set aside and that the &ase0e dis-issed for la&9 of -erit was denied0# the lower &ourt on (pril $, 1++!. Itreiterated the writ of preli-inar# in?un&tionin the Order of 8ul# 1, 1++1 whi&hdeputied -e-0ers of the PhilippineNational Poli&e 3PNP4 0ased in 2u0ao and*uagua, Pa-panga, to enfor&e the saidwrit. On (pril $, 1++$, the &o-plaint was

a-ended to ree&t the na-es of the G8ohnDoesG originall# i-pleaded therein and whohad 0een identi;ed.

+'



Su0seuentl#, on 8ul# 1=, 1++1, petitioners;led 0efore this Court a petitionfor certiorari, do&9eted as *.R. No. 1!!>>and entitled G8esus Bernal, et al. v. Estrella(rastia, et al.,G assailing the ?urisdi&tion ofthe lower &ourt over (grarian Case No.$!!!. on 8ul# 1, 1++1, this Courtdis-issed the petition for failure to &o-pl#with Cir&ular No. 1)%%, spe&i;&all# No. 'thereof, reuiring a Gveri;ed state-ent of

the date when noti&e of the ?udg-ent,order or resolution su0?e&t of the petitionwas re&eived, when a -otion forre&onsideration was ;led and when noti&eof the denial thereof was re&eived.G 6

"eanwhile, on Nove-0er $+, 1+%+,petitioners ;led 0efore the D(R(B a&o-plaint against Estrella (rastia.Do&9eted as D(R(B Case No. 1>1)P%+, the&o-plaint alleged that on Septe-0er $,1+%+, through the use and e-plo# ofar-ed -en, Estrella (rastia for&i0l# evi&ted

and drove theout of their landholdings,harvested and appropriated their standingri&e &rops, destro#ed their vegeta0le &rops,too9 their deep well and set ;re on theirhouses. (s a &onseuen&e thereof, the#suAered da-ages in the total a-ount ofP,!!,!!!.!! for whi&h Estrella (rastiashould 0e held lia0le. he# pra#ed for theissuan&e of a writ of preli-inar# in?un&tionor restraining order to en?oin defendanttherein fro- preventing their re)entr# andre)o&&upation of the landholdings pendingthe resolution of the &ase.

Pursuant to Se&tion 1+ of E7e&utive OrderNo. $$+ and Se&tion '= of Repu0li& (&t No.>>=, the &ase was referred to theBaranga# (grarian Refor- Co--ittee3B(RC4 of 0aranga#s San Isidro, Santiago,San Rafael and 2ourdes in 2u0ao,Pa-panga for fa&t);nding and e7plorationof the possi0ilit# of an a-i&a0lesettle-ent. (fter &ondu&ting the ne&essar#pro&eedings, the B(RCs found thatpetitioners had 0een in possession and&ultivation of their respe&tive far-holdings. his fa&t was &ontained in the report dated

"a# $, 1+%% of "r. Ji&ente 8i-ene,C(RPOO:&er)in)Charge, Provin&ial O:&eof Pa-panga, to the Se&retar# of theDepart-ent of (grarian Refor- whi&h wastrans-itted to the D(R(B on Septe-0er1%, 1+%+.

@owever, despite re&eipt of su--ons andthe D(R(B orders of 8une , 1++!,Septe-0er 1+, 1++! and O&to0er , 1++!,Estrella (rastia did not ;le an answer nor&o-pl# with said orders. D(R(B &onstruedthis as her waiver and a:r-ation of whathad 0een su0-itted 0# petitioners, and

that she had no eviden&e to su0-it for its&onsideration.

On De&e-0er =, 1++!, 0ased on the;ndings of the B(RCs, the D(R(B issued anorder 8 de&laring the !!)he&tare land aswithin the &overage of the Co-prehensive(grarian Refor- 2aw of 1+%%H -aintainingpetitioners Gpossession and &ultivation oftheir respe&tive landholdingsG fro- whereGthe# where for&i0l# e?e&ted on Septe-0er$+, 1+%+G and Grestraining the respondentor an# other persons a&ting in her 0ehalf

fro- entering, intruding, and distur0ing thefar-ing a&tivities of the said petitioners intheir respe&tive far-holdingsHG dire&tingthe "(RO of 2u0ao, Pa-panga and theD(R e-plo#ees &on&erned Gto pro&ess andta9e appropriate a&tion on the petition for&overage under Repu0li& (&t >>= of theirrespe&tive far-holdings in a&&ordan&e withthe rules and regulations of the D(R,G anddis-issing for la&9 of -erit the &lai-s forda-ages. 9

he petitioners, having ;led a 0ond in the

a-ount of ;ve hundred thousand pesos3P!!,!!!.!!4, on Septe-0er $+, 1++$, theD(R(B issued the writ of preli-inar#in?un&tion 10 the# had pra#ed for.Conseuentl#, with the assistan&e of two3$4 poli&e o:&ers assigned 0# the Chief ofPoli&e of 2u0ao, SheriA 8oselito B. Dollenteserved the writ on Septe-0er !, 1++$, inthe presen&e of so-e 0aranga# o:&ialsand the C(5*F)CJO in &harge. Sin&eEstrella (rastia was not in her provin&ialaddress, a &ertain Pri-itivo "aninangre&eived the writ for her.

On O&to0er =, 1++$, on the strength of thesaid writ of preli-inar# in?un&tion in D(R(BCase No. 1>1)%+, petitioners resu-edo&&upation and &ultivation of the su0?e&tland. Su&h a&tions resulted in the dispat&hof several poli&e-en to the area. he#re-inded petitioners of the writ ofpreli-inar# in?un&tion issued earlier in(grarian Case No. $!!! and ordered the-to leave the land in dispute. Fpon theirrefusal to leave, the poli&e-en arrestedthe- and su0seuentl# &harged the- withresistan&e andor diso0edien&e to the

lawful order of persons in authorit# 0eforethe "uni&ipal rial Court of 2u0ao. On thesa-e da#, however, the# were releasedfro- poli&e &ustod# on the re&ognian&e of(tt#. enaida Du&ut.

Insisting on their right to wor9 on the landin a&&ordan&e with the writ issued inD(R(B Case No. 1>1)%+, the following da#,O&to0er %, 1++$, petitioners again enteredthe land. ithout a warrant of arrest,herein respondent poli&e o:&ers na-ed 8esus "aninang, Carlos *uinto, 8esusa0iling, Edgardo 2ali& and Do-inador

2a&anlale arrested petitioners for havingentered the landholding and for resistingand inti-idating said poli&e o:&ers.

+



Re&overed fro- petitioners possessionwere seven 3=4 assorted 0olos used in&ultivating the land. 11

Petitioners were detained at the -uni&ipal ?ail of 2u0ao, Pa-panga on O&to0er %,1++$. On even date, the# were &hargedwith dire&t assault upon agents of a personin authorit# under Cri-inal Case No. +++.

On O&to0er 1', 1++$, the said -uni&ipal&ourt ordered the transfer of petitioners tothe provin&ial ?ail in San 5ernando,Pa-panga on the ground that the &ase fellwithin the ?urisdi&tion of the Regional rialCourt and the fa&t that petitioners, havingrefused to re&eive &op# of the &o-plaintand the a:davits of the &o-plainants, didnot Gintend to ;le &ounter)a:davit.G OnO&to0er 1>, 1++$, the -uni&ipal &ourt alsoordered that the re&ords of the &ase 0eforwarded to the O:&e of the Provin&ialProse&utor in San 5ernando, Pa-panga for

appropriate a&tion. On O&to0er $1, 1++$,the Provin&ial Prose&utor ;led aninfor-ation for dire&t assault upon agent of a person in authorit# whi&h was do&9etedas Cri-inal Case No. 1=1 0efore theRegional rial Court of *uagua, Pa-panga.(rraign-ent was set for De&e-0er 1, 1++$at +/!! o&lo&9 in the -orning.

(fter the ;ling of the infor-ation for dire&tassault or on O&to0er $, 1++$, petitioners;led 0efore this Court a petition for habeascorpus under *.R. No. 1!=++ uestioningthe legalit# of their arrest and detention.On O&to0er $%, 1++$, this Court issued thewrit returna0le to the (&ting Presiding 8usti&e of the Court of the (ppeals. hereturn of the writ was ;led on Nove-0er +,1++$. In due &ourse, on Nove-0er 1+,1++$, the Court of (ppeals dis-issed thepetition for la&9 of -erit in the hereinuestioned De&ision whi&h held in part asfollows/

he petitioners &lai- that the#were e7er&ising their rights whenthe# were wor9ing and far-ing on

the said land pursuant to thepreli-inar# in?un&tion issued inD(R(B Case No. 1>1)P%+, and thatthe preli-inar# in?un&tion issued 0#the RC 0eing enfor&ed 0# therespondent PNP ea- is unlawfulfor said RC, Br. '%, San 5ernando,Pa-panga has no ?urisdi&tion over(grarian Case No. $!!!, deservess&ant &onsideration. (s 0rought out0# respondents and veri;ed fro-the re&ords of the Supre-e Court,the petitioners had ;led therewitha certiorari petition entitled G8esusBernal, et al. v. @on. Eli *. C.Natividad, et al.G 3*.R. No. 1!!>>4

uestioning the said Regional rialCourts ?urisdi&tion to issue the writof preli-inar# in?un&tion in(grarian Case No. $!!!. Saidpetition in *.R. No. 1!!>> wasdis-issed for non)&o-plian&e withSupre-e Court Cir&ular No. 1)%%.Entr# of ;nal ?udg-ent thereonwas -ade 0# the Supre-e Courton O&to0er 1!, 1++1.

(s -atter 3sic4 now stands, thesaid RC, Bran&h '%, San 5ernando,Pa-panga, has not 0een de&laredas without ?urisdi&tion over(grarian Case No. $!!! andtherefore, the said writ ofpreli-inar# in?un&tion it issued is inorder.

In ;ne, sin&e at the ti-e thepetitioners were arrested, the PNPtea- was enfor&ing a lawful order

of the sa-e RC and in seriousl#resisting the sa-e the appellantsinti-idated the PNP tea-&o--itting the alleged &ri-e ofDire&t (ssault Fpon (n (gent of (Person In (uthorit#, a warrant wasnot ne&essar# for their arrest, asprovided in Se&. 3a4, Rule 11,Rules on Cri-inal Pro&edure, to wit/

Se&. . (rrestwithout warrantHwhen lawful. (pea&e o:&er orprivate person-a#, without awarrant, arrest apersonH

3a4 hen anoAense has in fa&t ?ust 0een&o--itted, and hehas personal9nowledge of fa&tsindi&ating that theperson to 0e

arrested has&o--itted itH

In the light of the foregoing, theissue regarding the validit# of thefour warrants of arrest issuedagainst the petitioners need not 0eta9en up.

2et it also 0e stated that there is noe7pli&it rule reuiring a ?udge, afteran a&&used has 0een arrestedwithout a warrant for an oAense

&ognia0le 0# the regional trial&ourt and later &harged in a&o-plaint or infor-ation

+>



&o-for-a0l# with the provisions ofRule 11$, Se&tion = of the 1+%Rules on Cri-inal Pro&edure to stillissue a warrant of arrest or order of &o--it-ent for the said a&&used3Re/ Petition for 2abeas Corpus of*loria 8opson (sun&ion T*.R. 2)No.%'+!=, "inute Resolution, 5irstDivision, Nove-0er , 1+%%U4. (se7plained 0# the Supre-e Court,

su&h rule is not provided sin&e thea&&used is alread# under detentionso that the issuan&e of a warrantfor his arrest or an order for his&o--it-ent would 0e an a0solutesuperuit#, &onsidering that theneed of a warrant of arrest arisesonl# when the a&&used is at largeas under Rule 11, Se&tion 1 of the1+% Rules of Cri-inal Pro&edure-eans Gthe ta9ing of a person in&ustod# in order that he -a# 0e0ound to answer for the&o--ission of an oAense,G andthat the o0vious purpose of thewarrant is for the &ourt to a&uire ?urisdi&tion over the person of thea&&used 3Re/ Petition of 2abeasCorpus of *loria 8opson(sun&ion, supra4.

Petitioners re&eived a &op# of said De&isionon Nove-0er $!, 1++$, a 5rida#. OnNove-0er $, 1++$, the# ;led in this Courta -otion for an e7tension of two 3$4 da#swithin whi&h to ;le a petition for reviewoncertiorari. he# followed the -otion with

another reuesting an additional two 3$4da#s within whi&h to ;le said petition. he#eventuall# ;led the instant petition onNove-0er $=, 1++$.

On De&e-0er $$ and $+, 1++$ and 8anuar#$1, 1++, thirt# 3!4 of the fort#);ve 3'4petitioners posted 0ail in Cri-inal Case No.+++ for dire&tassault. 12 (s of "a# 1%, 1++, onl# three34 re-ained detained at the provin&ial ?ail. 13 In their "e-orandu- whi&h wasre&eived 0# the Court on "a# 1=, 1++,

petitioners furnished the infor-ation thatG-ost if not all of the petitioners werealread# released on 0ail and therefor&annot avail of the *rit o( habeascorpus for 0eing moot an%aca%emic.G 14(nd #et, invo9ing Sorianov . 2eirs o( 'omingo9agali 3sic4, 1 9alabananv . 2on. $amento 16 and Salongav . Pano 1where the Court &onsidered theissues raised notwithstanding that &ertainevents had supervened to render the &ase-oot and a&ade-i&, petitioners insist thatdis-issal of the &ase on su&h ground

should not 0ar the resolution of this &aseon the -erits.

he writ of habeas corpus under Rule 1!$of the Rules of Court e7tends Gto all &asesof illegal &on;ne-ent or detention 0#whi&h an# person is deprived of his li0ert#,or 0# whi&h the rightful &ustod# of an#person is withheld fro- the person entitledthereto.G he fun&tion of the spe&ialpro&eeding of habeas corpus is to inuireinto the legalit# of ones detention. 18 In allpetitions for habeas corpus, the &ourt -ust

inuire into ever# phase and aspe&t ofpetitioners detention fro- the -o-entpetitioner was ta9en into &ustod# up to the-o-ent the &ourt passes upon the -eritsof the petition and Gonl# after su&h as&rutin# &an the &ourt satisf# itself that thedue pro&ess &lause of our Constitution has0een satis;ed.G 19

@owever, on&e the person detained is dul#&harged in &ourt, he -a# no longeruestion his detention 0# a petition for theissuan&e of a writ of habeas corpus. @is

re-ed# then is the uashal of theinfor-ation andor the warrant of arrestdul# issued. 20 he reason for the issuan&eof the writ were 0e&o-es -ore unavailingwhen the person detained ;les a 0ond forhis te-porar# release. hus, in Nelascov . Court o( Appeals, 21 the Court said/

Even if the arrest of a person isillegal, supervening events -a# 0arhis release or dis&harge fro-&ustod#. hat is to 0e inuired intois the legalit# of his detention as of,at the earliest, the ;ling of the

appli&ation for a writ of habeascorpus, for even if the detention isat its in&eption illegal, it -a#, 0#reason of so-e superveningevents, su&h as the instan&es-entioned in Se&tion ' of Rule 1!$,0e no longer illegal at the ti-e ofthe ;ling of the appli&ation. (-ongsu&h supervening events is theissuan&e of ?udi&ial pro&esspreventing the dis&harge of thedetained person . . . . . (nother isthe ;ling of a &o-plaint or

infor-ation for the oAense forwhi&h the a&&used is detained, asin the instant &ase. B# then, therestraint of li0ert# is alread# 0#virtue of the &o-plaint orinfor-ation and, therefore, the writof habeas corpus is no longeravaila0le. Se&tion ' of Rule 1!$reads in part as follows/ GNor shallan#thing in this rule 0e held toauthorie the dis&harge of a person&harged with . . . an oAense in thePhilippines.G

777 777 777

+=



It -a# also 0e said that ;ling his-otion for 0ail, 2ar9ins ad-ittedthat he was under the &ustod# ofthe &ourt and voluntaril# su0-ittedhis person to its ?urisdi&tion. In 'e Asis vs. $omero 3'1 SCR( $, $'!T1+=1U4, this Court stated/

De (sis &ould have,right after his

arrest, o0?e&ted tothe regularit# ofthe issuan&e of thewarrant of arrest inuestion.Instead he not onl Gle% a petition (orbail *ith the lo*ercourt, therebaccepting thecourtMs Huris%ictionover his person,0ut he also

pleaded, onarraign-ent, to theinfor-ation ;ledagainst hi-.3e-phasissupplied4

he ;ling of a petition or -otion for0ail in &ases where no 0ail isre&o--ended has the sa-e legali-port and eAe&t as the posting of0ail in &ases where 0ail isre&o--ended. It is settled that thegiving or posting of 0ail 0# the

a&&used is tanta-ount tosu0-ission of his person to the ?urisdi&tion of the &ourt.

he instant petition for habeas corpus hasthus 0een rendered -oot and a&ade-i& 0#the ;ling against petitioners of &harges fordire&t assault on O&to0er %, 1++$ 0eforethe "uni&ipal rial Court of 2u0ao whi&h, on0eing forwarded to the Regional rial Courtof Pa-panga upon the ;ling of aninfor-ation for dire&t assault on O&to0er$1, 1++$ 0e&a-e Cri-inal Case No. 1=1,

even 0efore the ;ling of the petitionforhabeas corpus do&9eted as *.R. No.1!=++. heir su0seuent ;ling of0ail0onds to se&ure their provisional li0ert#sealed the -ootness of the instant petition.

(s stated a0ove, under the &ir&u-stan&es,petitioners re-ed# would have 0een theuashal of the infor-ation in &ase the#have valid reasons therefor. In an# event,the Court shall &onsider the prin&ipal issuesraised in the instant petition for habeascorpus in the interest of ?usti&e and if onl#to &larif# &ertain pro&edural-is&on&eptions whi&h appear to &onfusepetitioners and their &ounsel. 22

Petitioners posit the view that resolution ofthe instant petition for habeas corpus isinterrelated with the issue as to whi&h ofthe two writs of preli-inar# in?un&tionaAe&ting then should prevail. he# &ontendthat the writ of preli-inar# in?un&tionissued 0# the D(R(B, not that earlierissued 0# the Regional rial Court in(grarian Case No. $!!!, is the valid one0e&ause the regular &ourt had no

?urisdi&tion over said agrarian &ase. herefore, petitioners aver, the invalidit# of the writ 0eing enfor&ed 0# poli&eauthorities &ould onl# result in theinvalidit# of their arrest. he# further assertthat, even if their petition in *.R. No.1!!>> uestioning the validit# of theissuan&e of the writ of preli-inar#in?un&tion in (grarian &ase No. $!!! wasdis-issed, su&h dis-issal Gon a for-alte&hni&alit# does not a-ount to renderingas valid the otherwise void writ ofpreli-inar# in?un&tionG issued in said&ase. 23

he petition in *.R. No. 1!!>> wasdis-issed for non&o-plian&e with Cir&ularNo. I)%%. Contrar# to petitioners&ontention, however, su&h a dis-issalthrough a -inute resolution was one on the-erits of the petition. hus, where a ;rstpetition for certiorari was dis-issed fornon&o-plian&e with paragraph ' of Cir&ularNo. I)%% and another petition, &o-pl#ingwith said &ir&ular and 0asi&all# reiteratingthe sa-e issues raised in the ;rst petitionwas ;led a #ear later, the Court dis-issed

the se&ond petition and severall# &ensured&ounsel for petitioner for re;ling the sa-epetition. In a Resolution, the Court statedas follows/

. . . 3I4t is euall# a7io-ati& that-inute resolutions of this Court,den#ing due &ourse to petitions, ordis-issing &ases su--aril# forfailure to &o-pl# with the for-al orsu0stantial reuire-ents laid downtherefor 0# the law are actuall%ispositions on the merits 3SEE

S-ith Bell V Co. v. Court of(ppeals, 1+= Phil. $!1 T1++1U&iting/ Poli&arpio v. PJB, 1!> Phil.1$H Co--er&ial Fnion v. 2epanto,%> SCR( =+, Novino v. Court of(ppeals, % SCR( $=+4,&onstituting res Hu%icata. 24 3E-phasis supplied4

@en&e, even though the Court did note7pli&itl# resolve *.R. No. 1!!>> on the-erits, its dis-issal on the ground ofnon&o-plian&e with Cir&ular No. I)%% hadthe eAe&t of resolving the issues raised

therein. hile it -a# 0e argued that said&ir&ular is -erel# a re-edial -easurewhi&h should not undul# aAe&t the

+%



su0stantive aspe&ts of a &ase, its for&e andeAe&t -ust at all ti-es 0e upheld for, afterall, it was designed for the orderl#ad-inistration of ?usti&e.

(s regards the issue of ?urisdi&tion over thedispute 0etween the- and the (rastias,petitioners should 0e re-inded that theallegations in a &o-pliant aredeter-inative fa&tors of said issue. On this

-atter, the Court de&lared/

8urisdi&tion over the su0?e&t)-atteris deter-ined upon the allegations-ade in the &o-plaint, irrespe&tiveof whether the plaintiA is entitledor not entitled to re&over upon the&lai- asserted therein a -atterresolved onl# after and as a resultof the trial. Neither &an the ?urisdi&tion of the &ourt 0e -ade todepend upon the defenses -ade0# the defendant in his answer or

-otion to dis-iss. If su&h were therule, the uestion of ?urisdi&tionwould depend al-ost entirel# uponthe defendant. 2

In her &o-plaint in (grarian Case No. $!!!,Estrella (rastia alleged that she and therest of the plaintiAs therein were theregistered owners of the par&els of land inuestion whi&h herein petitioners illegall#intruded into, da-aged and &ultivatedunder the status of holding Ga&tual titleover the propertiesHG that the de;nite;ndings and rulings of the D(R showedthat Gno tenan&# relationshipG e7isted0etween the parties and that petitionerswere de;nitel# not uali;ed 0ene;&iariesof the rights and 0ene;ts under Repu0li&(&t No. >>= as the# were not in an# wa#tenants andor legiti-ate tillers of thesu0?e&t land, and that the a&ts ofpetitioners violated Se&tion = 304 of saidlaw.

Petitioners raising the issue of ?urisdi&tionin their answer to the &o-plaint did notauto-ati&all# divest the lower &ourt of

?urisdi&tion over (grarian Case No. $!!!. he &ourt had to &ontinue e7er&isingauthorit# to hear the eviden&e for thepurpose of deter-ining whether or not ithad ?urisdi&tion over the &ase. In a plethoraof &ases, this Court has -ade thepronoun&e-ent that on&e ?urisdi&tion isvested, the sa-e is retained up to the endof the litigation. 26 (fter su&h hearing, iftenan&# had in fa&t 0een shown to 0e thereal issue, then the &ourt should dis-issthe &ase for la&9 of ?urisdi&tion. 2

It should 0e pointed out, -oreover, that in;ling (grarian Case No. $!!!, Estrella(rastia was -erel# e?e&ting petitioners

fro- the land on the ground that notenan&# relationship e7isted 0etweenthe-. @owever, her invo&ation of Se&. =304 of Repu0li& (&t No. >>= whi&h&onsiders as a prohi0ited a&t Gfor&i0le entr#or illegal detainer 0# persons who are notuali;ed 0ene;&iaries under this (&t toavail the-selves of the rights and 0ene;tsof the (grarian Refor- Progra-,G o0viousl#led the &ourt to do&9et the &ase as

(grarian Case No. $!!! and assu-e ?urisdi&tion over it as a spe&ial agrarian&ourt. 28

Su&h a&tions were in &onsonan&e withSe&tion > 29 and = of said law whi&h vestupon the Regional rial Court, a&ting as aSpe&ial (grarian Court, with ?urisdi&tionover two &lasses of agrarian)related &ases/314 Gpetitions for the deter-ination of ?ust&o-pensation to landownersG and 3$4Gprose&ution of all &ri-inal oAensesG underthe sa-e law. ( &ri-inal oAender under

Repu0li& (&t No. >>= is, pursuant toSe&tion =' of the law, G3a4n# persons who9nowingl# and willfull# violates theprovisions of this (&t.G 30 hus, the lower&ourt &orre&tl# assu-ed ?urisdi&tion over(grarian Case No. $!!!.

It was within petitioners rights to uestionthe issuan&e of the writ 0efore this Courtthrough *.R. No. 1!!>>. @owever, in ;lingthe petition, the# failed to &o-pl# withCir&ular No. 1)%%. he &onseuentdis-issal of the &ase for non&o-plian&ewith said &ir&ular deprived this Court with

authorit# to loo9 into the validit# of the writon&e again. o repeat, su&h dis-issal&onstituted res Hu%icata on the issue ofvalidit# of the writ of preli-inar# in?un&tion.

Conseuentl#, petitioners are treading onsha9# ground in uestioning the legalit# oftheir arrest in this petition for habeascorpus for the reason that the poli&eo:&ers were enfor&ing a writ of preli-inar#in?un&tion illegall# issued in (grarian CaseNo. $!!! and, in the sa-e 0reath, allegethat the# &ould use for&e or Glegall# resist

and even inti-idate another, 0e he aprivate individual or an agent of a personin authorit#, who interferes with thelegiti-ate e7er&ise of 3his4 rightsG 31 aspossessors and &ultivators of the (rastiapropert#.

If indeed petitioners are tenants of the(rastias under the law, 32 the# are notwithout other legal re&ourses. Certainl#,through their &ounsel, who appear to 0eealous in prote&ting whatever rightspetitioners 0elieve the# -a# have, the#should pursue D(R(B Case No. 1>1)P%+and whatever a&tions are availa0le for

++



the- under the Co-prehensive (grarianRefor- 2aw of 1+%%.

(lthough it is well)a&&epted that a &ourtshould alwa#s strive to settle the&ontrovers# in a single pro&eeding, leavingno root or 0ran&h to 0ear the seeds offuture litigation, 33 this rule &annot appl# ifthe result would negate the rationalappli&ation of the Rules of Court.

Petitioners -a# not engage in pro&eduralshort&uts to revive the settled issue of thevalidit# of the writ of preli-inar# in?un&tionissued in (grarian Case No. $!!! allegedl#on the ground of the e7isten&e of a tenan&#relationship 0etween the parties in theinstant petition for habeas corpus arisingfro- their arrest for having assaultedpersons in authorit#.

@ERE5ORE, the instant petition for reviewon certiorari is here0# DENIED. No &osts.

A.M. MT!;96;108. O)(o&r 8, 1998J

SAL<ACION P. ONUIT, complainant, vs. !UGE AURORA :INAMIRA;PARCIA, "#$S-ERIFF I< ANILO O.MATIAS, respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N

UISUM:ING, J.?

his is an ad-inistrative &o-plaint &hargingrespondents, na-el#/ 8udge (urora Bina-ira)Par&ia, "uni&ipal Cir&uit rial Court 3th 8udi&ialRegion4, 2igao)Oas, (l0a#, with grave a0use of authorit#, 0ias and grave -is&ondu&tH and, SheriA IJ Danilo O. "atias, with grave -is&ondu&t,-is0ehavior in the perfor-an&e of his o:&ialduties, and &ollusion.T1U

he &harge against respondent 8udge ste-sfro- a for&i0le entr# &aseT$U with pra#er forte-porar# restraining order and preli-inar#in?un&tion with da-ages. Said &ase was assignedto her sala. he &o-plainant and her two 0rotherswere therein &o)defendants. Co-plainant raised

the issue of ?urisdi&tion stating that said &ase fallswithin the original and e7&lusive ?urisdi&tion of theDepart-ent of (grarian Refor- 3D(R4 0e&ause itinvolves tenan&# over an agri&ulturalland. hereafter, &o-plainant and her &o)defendants ;led with respondent 8udge, an E/Parte "otion for Disuali;&ation, Reuest forDisuali;&ation and Reuest for Resolution.Basi&all#, these -otions were founded on the trial&ourts alleged la&9 of ?urisdi&tion. In a single Order,TU respondent 8udge denied all three -otions rulingthat ?urisdi&tion is deter-ined 0# the allegations inthe &o-plaint and not those raised 0# defendants."oreover, a&&ording to respondent 8udge , the&lai- regarding the nature of the &ase at 0ar wouldnot auto-ati&all# divest the &ourt of its ?urisdi&tion.

Su0seuentl#, plaintiA in the lower &ourt ;ledan in?un&tion 0ond whi&h was approved 0#respondent 8udge and a writ of preli-inar#in?un&tion was issued against the defendants,in&luding herein &o-plainant. ( seiure orderfollowed whi&h dire&ted respondent SheriA to seiethe pala# fro- the land in uestion.T'U

In the &o-plaint now 0efore this Court,&o-plainant details several allegations as follows/

314 hat the land su0?e&t of the for&i0le entr# &aseis an agri&ultural ri&eland, thus, it is theDepart-ent of (grarian Refor- whi&h has originaland e7&lusive ?urisdi&tion, and not the respondent 8udges &ourtH

3$4 hat the plaintiAs in?un&tion 0ond was approved0# respondent 8udge without ;rst serving a &op# tothe &o-plainant resulting in a violation of duepro&ess. Co-plainant avers that it left her noopportunit# to o0?e&t to the su:&ien&# of the0ond. 5urther, a &op# of the writ of in?un&tion was

not served on &o-plainants &ounselH

34 hat a noti&e regarding the "otion for Issuan&eof Seiure Order was not served on the&o-plainant there0# depriving her of a &han&e tooppose itH

3'4 hat respondent 8udge has 0een heard sa#ingthat &o-plainant and his &o)defendants ought toleave the land 0e&ause it is &ertain that the# willlose their &aseH

34 (nd that, with regard to respondent SheriA,

upon the issuan&e of the seiure order, he seiedall the pala# harvested without issuing a re&eipt,despite de-and therefor, and delivered the pala#to the plaintiA .TU

In her Co--ent, respondent 8udge assertsprin&ipall# that the &o-plaint was -ali&iousl# ;ledto harass her. She re&ounts that e?e&t-ent &aseswere earlier ;led 0efore her sala against so-e of &o-plainants fa-il# -e-0ers involving diAerentareas of the disputed lot. In these separate &ases,respondent 8udge ordered their e?e&t-ent,T>U whi&hshe &lai-s is the reason for &o-plainants

vindi&tiveness. She &lai-s -oreover, that in aSpe&ial Civil Case 3No. 1%$4 ;led against her0efore the (l0a# Regional rial Court, to restrainher fro- ta9ing &ognian&e of Civil Case No. 1!'%)2, she nevertheless pro&eeded Civil Case No. 1!'%)2, after the spe&ial &ivil &ase was dis-issed. Shethen ordered the issuan&e of a writ of preli-inar#in?un&tion, and reuired an in?un&tion 0ond fro-&o-plainants opponents.T=U (ll these were resented,a&&ording to the respondent 8udge, 0# the&o-plainant.

ith regard to the aver-ent 0# &o-plainantthat she and her &o)defendants were not furnisheda &op# of the 0ond 0efore its approval, respondent 8udge replies that the re&ords of the &ase would

1!!

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/oct1998/am_mtj_96_1085.htm#_edn1




















show that &o-plainants &ounsel was furnished witha &op# of the "otion to (d-it Bond. 5urther-ore,even granting that the &o-plainant and &o)defendants were not furnished with a &op# of the0ond, the failure to serve a &op# would 0e -erel# afor-al defe&t. She states that &o-plainant shouldhave as9ed the &ourt to furnish the parties with a&op#, 0ut &o-plainant failed to do so.T%U

In response to the a&&usation regarding her

order den#ing the "otion to 5i7 Defendants Bondand to Dissolve the rit of Preli-inar# In?un&tion,she states that the in?un&tion 0ond posted 0#plaintiA was su:&ient to &over da-ages towhi&h &o-plainant and her &o)defendants -ight 0eentitled, in &ase a ?udg-ent would 0e rendered intheir favor.T+U

(s for the uestioned seiure order,respondent 8udge -aintains that the reason for thisorder was that even after the issuan&e of anin?un&tion, &o-plainant and &o)defendants re)entered the land in uestion and harvested the

pala# thereon. It was an e7)parte -otion whi&h shehad to grant &onsidering the urgen&# of the -atter,9eeping in -ind that there was an in?un&tion0ond for the 0ene;t of &o-plainant and &o)defendants.T1!U

Respondent 8udge denies ever tal9ing to&o-plainant in her &ha-0ers. (&&ording to her, itwas "erle Porte, a sister of &o-plainant and not apart# to the &ase, who approa&hed respondent 8udge in the afternoon of (pril 1!, 1++>. Portepleaded that her 0rothers and sisters 0e allowed toharvest the pala# and that the# would settle the-atter with the plaintiA in said &ase. Respondent 8udge states that her repl# was for Porte to dis&ussthe -atter with their law#er instead of personall#spea9ing with her. 5urther, respondent 8udgedenies for 0eing totall# untrue the in&ident alleged0# &o-plainant wherein she was allegedl#&onfronted &on&erning a purported pa#-ent to herof P$!,!!! 0# plaintiA. (&&ording to respondent 8udge, it was a&tuall# &o-plainants &ounsel, afor-er professor of respondent 8udge, who wentinside her &ha-0ers to as9 that she should den#the plaintiAs reuest for an in?un&tion.T11U 5or thesatisfa&tion of &o-plainant and her &o)defendants,respondent 8udge inhi0ited herself fro- rendering

?udg-ent in Civil Case No. 1!'%)2 and fro- furtherhearing the Petition for Conte-pt ;led 0#plaintiA against &o-plainant.T1$U

In su-, respondent 8udge avers to this Courtthat fro- the outset &o-plainant and her &o)defendants were alread# doing all that the# &oulddo to disualif# her fro- ta9ing &ognian&e of CivilCase No. 1!'%)2. (s a -atter of fa&t, when thePresiding 8udge of the Regional rial Court of 2igao,(l0a#, denied the plaintiAs petition see9ingrespondent 8udge to 0e disuali;ed fro- hearingsaid &ase, &o-plainant ;led a si-ilarad-inistrative &ase against the Presiding 8udge. T1U

Con&erning the &harges of *rave "is&ondu&t,"is0ehavior in the Perfor-an&e of O:&ial Dutiesand Collusion against respondent SheriA, he statesin his Co--ent that when the Cler9 of Courtre&eived the Seiure Order, he was ordered toi-ple-ent it i--ediatel#. Poli&e assistan&e wasreuested fro- the station &o--ander toa&&o-pan# respondent SheriA in entering theri&e;eld. @e stated that despite the heav# rain inthe area he found &o-plainant and her &o)

defendants harvesting the pala#. Said pala# wasseied as ordered and pla&ed inside sa&9s, andthen 0rought 0# hi- to the @all of 8usti&e. Earl# thefollowing -orning, he went to the @all of 8usti&e,and had the pala#, although wet, threshed and&leaned. @e de&ided that it was 0est to turn overthe pala# to the wife of the plaintiA due to the fa&tthat the grains were dripping wet fro- the previousda#s rains and if not dried i--ediatel# woulddeteriorate as, in fa&t, there were alread# grainsshowing signs of ger-ination. ( &op# of the re&eiptof the SheriAs Return of Servi&e was signed 0# thewife of plaintiA. @e ad-its though that the vehi&leused in transporting the seied pala# was providedfor 0# plaintiA, whi&h he &on&luded was the reason0ehind the alleged &ollusion 0etween hi- andplaintiA.

On the &harge 0# &o-plainant that he refusedto issue a re&eipt upon seiure, respondent SheriA replied that he &ould not do so i--ediatel# uponseiure as the pala# was not #et threshed and hewould onl# 9now the nu-0er of &avans seied aftersu&h was threshed and &leaned. @e &lai-s that hedid this the ne7t da# after the pala# was threshedand &leaned. Onl# then was it uanti;a0le as to thenu-0er of &ans in whi&h the# were

stored. Respondent SheriA then furnished there&eipt to &o-plainants &ounsel of re&ord, togetherwith the SheriAs Return of Servi&e.T1'U

Co-plainant su0seuentl# ;led a Repl# toea&h of the Co--ents su0-itted 0# respondent 8udge and respondent SheriA. he Repl# to theCo--ent of respondent 8udge &entered on the fa&tthat there was personal 0ias involved, whi&ha&&ounted for the wa# respondent 8udge &ondu&tedherself towards the hearing of &o-plainants &ase.T1U (s to her Repl# to the respondent SheriAsCo--ent, &o-plainant denied the allegation that

the# rea&ted de;antl# to the writ of preli-inar#in?un&tion. (&&ording to &o-plainant, the land wasowned 0# another fa-il# who, together with her&o)defendants, were the a&tual o&&upants thereof.5urther, &o-plainant -aintains that aside fro- theillegalit# of the seiure order, the respondentSheriA -ade an error in his SheriAs Return, whenhe reported his esti-ate of the seied pala# wa#0elow the a&tual volu-e of the pala#.T1>U

Considering the Co-plaint, the Co--ents,and the Repl# as well as the pleadings and e7hi0itssu0-itted, we ;nd no grave a0use of authorit#,grave -is&ondu&t and 0ias on the part of

respondent 8udge.

1!1





















he fa&t that respondent 8udge too9&ognian&e of the for&i0le entr# &ase did not tainther a&tion with grave a0use of authorit#, even if defendant had alleged that the land in uestionwas under agri&ultural tenan&#, and that there wasan issue of ?urisdi&tion. ell)settled is the prin&iplethat the &ourts shall not 0e divested of ?urisdi&tionover a &ase -erel# 0# what is raised in the answer.hat deter-ines the nature of an a&tion and a&ourts ?urisdi&tion over it are the allegations set up

0# the plaintiA.T1=U Basi& is the rule that the -aterialaver-ents in the &o-plaint, whi&h in this &ase isfor e?e&t-ent, deter-ine the ?urisdi&tion of the&ourt. (nd, ?urispruden&e di&tates that the &ourtdoes not lose its ?urisdi&tion over an e?e&t-ent&ase 0# the si-ple e7pedient of a part# raising as adefense therein the alleged e7isten&e of a tenan&#relationship 0etween the parties.T1%U It is the dut# of the &ourt to re&eive eviden&e to deter-ine thevera&it# of allegations of tenan&#.In an Order of respondent 8udge dated !+ 5e0ruar# 1++>, it wasruled that, &onsidering the eviden&e presented, theland in uestion is an irrigated ri&eland, 0ut nottenanted.T1+U his -atter was even 0rought up on apetition for certiorari with prohi0ition to theRegional rial Court of 2igao, (l0a#, 0ut saidpetition was denied.T$!U hese ante&edents aresu:&ient to &onvin&e us that the respondent 8udgedid not a&t with grave a0use of authorit# inassu-ing ?urisdi&tion over the &ase ;led in hersala.

ith regard to the allegation of having failedto furnish to the defendants a &op# of the 0ond andthe writ of preli-inar# in?un&tion, we give &reden&eto the ;ndings -ade 0# the O:&e of the Court(d-inistrator, as follows/

@owever, Se&tion %, Rule % of the Revised Rules of Court in &on?un&tion with Se&tion , Rule =! thereof provides that the TpUart# ;ling the 0ond shallforthwith served 3si&4 a &op# of su&h 0ond on theother part#, who -a# e7&ept to the su:&ien&# ofthe 0ond, or of the suret# or sureties thereon. his-eans that the plaintiA and not the Court or therespondent 8udge for that -atter, who 3si&4 is dut#0ound to serve a &op# of the in?un&tion 0ond to thedefendants. 7 7 7 Nevertheless, the failure of theplaintiA to serve a &op# of the in?un&tion 0ond tothe defendant is -erel# a for-al defe&t and not a

reversi0le error. 5or in this &ase the defendant -a#as9 the T&Uourt to order the plaintiA to serve uponhi- the &op# of the 0ond.

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

On the other hand, the re&ords 0elie the &lai- of&o-plainant that the rit of Preli-inar# In?un&tionwas not served to 3si&4 the defendants. Re&ordsshow that said writ was served to 3si&4 thedefendants on 5e0ruar# 1>, 1++> at their residen&e0ut all refused to a&9nowledge re&eipt therefor,nevertheless the e7e&uting SheriA left ea&h a &op#to 3si&4 the defendants 3(nne7 @, rollo, p.'14.T$1U

e also ;nd that there was no i-propriet# onthe part of respondent 8udge when she issued theseiure order. It was apparent that the &o-plainantand her &o)defendants showed de;an&e of the writof preli-inar# in?un&tion. his was all the -orede-onstrated when the# re)entered the land andharvested the pala#, in dire&t and open violation of the writ. he order to seie the harvested pala#was issued to preserve the status quo, and in nowa# done with grave a0use of authorit#.

he &harges of 0ias i-puted on respondent 8udge, spe&i;&all#, that she re&eived -one# fro-the plaintiAs and that she told &o-plainant thatthe# will surel# lose the &ase, are onl# allegationswhi&h are not supported 0# eviden&e apart fro-the self)serving state-ents -ade 0#&o-plainant. *iven no support on the re&ord, weare not persuaded 0# said a&&usations hurled 0#&o-plainant si-pl# 0e&ause there is no eviden&ethereon to i-pli&ate the respondent 8udge.

ith regard to the &harges against respondent

SheriA, we ;nd that his a&tuation of i--ediatel#i-ple-enting the seiure order did not &onstitutegrave -is&ondu&t nor was it an a&t of &ollusionwith the adverse part#. @e did what was e7pe&tedof an# sheriA given &harge of enfor&ing a &ourtorder. hen a writ is pla&ed in the hands of asheriA, it is his -inisterial dut# to pro&eed withreasona0le &elerit# and pro-ptness to e7e&ute it ina&&ordan&e with its -andates.T$$U

Neither are we &onvin&ed that respondentSheriA was re-iss in his dut# to issue a re&eipt forthe pala# he seied. (d-ittedl#, he did not issuethe re&eipt on the spot, 0ut we a&&ept the reasonstated earlier for issuing it when the pala# wasalread# &leaned and -easured, ne7t da#. 5ro- there&ord, &o-plainant -ade no aver-entthat respondent SheriA derived pe&uniar# 0ene;tin not i--ediatel# giving &o-plainant a re&eipt. Itwas reasona0le to 0rie# wait until -easure-ent&ould 0e -ade as to the volu-e of the pala# after0eing &leaned and threshed 0efore issuan&e of there&eipt. In the a0sen&e of &ontrar# eviden&e, thepresu-ption prevails that the sheriA has regularl#perfor-ed his o:&ial dut#.T$U

On the -atter of where to deposit the seied

pala#, however, it was in&u-0ent on respondentSheriA to deliver the pala# to the &ourt &onsideringit was still &onsidered propert# in custo%ialegis. Deposit of seied ite-s in litigation is not adis&retionar# -atter. Fntil the &ourt had -ade itsde&ision as to the disposal of the pala#, thepresu-ption was that the seied pala# shouldre-ain in the &ourts &ustod#, hen&e to 0edeposited in &ourt. Respondent SheriA should nothave handed the- over to the plaintiA in thea0sen&e of a dire&tive to that eAe&t in the seiureorder.@owever, this Court ta9es note of the&ir&u-stan&es surrounding respondent SheriAsdeliver# to the plaintiA of what was seied.(lthough the pala# was alread# threshed and&leaned, it was still dripping wet fro- the previous

1!$


















da#s heav# rains and respondent SheriA felt that if not dried i--ediatel# the grains would deteriorateand -ight ?ust eventuall# 0e rendered useless. hisleads us to &on&lude that there was no 0ad faith inhis a&ts. 5urther-ore, he do&u-ented his turnoverof the seied grains in the presen&e of witnessesfro- the 0aranga#. @is a&tuation was without-ali&e and &ould 0e dee-ed not unreasona0leunder the &ir&u-stan&es o0taining, although not instri&t &o-plian&e with o:&ial dut# &on&erning a

-atter in custo%ia legis.

7-EREFORE, the Court here0# resolves toDIS"ISS the ad-inistrative &harges againstrespondent 8udge (urora Bina-ira)Par&ia for la&9 of -erit. he &harges against respondent SheriA Danilo "atias are also DIS"ISSED, 0ut he is here0#(D"ONIS@ED to stri&tl# o0serve alwa#s the rulesand regulations governing the perfor-an&e of hisduties in regard to the enfor&e-ent of seiureorders of the &ourt.

G.R. No. 14203. !+#& 20, 2003J

ROMUALO C. PEREH, petitioner , vs.APOLONIO CRUH, respondent .

E C I S I O N

UISUM:ING, J.?

his petition for review on &ertiorari see9s toreverse the de&isionT1U of the Court of (ppeals,dated (ugust $1, 1++, in C()*.R. SP No. '+=+, aswell as its resolutionT$U dated "ar&h 1!, $!!!,den#ing herein petitioners "otion for

Re&onsideration. hat de&ision had set aside the ?udg-ent of the Regional rial Court of "alolos,Bula&an, Bran&h 1!, in Civil Case No. '!')")+',whi&h ruled that the "uni&ipal rial Court of @agono#, Bula&an had no ?urisdi&tion to hear andtr# the e?e&t-ent &ase do&9eted as Civil Case No.+=+.

he fa&tual 0a&9drop of this &ase, as drawnfro- the re&ords, are as follows/

he instant &ontrovers# arose fro- ane?e&t-ent &ase ;led 0# herein respondent (polonio

Cru 0efore the "C of @agono# in 1++1. he&o-plaint, do&9eted as Civil Case No. +=+, allegedthat Cru is the owner of Residential 2ot No. !+de&lared in his na-e as per Sworn State-ent Inde7No. 1')!$'%)=, as reuired 0# Se&. > of P.D. No.'>', as a-ended 0# P.D. No. 1>$1.TUCru averredthat he inherited this lot fro- his -other, SalvestiaCrisosto-oT'U who, in turn, a&uired the sa-e fro-herein petitioner Ro-ualdo Pere, througha Qasulatan ng Bilihang Patuluan.TU Cru &lai-edthat Pere reuested his per-ission to 0uild hishouse on a s-all portion of said propert#, as Perehad nowhere to ere&t his dwelling on. his reuestwas granted, as the# are &lose relatives.T>U

Fn9nown to Cru, however, Pere ;led anappli&ation for issuan&e of title &overing the su0?e&tland with the 2and "anage-ent Se&tion,Depart-ent of Environ-ent and Natural Resour&es3DENR4, Region III, San 5ernando Cit#,Pa-panga. hen Cru learned of Peres design, hei--ediatel# opposed the appli&ation. (&&ordingl#,Cru de-anded that Pere re-ove his house fro-the land and va&ate the sa-e. hen petitionerfailed to heed the de-and, respondent ;led a

&o-plaint for unlawful detainer against hi-.T=U

Pere denied Crus ownership of thepropert#. @e &lai-ed to 0e owner of the lot inuestion, having inherited the sa-e fro- hisgrand-other. @e asserted that he had 0een in&ontinuous possession for -an# #ears. o supporthis &lai-, Pere presented a7 De&laration No.$>>%$ and o:&ial re&eipts of ta7 pa#-ents. Peresu0-itted that the "C had no ?urisdi&tion overCivil Case No. +=+, as the issue involved was one of ownership, not -ere possession, of the land.

On 5e0ruar# 1$, 1++$, the "C dis-issed CivilCase No. +=+ on the ground of want of ?urisdi&tion,holding that the -ain issue is one of ownership,not -ere possession %e (acto.T%U Cru appealed saidde&ision to the RC of "alolos, Bula&an, Bran&h 1,as Civil Case No. $!>)")+$.

"eanwhile, on "ar&h 1, 1++$, the RegionalE7e&utive Dire&tor of the DENR, Region III,disapproved the surve# of 2ot No. !=T+U, Cad.!')D, su0-itted 0# Pere, there0# sustainingCrus opposition. Cru was then dire&ted to ;le theappropriate pu0li& land appli&ation for the landsu0?e&t of the &ontrovers#.T1!U

On 8une $+, 1++$, the RC of "alolos, Bran&h1, rendered its de&ision in Civil Case No. $!>)")+$, reversing the "C ruling, and ordering there-and of the re&ords of Civil Case No. +=+, fortrial on the -erits.T11U

On re-and, the "C de&ided Civil Case No.+=+ as follows/

IN JIE O5 @E 5ORE*OIN*, this Court;nds for the plaintiA and against

the defendant ordering the latterto/

1. re-ove his house and va&ate theplaintiAs lot and deliver thepossession thereof to the plaintiAH

$. pa# plaintiA the a-ount of P1!!.!! a-onth as rental re&9oned fro- thedate of the ;ling of the &o-plaintuntil the &o-plete possessionthereof is delivered to the plaintiAH

. pa# plaintiA the a-ount of P,!!!.!!as attorne#s feesH and

1!

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jun2003/142503.htm#_ftn1




























'. pa# the &osts of suit.

SO ORDERED.T1$U

Pere seasona0l# appealed the foregoing ?udg-ent to the RC of "alolos, this ti-e in Bran&h1!, do&9eted as Civil Case No. '!')")+'. On(ugust 1, 1++', the RC of "alolos, Bran&h 1!,de&ided Civil Case No. '!')")+' as follows/

@ERE5ORE, ?udg-ent is here0# renderedREJERSIN* the appealed de&ision.

Pursuant to Se&tion 1!, Rule '1 of the RevisedRules of Court, let the entire re&ord of this &ase 0ere-anded to the &ourt of origin.

SO ORDERED.T1U

he RC of "alolos, Bran&h 1!, found that inCivil Case No. +=+, the uestion of ownership wasine7tri&a0l# intertwined with the issue of

possession. Sin&e the issue of possession &ould not0e resolved without ;rst addressing the uestion of ownership, Civil Case No. +=+ should have 0eendis-issed, following &ase law.

Cru then elevated the -atter to the Court of (ppeals 0# wa# of petition for review. Crutheoried that inas-u&h as the de&ision of the RCof "alolos, Bran&h 1, holding that the issue inCivil Case No. +=+ was not ownership 0utpossession %e (acto, had 0e&o-e ;nal, it was errorfor Bran&h 1! to rule on said issue and reverseBran&h 1s ruling.

On (ugust $1, 1++, the appellate &ourtdisposed of the &ontrovers# as follows/

@ERE5ORE, the instant petition for review is*R(NED and the de&ision of the pu0li&respondent dated (ugust 1, 1++' is here0#REJERSED and SE (SIDE, and a new ?udg-ent isrendered (55IR"IN* the de&ision of the "uni&ipal rial Court, dated 8anuar# $', 1++', in favor ofplaintiA)petitioner. e -a9e no pronoun&e-ent asto &ost.

SO ORDERED.

T1'U

he Court of (ppeals held that the de&ision of the Regional Dire&tor of 2ands disapproving thesurve# appli&ation of petitioner Pere and a:r-ingthe right of respondent Cru to ;le the appli&ationfor titling of the su0?e&t land rendered -oot anda&ade-i& the possessor# a&tion in the RC. Saidde&ision awarding the land to Cru gave hi- a0etter right of possession over the disputed lot asagainst Pere, a non)awardee.T1U It li9ewise heldthat the RC of "alolos, Bran&h 1!, erred inreversing the de&ision of the RC of "alolos,Bran&h 1, 0e&ause said de&ision alread# a&uired

;nalit#. he Court of (ppeals agreed with Bran&h1 that the issue involved respondents right of prior possession, and sustained the ruling of

Bran&h 1 that as earl# as (ugust +, 1+1, T1>U theprede&essor of respondent Cru alread# hadpossession.

Pere then -oved for re&onsideration, 0ut theappellate &ourt denied it.

@en&e, the instant appeal 0# &ertiorari, withpetitioner Pere assigning the following errors/

I. @E @ONOR(B2E COFR O5 (PPE(2SERRED IN NO (55IR"IN* OR INREJERSIN* @E DECISION O5 @E2OER COFR @( @IS C(SE"FS BE DIS"ISSED 5OR @EIN5ERIOR COFR @(S NO 8FRISDICION DFE O/

(. @E ISSFE O5 ONERS@IP @IC@IS CRFCI(22L INERINEDI@ POSSESSIONH and

B. @E SFPPOSED O2ER(NCE*IJEN BL RESPONDEN OPEIIONER, @IC@ IS NO( 2E*(2 B(SIS EI@ER 5OR5ORCIB2E ENRL ORFN2(5F2 DE(INER.

II. @E @ONOR(B2E COFR O5 (PPE(2SERRED IN REJERSIN* OR SEIN*(SIDE @E DECISION O5 @E2OER COFR 5OR (PP(REN2L,RESPONDEN @(S NO C(FSE O5(CION 5OR E8EC"EN (*(INSPEIIONER 3DE5END(N4.T1=U

he prin&ipal uestion for resolution now&on&erns the ?urisdi&tion of the "C to hear andde&ide Civil Case No. +=+ for e?e&t-ent.

Petitioner Pere &ontends that the allegedtoleran&e given 0# respondent to hi- in o&&up#ingthe land does not give rise to a &ause of a&tion forunlawful detainer 0ut rather accion publiciana,whi&h falls under the ?urisdi&tion of the RC.T1%U Citing Nele5 v. Avelino,T1+U he insists that wherethe preponderan&e of eviden&e shows that theo&&upan&# 0# the defendant of the lot in uestion

is due to the toleran&e of the owners thereof andagainst the latters will, the &ase 0e&o-es onefor accion publiciana, whi&h falls under the ?urisdi&tion of the Regional rial Court.T$!U

Respondent, in his "e-orandu-, &ountersthat it is erroneous for petitioner to &on&lude thatthe -ere defense of &lai- of ownership over thelot in uestion divests the "C of ?urisdi&tion overthe &ase for unlawful detainer.T$1U

It is horn0oo9 law that ?urisdi&tion isdeter-ined 0# the aver-ents in the &o-plaint. In

&ivil &ases, if a &o-plaint is ;led involving a su0?e&t-atter within the ?urisdi&tion of an inferior &ourt,0ut if after the trial, it appears that the su0?e&t

1!'


























-atter falls within the e7&lusive ?urisdi&tion of asuperior &ourt, the inferior &ourt &annot render ?udg-ent 0ut -ust dis-iss the &ase.T$$U

In the &o-plaint for e?e&t-ent ;led 0efore the@agono# "C, it was alleged 0# plaintiA Cru thatdefendant 3now petitioner4 Pere pleaded that he0e allowed to &onstru&t his house as he had noother par&el of land on whi&h to 0uild a house. he&o-plaint further alleged that it was 0# -ere

toleran&e that Cru, now respondent herein,allowed Pere to o&&up# a s-all portion of thelot.Petitioner Pere &onstru&ted his house withoutpa#ing an# rent for the reasona0le use ando&&upan&# of said portion of Crus lot.T$U

a9ing the allegations in the &o-plaint as0asis, in our view, there is no dou0t that the &ase isone for unlawful detainer. he @agono# "C hadthe ?urisdi&tion to hear and de&ide Civil Case No.+=+.

Petitioners relian&e on Avelino is

inappropriate. De&ided in 1+%', Avelino has 0eensuperseded 0# our de&ision in Banco %e OroSavings an% 9ortgage Bank v. Court o( Appeals,pro-ulgated on 5e0ruar# $1, 1++!. In Banco %eOro, we held that a person who o&&upies the landof another at the latters toleran&e or per-ission,without an# &ontra&t 0etween the-, is ne&essaril#0ound 0# the i-plied pro-ise that he will va&ateupon de-and, failing whi&h, a su--ar# a&tion fore?e&t-ent is the proper re-ed# against hi-.T$'U

(nent petitioners &lai- that the issue is notone of -ere possession 0ut rather of

ownership, 'ehesa v. 9acalalagT$U

isinstru&tive. 5or in 'ehesa, we held that ine?e&t-ent &ases, the defendant &annot deprive the&ourt of ?urisdi&tion 0# si-pl# &lai-ing ownershipof the propert# involved. Pre&isel# with the ai- of preventing a possi0le ano-al#, the provisions of the Rules of Court governing unlawful detainer andfor&i0le entr# were revised. hen the defendantraises the defense of ownership in his pleadingsand the uestion of ph#si&al possession &annot 0eresolved without de&iding the issue of ownership,the issue of ownership shall 0e resolved onl# todeter-ine the issue of possession.T$>U Should theinferior &ourt -a9e an# deter-ination on the issue

of ownership, the sa-e shall not 0e &on&lusive andshall 0e without pre?udi&e to the right of the partiesto ventilate 0efore the proper &ourt their &lai-s of ownership over the sa-e land.

he &ontrovers# in this &ase has undergoneper-utations sin&e "ar&h 1++1, when Civil CaseNo. +=+ was ;led 0efore the "C of @agono#,Bula&an. Both parties &lai- ownership over thesa-e par&el, whi&h is #et untitled. Both partieshave su0-itted ta7 de&larations to support theirrespe&tive &lai-s. @owever, in addition to ta7de&larations, respondent Cru presented a

notaried Deed of Sale, whi&h shows that petitionerPere sold alread# the su0?e&t land to respondents-other. Before us, however, Pere insists that said

deed is invalid as his signature thereon is aforger#. Cru, in turn, points out that the StateProse&utor assigned to "alolos dis-issed the&ri-inal &ase for falsi;&ation of pu0li& do&u-ent;led 0# petitioner, do&9eted as I.S. No. +$)1$+>, forinsu:&ien&# of eviden&e.T$=U Petitioner Pere issilent on this allegation of Cru 0efore us, nor isthere an# showing in the re&ords that Pereappealed the dis-issal of I.S. No. +$)1$+> to theDepart-ent of 8usti&e.

Euall# telling is the fa&tual ;nding 0# theRegional E7e&utive Dire&tor of the DENR, Region III,that petitioner failed to over&o-e the presu-ptionof regularit# of the notaried Deed of Sale uponwhi&h respondent 0ased his &lai- of ownership. hus, the DENR li9ewise dis0elievedPeres &lai- of forger#. Needless to stress, ;ndingsof fa&t of an ad-inistrative agen&# are 0inding and&on&lusive upon this Court, for as long assu0stantial eviden&e supports said fa&tual;ndings. It is not the tas9 of an appellate &ourt toweigh on&e -ore the eviden&e su0-itted 0efore

the ad-inistrative 0od# and to su0stitute its own ?udg-ent for that of the ad-inistrative agen&#&on&erning su:&ien&# of eviden&e.T$%U (ll things&onsidered, we are persuaded that respondentCru su&&essfull# proved his right to retainpossession of the disputed par&el of land.

@owever, the uestion of ownership is #et to0e resolved with ;nalit# and&on&lusiveness. (lthough the DENR hasdisapproved the &adastral surve# su0-itted 0#petitioner Pere, he &ould &ontest respondent Crusappli&ation for said lot, whi&h #et re-ains to 0etitled. hat ad-inistrative agen&# should 0e the

arena where the parties &ould ;rst ta&9le the issueof ownership.

7-EREFORE, the petition is DENIED for la&9of -erit. he assailed de&ision dated (ugust $1,1++ and the resolution dated "ar&h 1!, $!!!,0oth 0# the Court of (ppeals in C()*R SP '+=+,are (55IR"ED. Costs against petitioner.

G.R. No. 12423 &)&&r 1, 2010

SPOUSES MARCOS R. ESMAUEL "#$<ICTORIA SORE<ILLA, Petitioners,vs.MARIA COPRAA, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

PERALTA, J.:

Before this Court is a petition for reviewon certiorari under Rule ' of the Rules of Courtsee9ing to set aside the De&ision1 and theResolution$ of the Court of (ppeals, dated (pril >,$!!1 and 5e0ruar# 1, $!!$, respe&tivel#, 3C(4 inC()*.R. SP No. '+++'.

he ante&edents are as follows/

1!
























On 5e0ruar# $', 1++=, petitioners, spouses "ar&osEs-auel and Ji&toria Sordevilla 3Ji&toria4 ;led ane?e&t-ent &ase against respondent "aria J.Coprada 0efore the $nd "uni&ipal Cir&uit rial Court3"CC4 of "agdalena, 2iliw and "a?a#?a# 2aguna.Petitioners &lai-ed that the# are the registeredowners of a par&el of land situated in ".@. Del PilarSt., Baranga# San "iguel, "a?a#?a#, 2aguna,&ontaining an area of wo @undred 5ift#)hree 3$4suare -eters and &overed 0# ransfer Certi;&ate

of itle 3C4 No. )+'$. In 1+', respondent wasa0le to persuade the petitioners to allow her andher fa-il# to use and o&&up# the land for theirresiden&e, under the &ondition that the# will va&atethe pre-ises should petitioners need to use thesa-e. Respondent and her fa-il# were allowed to&onstru&t their residential house. Sin&e then, thepetitioners never -ade an atte-pt to drive the-awa# out of pit#, 9nowing that respondent and hereight &hildren have no other pla&e to live in. (lso,respondent and her fa-il# have 0een o&&up#ingthe su0?e&t pre-ises free of rent, in&ludingpa#-ent of realt# ta7es. Respondents present&ir&u-stan&es have &o-pletel# i-proved, i.e.,so-e of her &hildren are alread# wor9ingH the# areregularl# sending her ;nan&ial assistan&eH and shehas a&uired her own residential house atBaranga# Panglan, "a?a#?a#, 2aguna. Be&ause ofthis, petitioners ver0all# de-anded thatrespondent va&ate the su0?e&t land, 0ut the latterrefused. hus, petitioners were for&ed to send ade-and letter dated (ugust $$, 1++>, givingrespondent until Nove-0er !, 1++> to va&ate thesu0?e&t pre-ises. @owever, respondent stillignored said de-and, whi&h pro-pted petitionersto 0ring a &o-plaint 0efore the 0aranga#authorities. No settle-ent was rea&hed, hen&e, a

&erti;&ation to ;le a&tion in Court was issued.Petitioners were, therefore, &onstrained to lodge ane?e&t-ent &ase against the respondent 0efore the"CC.

Respondent ad-itted that petitioners are theregistered owners of the su0?e&t land. @owever,she averred that in 1+', it was E-iliana Coprada3petitioner Ji&toria Sordevillas -other and originalowner of the su0?e&t land4 and not the petitionerswho gave per-ission to her late hus0and BrigidoCoprada to use the su0?e&t lot. E-iliana allowedher nephew Brigido and his fa-il# to o&&up# the lotas their per-anent a0ode, 0e&ause of her love andaAe&tion for her nephew, and also, due to the fa&tthat the said lot is virtuall# a wasteland. hereafter, Brigido and his fa-il# &leared the areaand 0uilt therein a nipa hut to dwell in. henE-iliana died, the ownership of the propert# wasinherited 0# her onl# &hild, petitioner Ji&toriaSordevilla. Respondent alleged that so-eti-e inthe earl# 1+>!s, petitioner Ji&toria oAered the saidlot for sale for P$,!!!.!! to respondent, whoreadil# agreed. he pur&hase pri&e was paid ininstall-ents and was full# paid in 1+>$. Due totheir &lose relationship, the agree-ent was neverredu&ed to writing. Respondent further -aintained

that sin&e the e7e&ution of the oral sale of thesu0?e&t lot, she has 0een the one pa#ing the realt#ta7es due on the propert#. (fter the sale,

respondent 0uilt on the su0?e&t land a se-i)&on&rete stru&ture. Respondent stated thatpetitioners &lai- is 0arred 0# la&hes. Evengranting, without ad-itting, that respondents&lai- of ownership over the propert# is i-proper0e&ause petitioners are the registered ownersthereof, respondent argued that she is a 0uilder ingood faith, 0e&ause she was a0le to 0uild thestru&ture on the su0?e&t lot with the priorper-ission of the owner.

In its De&ision' dated Septe-0er 11, 1++=, the"CC rendered ?udg-ent dis-issing the &o-plaint.It held that la&hes had alread# set in whi&hprevented petitioners fro- uestioning the validit#of the purported sale 0etween Ji&toria and "aria.

On appeal, the Regional rial Court 3RC4 reversedthe "CCs ?udg-ent. he RC ruled thatrespondents o&&upation of the su0?e&t propert#was 0# virtue of petitioners toleran&e andper-ission. @en&e, respondent is 0ound 0# ani-plied pro-ise that she will va&ate the propert#

upon de-and. hus, her possession over thesu0?e&t propert# 0e&a-e unlawful after thepetitioners de-anded her to va&ate the propert#. he RC found that respondent failed to prove thealleged oral sale and that petitioners haveadeuatel# proven that the# are entitled to thepossession of the su0?e&t land as registered ownersthereof. he RC ordered the respondent and allother persons &lai-ing rights under her to va&ateand surrender the possession of the su0?e&t land tothe petitioners and to re-ove an# and alli-prove-ents she introdu&ed on the par&el ofland.

Respondent ;led a "otion for Re&onsideration,whi&h was denied 0# the RC in an Order> datedNove-0er $', 1++%. O0viousl# dissatis;ed 0# theDe&ision, respondent ;led with the C( a petition forreview with pra#er for te-porar# restraining orderand preli-inar# in?un&tion.=

In its De&ision dated (pril >, $!!1, the C( grantedrespondents petition, reversed the De&ision of theRC and a:r-ed in toto the De&ision of the "CC.Petitioners ;led a "otion for Re&onsideration,whi&h was denied 0# the C( in a Resolution% dated5e0ruar# 1, $!!$. @en&e, the instant petition

raising the following grounds/

I

@E RI*@ O5 @E RE*ISERED ONERS ORECOJER POSSESSION IS NEJER B(RRED BL2(C@ES (NDOR @E PERSON @O @(S ( ORRENS I2E OJER ( P(RCE2 O5 2(ND ISENI2ED O @E POSSESSION @EREO5.

II

@E ONERS@IP (ND RI*@ O5 PEIIONERS ORECOJER POSSESSION O5 @E SFB8EC PROPERLC(NNO BE DE5E(ED BL FNPROJEN OR(2 S(2E.

1!>
















III

2(C@ES @(D SE IN (*(INS TRESPONDENU.

IJ

@E CERI5IC(E O5 I2E IS NO SFB8EC OCO22(ER(2 ((C.+


he pertinent point of inuir# in this &ase iswhether or not petitioners have a valid ground toevi&t respondent fro- the su0?e&t propert#.

(n a&tion for for&i0le entr# or unlawful detainer isgoverned 0# Se&tion 1, Rule =! of the Rules ofCourt, whi&h provides/

SECION 1. ho -a# institute pro&eedings, andwhen. ) Su0?e&t to the provisions of the ne7tsu&&eeding se&tion, a person deprived of the

possession of an# land or 0uilding 0# for&e,inti-idation, threat, strateg#, or stealth, or alessor, vendor, vendee, or other person againstwho- the possession of an# land or 0uilding isunlawfull# withheld after the e7piration orter-ination of the right to hold possession 0#virtue of an# &ontra&t, e7press or i-plied, or thelegal representatives or assigns of an# su&h lessor,vendor, vendee, or other person, -a#, at an# ti-ewithin one 314 #ear after su&h unlawful deprivationor withholding of possession, 0ring an a&tion in theproper "uni&ipal rial Court against the person orpersons unlawfull# withholding or depriving ofpossession, or an# person or persons &lai-ingunder the-, for the restitution of su&h possession,together with da-ages and &osts.

In unlawful detainer &ases, the possession of thedefendant was originall# legal, as his possessionwas per-itted 0# the plaintiA on a&&ount of ane7press or i-plied &ontra&t 0etween the-.@owever, defendants possession 0e&a-e illegalwhen the plaintiA de-anded that defendant va&atethe su0?e&t propert# due to the e7piration orter-ination of the right to possess under their&ontra&t, and defendant refused to heed su&hde-and.1!

he sole issue for resolution in an unlawful detainer&ase is ph#si&al or -aterial possession of thepropert# involved, independent of an# &lai- ofownership 0# an# of the parties. here the issue of ownership is raised 0# an# of the parties, the&ourts -a# pass upon the sa-e in order todeter-ine who has the right to possess thepropert#. he ad?udi&ation is, however, -erel#provisional and would not 0ar or pre?udi&e ana&tion 0etween the sa-e parties involving title tothe propert#.11 Sin&e the issue of ownership wasraised in the unlawful detainer &ase, its resolution

0oils down to whi&h of the parties respe&tiveeviden&e deserves -ore weight.

In the &ase at 0ar, petitioners &ause of a&tion forunlawful detainer is 0ased on their ownership ofthe land &overed 0# C No. )+'$ and on their&lai- that the# -erel# tolerated respondents sta#thereat. Respondents possession, as well as thosepersons &lai-ing right under her, 0e&a-e unlawfulupon her refusal to va&ate the pre-ises. Petitioners&ontend that sin&e the# are the registered ownersof the su0?e&t land, the# are entitled to thepossession thereof and their right to re&over

possession over it is never 0arred 0# la&hes. he#-aintain that respondents &lai- of ownership is0ased on an unproven oral sale, whi&h does note7ist. 5urther, respondent &annot rel# on the a7De&larations as she was pa#ing ta7es in thepetitioners na-e, as the de&lared owners of thepropert#. "oreover, she started pa#ing the ta7esonl# in 1+%' despite her &lai- that the propert#was sold to her in 1+>$. Even assu-ing that thesale too9 pla&e in 1+>$, respondent is guilt# ofla&hes as she failed to ta9e an# positive a&tion forthe deliver# and &onve#an&e to her of the portionof the propert# she is o&&up#ing. 5inall#,respondent &annot &ollaterall# atta&9 the title ofthe petitioners to the su0?e&t land.

On her part, respondent, although ad-itting thatthe propert# is registered in petitioners na-e,&lai-ed that the 1!!)suare)-eters portion of thepropert#, where her house was ere&ted, wasalread# sold to her 0# petitioner Ji&toria. hus, 0#virtue of the sale, she and her fa-il# have the rightto possess the said propert#. he non)presentationof re&eipt and deed of sale, non)deliver# of theowners &erti;&ate of title, and her pa#-ent of thereal propert# ta7es in the na-e of the petitionerswere due to the &lose relationship 0etween the

parties and the e7isting pra&ti&e of palabra %ehonor in their da# to da# transa&tions. Respondentfurther alleged that she is not guilt# of la&hesHrather, it is the registered owners right to re&overpossession of their propert# whi&h is 0arred 0#la&hes.

In the present &ase, respondent failed to presenteviden&e to su0stantiate her allegation that aportion of the land was sold to her in 1+>$. In fa&t,when petitioners sent a letter1$ to the respondent,de-anding her to va&ate the su0?e&t propert#, therespondent, in repl#1 to the said letter, never

-entioned that she pur&hased the su0?e&t land in1+>$. If the sale reall# too9 pla&e, the respondentshould have i--ediatel# and &ategori&all# &lai-edthat in her letter response. Clearl# therefore,respondents su0-ission that there was an oralsale is a -ere afterthought.

On the other hand, it is undisputed that the su0?e&tpropert# is &overed 0# ransfer Certi;&ate of itleNo. )+'$, registered in the na-e of thepetitioners. (s against the respondents unproven&lai- that she a&uired a portion of the propert#fro- the petitioners 0# virtue of an oral sale, the orrens title of petitioners -ust prevail. Petitioners

title over the su0?e&t propert# is eviden&e of theirownership thereof. It is a funda-ental prin&iple inland registration that the &erti;&ate of title serves

1!=














as eviden&e of an indefeasi0le and in&ontroverti0letitle to the propert# in favor of the person whosena-e appears therein. "oreover, the age)old ruleis that the person who has a orrens title over aland is entitled to possession thereof.1'

5urther, respondents argu-ent that petitioners areno longer the owners of a portion of the su0?e&tland 0e&ause of the sale in her favor is a &ollateralatta&9 on the title of the petitioners, whi&h is not

allowed. he validit# of petitioners &erti;&ate oftitle &annot 0e atta&9ed 0# respondent in this &asefor e?e&t-ent. Fnder Se&tion '% of PresidentialDe&ree No. 1$+, a &erti;&ate of title shall not 0esu0?e&t to &ollateral atta&9. It &annot 0e altered,-odi;ed or &an&eled, e7&ept in a dire&t pro&eedingfor that purpose in a&&ordan&e with law. he issueof the validit# of the title of the petitioners &an onl#0e assailed in an a&tion e7pressl# instituted forthat purpose. hether or not the respondent hasthe right to &lai- ownership over the propert# is0e#ond the power of the trial &ourt to deter-ine inan a&tion for unlawful detainer.1

In $o%rigue5 v. $o%rigue5 ,1> &iting the &ase of Co v.9ilitar,1= the Court held that/

TUhe orrens S#ste- was adopted in this &ountr#0e&ause it was 0elieved to 0e the -ost eAe&tive-easure to guarantee the integrit# of land titlesand to prote&t their indefeasi0ilit# on&e the &lai-of ownership is esta0lished and re&ognied.

It is settled that a orrens Certi;&ate of title isindefeasi0le and 0inding upon the whole worldunless and until it has 0een nulli;ed 0# a &ourt of

&o-petent ?urisdi&tion. Fnder e7isting statutor#and de&isional law, the power to pass upon thevalidit# of su&h &erti;&ate of title at the ;rstinstan&e properl# 0elongs to the Regional rialCourts in a dire&t pro&eeding for &an&ellation oftitle.

(s the registered owner, petitioner had a right tothe possession of the propert#, whi&h is one of theattri0utes of ownership. 7 7 7

(nent the issue on la&hes, the C(s ruling thatpetitioners long ina&tion to assert their rights over

the su0?e&t land 0ars the- fro- re&overing thesa-e is without 0asis. (lso, the do&trine invo9ed0# the appellate &ourt that a registered owner -a#loose his right to re&over its possession 0# reasonof la&hes is not appli&a0le here.

2a&hes is the failure or negle&t, for anunreasona0le and une7plained length of ti-e, todo that whi&h, 0# e7er&ising due diligen&e, &ould orshould have 0een done earlierH it is negligen&e oro-ission to assert a right within a reasona0le ti-e,warranting the presu-ption that the part# entitledto assert it either has a0andoned or de&lined toassert it.1% here is no a0solute rule as to what

&onstitutes la&hes or staleness of de-andH ea&h&ase is to 0e deter-ined a&&ording to its parti&ular&ir&u-stan&es, with the uestion of la&hes

addressed to the sound dis&retion of the &ourt.Be&ause la&hes is an euita0le do&trine, itsappli&ation is &ontrolled 0# euita0le&onsiderations and should not 0e used to defeat ?usti&e or to perpetuate fraud or in?usti&e.1+

Respondent ;rst a&uired possession of the su0?e&tlot 0# -ere toleran&e. 5ro- 1+' until the ;ling ofthe &o-plaint for e?e&t-ent in 1++=, the nature ofthat possession has never &hanged. Petitioners

allowed the respondent to possess the propert#with the 9nowledge that the respondent will va&atethe sa-e upon de-and. @en&e, until su&h de-andto va&ate was &o--uni&ated 0# the petitioners tothe respondent, petitioners are not reuired to doan# a&t to re&over the su0?e&t land, pre&isel#0e&ause the# 9new of the nature of therespondents possession, i.e., possession 0# -eretoleran&e. hus, it &annot 0e said that petitionersare guilt# of failure or negle&t to assert a rightwithin a reasona0le ti-e. 5urther, after thepetitioners gave a de-and letter to the respondentgiving the latter until Nove-0er !, 1++> to va&ate

the su0?e&t pre-ises, whi&h respondent failed toheed, the# i--ediatel# ;led a &o-plaint 0eforethe 0aranga# authorities and, thereafter, lodged ane?e&t-ent &ase 0efore the "CC on 5e0ruar# $',1++=. In su-, e ;nd that petitioners are notguilt# of la&hes as would 0ar their &lai- to thepropert# in uestion.

In &ontrast, respondent, who is &lai-ing that aportion of the propert# was sold to her in 1+>$, hasherself failed within a long period of ti-e to havethat portion transferred in her na-e. Respondenthad to wait for al-ost #ears sin&e 1+>$, andwere it not for the ;ling of the e?e&t-ent suit in

1++=, she would not have 0othered to assert herrights under the alleged sale. Respondents failureto assert that right onl# goes to prove that no saleever transpired 0etween the parties.

"oreover, as the registered owners, petitionersright to e?e&t an# person illegall# o&&up#ing theirpropert# is not 0arred 0# la&hes. In 0au%encio&abra%or, represente% b &ulu &abra%or son, as Attorne/in/act v. Spouses l%e(onso Perlas an%Pacencia Perlas an% Spouse $ogelio Pobre an%9elin%a ogata Pobre,$! the Court held that/

5 5 5 A' " r&i'(&r&$ o#&r, p&(i(io#&r %"' "ri%( (o &B&)( "# p&r'o# ill&"ll o))+pi#%i' prop&r(. T%i' ri%( i' ipr&')rip(il& "#$)"# #&/&r & "rr&$ l")%&'. In Bishop v.Court of (ppeals, we held, thus/

(s registered owners of the lots in uestion, theprivate respondents have a right to e?e&t an#person illegall# o&&up#ing their propert#. his rightis i-pres&ripti0le. Even if it 0e supposed that the#were aware of the petitioners o&&upation of thepropert#, and regardless of the length of thatpossession, the lawful owners have a right to

de-and the return of their propert# at an# ti-e aslong as the possession was unauthoried or -erel#

1!%


















tolerated, if at all. his right is never 0arred 0#la&hes.

Sin&e respondents o&&upation of the su0?e&t lot is0# -ere toleran&e or per-ission of the petitioners,without an# &ontra&t 0etween the-, respondent is0ound 0# an i-plied pro-ise that she will va&atethe sa-e upon de-and, failing whi&h a su--ar#a&tion for e?e&t-ent is the proper re-ed# againsther.$1

In respondents (nswer ;led 0efore the "CC, she&lai-ed that sin&e she was a0le to 0uild a stru&tureon the su0?e&t lot with the prior per-ission fro-the owner, she is a 0uilder in good faith and thusentitled to 0e rei-0ursed the ne&essar# and usefule7penses under (rti&les '> and '% of the CivilCode of the Philippines. ithout su&hrei-0urse-ent, she has the right of retention overthe propert# and she &annot ?ust 0e e?e&ted fro-the pre-ises.

Respondents argu-ent does not hold water. Sin&e

respondents o&&upation of the su0?e&t propert#was 0# -ere toleran&e, she has no right to retainits possession under (rti&le ''% of the Civil Code.She is aware that her tolerated possession -a# 0eter-inated an# ti-e and she &annot 0e &onsideredas 0uilder in good faith.$$ It is well settled that 0oth(rti&le ''%$ and (rti&le '>$' of the New CivilCode, whi&h allow full rei-0urse-ent of usefuli-prove-ents and retention of the pre-ises untilrei-0urse-ent is -ade, appl# onl# to a possessorin good faith, i.e., one who 0uilds on land with the0elief that he is the owner thereof. Jeril#, personswhose o&&upation of a realt# is 0# sheer toleran&eof its owners are not possessors in good faith.$ (tthe ti-e respondent 0uilt the i-prove-ents on thepre-ises in 1+', she 9new that her possessionwas 0# -ere per-ission and toleran&e of thepetitionersH hen&e, she &annot 0e said to 0e aperson who 0uilds on land with the 0elief that sheis the owner thereof.

Respondents relian&e on her pa#-ent of realt#ta7es on the propert# is unavailing. She startedpa#ing ta7es onl# in 1+%' despite her &lai- thatshe 0ought the propert# in 1+>$. 5urther, asidefro- the rule that ta7 de&larations and&orresponding ta7 re&eipts &annot 0e used to prove

title to or ownership of a real propert# inas-u&h asthe# are not &on&lusive eviden&e of the sa-e,$> theRC found that although the pa#-ent for said ta7eswere re&eived fro- respondent, the de&laredowner was petitioner Ji&toria.

It -ust 0e stressed, however, that the &ourtsad?udi&ation of ownership in an e?e&t-ent &ase is-erel# provisional, and a:r-an&e of the RCsde&ision would not 0ar or pre?udi&e an a&tion0etween the sa-e parties involving title to thepropert#, if and when su&h a&tion is 0roughtseasona0l# 0efore the proper foru-.$=

@ERE5ORE, the petition is GRANTE. heDe&ision and the Resolution of the Court of

(ppeals, dated (pril >, $!!1 and 5e0ruar# 1,$!!$, respe&tivel#, in C()*.R. SP No. '+++',a:r-ing the De&ision of the $nd "uni&ipal Cir&uit rial Court in Civil Case No. 1%=,are RE<ERSE and SET ASIE. he De&ision ofthe Regional rial Court of Santa Cru, 2aguna,Bran&h $>, in Civil Case No. SC)%!,is REINSTATE.

G.R. No. 198 &)&&r 2, 200

HENAIA :UGARIN, <IOLETA A:ANO, LIHAA:A>ATA, ANTONIO ALEGRE, REMEIOSALEGRE, C-RIS ANASCO, !EFFRE> ARUILLOS,LOURES :AGARESE, EUGENIA :ARAUIL,PRECIOS :ASO>, RANN> :ASO>, FEL>:ERME!O, CARLOS :O, !UN :O, ALEK :ORRES,ANNA MARIE CORO<A, ESPERANHECORO<A, E7IN EPETILLO, ROMULOFERR>, LEONISA GA:RIEL, MA. FE GA:RIEL,SALOME CORO<A, ELEN !ACO:, !EREMIAS !ACO:, OLI<IA LERIN, CRISELA MAE!A, !OMARI MANONG, NESTOR MANONG,

<ALENTIN MANONG, EMUNOFEL> MINA,TE> PARUAN, SAL<ACION PASCUA,ROMMEL POLISTICO, ANIELNANC> PRAO,ARMANO ROMERO, SANC-O <ILLAFUERTE,"#$ FERNANO >AMI, Petitioners,vs.CECILIA :. PALISOC, MARINA :. MATA "#$RE>NALO T. NEPOMUCENO, Respondents.

R E S O 2 F I O N

UISUM:ING, J.:

Before us is a petition for review on &ertiorariassailing the Or$&r1 dated (pril !, $!! andthe Sp&)i"l Or$&r o* &oli(io#$ dated "a# +,$!! of the "etropolitan rial Court 3"eC4 ofParaKaue Cit#, Bran&h ==. Petitioners had appliedfor the issuan&e of a te-porar# restraining order3RO4 0ut the Court in a resolution dated "a# 1,$!! denied the appli&ation.

he fa&ts in this &ase, &ulled fro- the re&ord, areas follows.

he present &ontrovers# arose fro- a &o-plaint for

e?e&t-ent, do&9eted as Civil Case No. 11=++, ;led0efore the "eC 0# private respondents Ce&ilia B.Paliso& and "arina B. "ata. In a de&ision' dated5e0ruar# $=, $!!$, the &ourt de&lared respondentsas the rightful possessors of the properties indispute. It also ordered the petitioners to va&atethe pre-ises and pa# to private respondents therentals.

Petitioners appealed to the Regional rial Court3RC4 of ParaKaue Cit#, Bran&h $=' while privaterespondents -oved for e7e&ution pending appeal.On 8anuar# %, $!!, the RC a:r-ed the "eCde&ision with the -odi;&ation that petitioners -uststart pa#ing rentals fro- the date of the appealedde&ision.

1!+




























On 8anuar# $%, $!!, petitioners ;led a "otion forRe&onsideration with Opposition to the Issuan&e ofa rit of E7e&ution. In an order dated "ar&h ,$!!, the RC denied the -otion and grantedprivate respondents -otion for e7e&ution forfailure of petitioners to post a supersedeas 0ond orto pa# the 0a&9 rentals. hus, a writ of e7e&utionpending appeal was issued. On "ar&h =, $!!,petitioners were served with the writ and noti&e tova&ate.

On "ar&h 11, $!!, petitioners ;led a "otion toDefer I-ple-entation of the rit of E7e&ution. On"ar&h 1', $!!, private respondents ;led a "otionto Issue a Spe&ial Order of De-olition sin&epetitioners refused to va&ate the pre-ises. he RCdeferred a&tion on the -otions to allow petitionersto e7haust legal re-edies availa0le to the-.

Petitioners thereafter ;led a Supple-ent to the"otion to Defer I-ple-entation of rit ofE7e&ution and Opposition to "otion to Issue Spe&ialOrder of De-olition, &ontending that Se&tion $% of

Repu0li& (&t No. =$=+

was not &o-plied with.

On (pril ', $!!, private respondents ;led a "otionReiterating the "otion for Issuan&e of Spe&ial Orderof De-olition. In an order dated (pril 11, $!!, theRC de&lared the de&ision den#ing petitionersappeal ;nal and e7e&utor#, and re-anded there&ords of the &ase to the "eC without a&ting onthe -otions.

@owever, on (pril 1!, $!!, petitioners ;led aPetition for Certiorari and Prohi0ition with Pra#erfor Preli-inar# Prohi0itor# In?un&tion 0efore the

Court of (ppeals. he# also ;led an FrgentJigorous Opposition and "otion to SuspendPro&eedings on respondents "otion Reiteratingthe "otion for Issuan&e of Spe&ial Order ofDe-olition 0efore the "eC.

he "eC set the "otion for the Issuan&e of Spe&ialOrder of De-olition for hearing. he &ourt grantedsaid -otion on (pril !, $!!, 0ut gave petitioners;ve 34 da#s fro- re&eipt of its order to voluntaril#va&ate the pre-ises and re-ove all stru&tures andi-prove-ents -ade thereon.

On "a# >, $!!, "eC Bran&h SheriA Re#naldo .Nepo-u&eno reported that petitioners refused tova&ate the pre-ises. Petitioners instead ;led a"otion to Quash and Re&all the Order dated (pril!, $!! andor Spe&ial Order of De-olition. he"eC denied the -otion and issued the Spe&ialOrder of De-olition on "a# +, $!!.

@en&e, this petition where petitioners raise thelone error that

@E COFR ( QFO, IN BRFS@IN* (SIDE REPFB2IC(C TNO.U =$=+ IN @E RESO2FION O5 @E C(SE(*(INS @ESE FNDERPRIJI2E*ED PEIIONERS,@(S DECIDED ( QFESION O5 SFBS(NCE, NO @EREO5ORE DEER"INED BL @E SFPRE"E

COFR, (NDOR @(S DECIDED I IN ( (LPROB(B2L NO IN (CCORD I@ 2( OR I@ @E (PP2IC(B2E DECISIONS O5 @E @ONOR(B2ESFPRE"E COFR.>

Si-pl#, the issue is, are the Orders of the "eCproper[

Petitioners &ontend that the Orders of the "eCviolated the -andator# reuire-ents of Se&tion$%= of Rep. (&t No. =$=+ sin&e there was no !)da#noti&e prior to the date of evi&tion or de-olitionand there had 0een no &onsultation on the -atterof resettle-ent. he# also &lai- that there wasneither relo&ation nor ;nan&ial assistan&e given. he# insist that the "eC orders are patentl#unreasona0le, i-possi0le and in violation of thelaw.%

Private respondents for their part argue that Rep.(&t No. =$=+ is not appli&a0le. he# aver that therewas no proof that petitioners are registered aseligi0le so&ialied housing progra- 0ene;&iaries in

a&&ordan&e with pro&edure set forth in theI-ple-enting Rules and Regulations *overning theRegistration of So&ialied @ousing Bene;&iariesissued 0# the Depart-ent of Interior and 2o&al*overn-ent and the @ousing and Fr0anDevelop-ent Coordinating Coun&il. he# aver thateven if Rep. (&t No. =$=+ was appli&a0le, thereuired noti&es under the law had alread# 0een&o-plied with. (&&ording to the-, petitioners werealread# noti;ed on "ar&h =, $!! of an i-pendingde-olition, when the writ of e7e&ution was served.+

e ;nd for respondents.

Fnder Se&tion 1+,1! Rule =! of the Revised Rules onCivil Pro&edure, a ?udg-ent on a for&i0le entr# anddetainer a&tion is i--ediatel# e7e&utor# to avoidfurther in?usti&e to a lawful possessor, and the&ourts dut# to order the e7e&ution is pra&ti&all#-inisterial.11 he defendant -a# sta# it onl# 0# 3a4perfe&ting an appealH 304 ;ling a supersedeas 0ondHand 3&4 -a9ing a periodi& deposit of the rental orreasona0le &o-pensation for the use ando&&upan&# of the propert# during the penden&# ofthe appeal.1$ On&e the Regional rial Court de&ideson the appeal, su&h de&ision is i--ediatel#e7e&utor# under Se&tion $1,1 Rule =!, withoutpre?udi&e to an appeal, via a petition forreview, 0efore the Court of (ppeals or Supre-eCourt.1'

@owever, petitioners failed to ;le a petition forreview. Re&ords show that petitioners re&eived on"ar&h 1$, $!! the RC de&ision den#ing their-otion for re&onsideration. he# had until "ar&h$=, $!! to ;le a petition for review 0efore theCourt of (ppeals. Instead, the# ;led a petition for&ertiorari and prohi0ition on (pril 1!, $!!. In saidpetition, whi&h is still pending, petitioners&ontended that the RC &o--itted grave a0use of

dis&retion in a:r-ing the "eC de&ision andinsisted that the latter &ourt had no ?urisdi&tionover the &o-plaint.

11!


























he re-ed# to o0tain reversal or -odi;&ation ofthe ?udg-ent on the -erits in the instant &ase isappeal. his holds true even if the error as&ri0ed tothe &ourt rendering the ?udg-ent is its la&9 of ?urisdi&tion over the su0?e&t -atter, or the e7er&iseof power in e7&ess thereof, or grave a0use ofdis&retion in the ;ndings of fa&t or of law set out inthe de&ision. he e7isten&e and availa0ilit# of theright of appeal prohi0its the resort to&ertiorari 0e&ause one of the reuire-ents for the

latter re-ed# is that Gthere should 0e no appeal.G1

Clearl#, petitioners petition for &ertiorari 0eforethe Court of (ppeals was ;led as a su0stitute forthe lost re-ed# of appeal. Certiorari is not and&annot 0e -ade a su0stitute for an appeal wherethe latter re-ed# is availa0le 0ut was lost throughfault or negligen&e.1> hus, the ;ling of the petitionfor &ertiorari did not prevent the RC de&ision fro-0e&o-ing ;nal and e7e&utor#.1= he RC a&ted&orre&tl# when it re-anded the &ase to the &ourt of origin in the order dated (pril 11, $!!.1%

hus, we ;nd that the "eC &annot 0e faulted forissuing the assailed orders to enfor&e the RC ?udg-ent. Both orders were issued after thereuisite noti&e and hearing. "oreover, the Courtof (ppeals did not issue an# writ of preli-inar#in?un&tion to sta# the e7e&ution of the ?udg-ent.

Petitioners tried to sta# the e7e&ution of the orderof de-olition 0# ;ling a petition for review withpra#er for RO 0efore us. e earlier denied saidpra#er for RO. e also ;nd petitioners &ontentionthat the said orders violated Rep. (&t No. =$=+,parti&ularl# Se&tion $%3&4,1+ totall# without -erit.Fnder the provision, evi&tion or de-olition -a# 0eallowed when there is a &ourt order for evi&tion andde-olition, as in the &ase at 0ar. "oreover, nothingis shown on re&ord that petitioners areunderprivileged and ho-eless &itiens as de;nedin Se&tion 3t4 of Rep. (&t No. =$=+.$! hepro&edure for the e7e&ution of the evi&tion orde-olition order under Se&tion $%3&4 is, in ourview, not appli&a0le.

It also appears that the order of de-olition hadalread# 0een e7e&uted. Petitioners had alread#va&ated the area and private respondents nowpossess the properties free fro- all o&&upants, as

eviden&ed 0# the sheriAs turn)over of possessiondated "a# 1+, $!!. hus, the instant &ase 0eforeus has indeed 0e&o-e -oot and a&ade-i&.

7-EREFORE, the petition for review assailing theOrder dated (pril !, $!! and the Spe&ial Order of De-olition dated "a# +, $!! of the "etropolitan rial Court of ParaKaue Cit#, Bran&h ==,is ENIE for -ootness and la&9 of -erit.

G.R. No. 13624. S&p(&&r 3, 2003J

SUNFLO7ER NEIG-:OR-OO ASSOCIATION,

r&pr&'&#(&$ FLOROARAGAN, petitioners, vs. COURT OFAPPEALS, -ON. ACTING PRESIING

!UGE LORIFEL LACAP P-IMNA, M&TC,:r"#)% , P"r""+& Ci( "#$ ELISAMAGLAUI;CAPARAS, respondents.

E C I S I O N

CORONA, J.?

his is a petition for review of the 8ul# 1>,

1++% de&ision of the Court of (ppealsT1U

in C()*.R.SP No. '>%>1 3a4 de&laring null and void thein?un&tion orders respe&tivel# issued 0# 8udge(-elita olentinoT$U in Civil Case No. +>)!$, forE7propriation, and 8udge Rolando *. @ow in CivilCase No. +>)!'%!, for Prohi0ition with Preli-inar#In?un&tionH and 304 ordering the "etropolitan rialCourt 3"eC4 of Paraaue Cit#, Bran&h =%, toenfor&e its 8ul# %, 1++> rit of De-olition. hedispositive portion read/

@ERE5ORE, foregoing &onsidered, the in?un&tionorders su0?e&t of the instant petition are here0#DEC2(RED NF22 (ND JOID. Corollar# thereto, theCourt of origin, "etropolitan rial Court, Bran&h =%,Paraaue, is here0# dire&ted to EN5ORCE its rit of De-olition dated 8ul# %, 1++>. TU

he ante&edent fa&ts follow.

Private respondent Elisa "aglaui)Caparas, inher &apa&it# as e7e&utri7 of the testate estate of "a&aria "aglaui, ;led on "ar&h 1>, 1++ a&o-plaint for unlawful detainer 3Civil Case No.%!4 against (lfredo "ogar and '> otherpersonsT'U who were o&&up#ing several par&els of land 32ots 1)(, B, C, E, 5 and *4 in Lellow Jille,

Fnited Paraaue Su0division IJ, "etro "anila. hese par&els of land are &overed 0# individualtransfer &erti;&ates of titleTU registered in the na-eof "a&aria "aglaui, private respondents -other.

he "eC of Paraaue Cit#, Bran&h =%,eventuall# de&ided in favor of private respondent.On appeal, the de&ision of the "eC was a:r-ed0# the Regional rial Court 3RC4 of "a9ati Cit#,Bran&h >>. "ogar et al. elevated the &ase to theCourt of (ppeals 0ut their petition was dis-issed0# the appellate &ourt on De&e-0er 1$, 1++'. (fterthe dis-issal 0e&a-e ;nal, a writ of de-olition

was issued 0# the "eC of Paraaue Cit#, Bran&h=%. he writ, however, was not i--ediatel#i-ple-ented 0e&ause the &ase was transferred toBran&h == of the sa-e &ourt. On 5e0ruar# >, 1++=,"ogar et al. ;led a petition with the RC of Paraaue Cit#, Bran&h $=, presided over 0# 8udgeRolando *. @ow, to en?oin the i-ple-entation of the writ of de-olition. @owever, this petition wasdenied and su0seuentl#, an alias writ of de-olition was issued 0# 8udge Jiven&io *. 2irio of "eC Bran&h ==, the &ourt of origin.

he alias writ of de-olition was, again, note7e&uted, this ti-e due to the e parte issuan&e of a writ of preli-inar# in?un&tion 0# 8udge (-elita olentino, in &onne&tion with the e7propriation &ase

111














http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/136274.htm#_ftn1


















3Civil Case No. +>)!$4 ;led 0# the "uni&ipalit# of Paraaue against the estate Estate of "a&aria"aglaui.

"eanwhile, another group of personso&&up#ing portions of the par&els of land 32ots I)5and I)*4 su0?e&t of the unlawful detainer &ase,organied the-selves into the SunowerNeigh0orhood (sso&iation 3Sunower4, thepetitioner herein. On Nove-0er 1%, 1++>,

Sunower, represented 0# one 5loro (ragan, ;led a&o-plaint for prohi0itionin?un&tion withpreli-inar# in?un&tion against private respondentalso with the RC of Paraaue Cit#, Bran&h $=.Sunower argued that its -e-0ers should 0ee7&luded fro- the de-olition order as the# werenot parties to the original unlawful detainer &ase. o in&lude their houses in the de-olition would 0eto deprive the- of due pro&ess. his ti-e, 8udge@ow granted the in?un&tion and ordered thee7&lusion of the houses 0elonging to petitionerfro- de-olition.

hus, private respondent ;led a petition for&ertiorari, prohi0ition and -anda-us with theCourt of (ppeals 3C( *R SP No. '>%>14 assailing0oth the in?un&tion orders issued 0# 8udge olentinoin the e7propriation &ase and 0# 8udge @ow in theprohi0ition &ase.

he Court of (ppeals ruled in favor of privaterespondent holding that, as the ?udg-ent in theunlawful detainer &ase had alread# 0e&o-e ;nal,the e7e&ution &ould not 0e en?oined.Conseuentl#,the "eC of Paraaue Cit#, Bran&h == issuedanother alias writ of de-olition on Septe-0er 1',1++%.

In order to sta# the e7e&ution of the writ of de-olition, Sunower ;led on 8anuar# =, 1+++ anurgent -otion in this Court for the issuan&e of a status quo order. his we granted in a resolutiondated 8anuar# $!, 1+++. Prior to the issuan&e of ourresolution, however, the writ of de-olition wasi-ple-ented on 8anuar# 1', 1+++. Petitioner thus;led a -otion to allow its -e-0ers to return to thepre-ises, whi&h we granted in another resolutiondated (pril $%, 1+++. hereafter, we reuired 0othparties to su0-it their -e-oranda.

So-eti-e in Nove-0er 1++%, the group of "ogar et al. ;led in this Court a petition for reviewof the de&ision of the Court of (ppeals in C( *R SPNo. '>%>1. @owever, we dis-issed the sa-e on 8anuar# 1%, 1+++ for failure of said petitioners to&o-pl# with &ertain pro&edural reuire-ents,in&luding their failure to su0-it a &erti;&ation of non)foru- shopping.T>U

5or its part, petitioner Sunower li9ewiseassailed the sa-e de&ision of the Court of (ppealsin this petition for review on certiorari under Rule' of the Revised Rules of Court.

Before we pro&eed, it should 0e pointed outthat an# issue relating to the e7propriation &ase

3Civil Case No. +>)!$4 ;led 0# the "uni&ipalit# of Paraaue has 0een rendered -oot 0# the dis-issalof that &ase. his Court, in a Resolution dated 8anuar# $+, $!!,T=U ordered the presiding ?udge of the RC of Paraaue Cit#, Bran&h $=' to report onthe status of the e7propriation &ase ;led 0# the"uni&ipalit# of Paraaue against herein privaterespondent. he presiding ?udge reported that the&ase was alread# dis-issed on 8une 1, 1+++ in anorder issued 0# then Presiding 8udge (-elita

olentino who granted the -otion to dis-iss ;led0# herein private respondent. Said dis-issal wasnot &hallenged 0# the "uni&ipalit# of Paraaue. T%U

he 0asi& issue 0efore us is whetherpetitioners -e-0ers, who were not parties to theunlawful detainer &ase, -a# 0e e?e&ted fro- theland su0?e&t of this &ase.

e rule in the a:r-ative. It is well)settledthat, although an e?e&t-ent suit is ana&tion in personam wherein the ?udg-ent is0inding onl# upon the parties properl# i-pleaded

and given an opportunit# to 0e heard, the ?udg-ent 0e&o-es 0inding on an#one who has not0een i-pleaded if he or she is/ 3a4 a trespasser,suatter or agent of the defendant fraudulentl#o&&up#ing the propert# to frustrate the ?udg-entH304 a guest or o&&upant of the pre-ises with theper-ission of the defendantH 3&4 a transfereependente liteH 3d4 a su0lesseeH 3e4 a &o)lessee or 3f4a -e-0er of the fa-il#, relative or priv# of thedefendant.T+U

In the &ase at 0ar, the re&ords show thatpetitioners -e-0ers are trespassers or suatterswho do not have an# right to o&&up# the propert#of respondent. Petitioner does not dispute theownership of the par&els of land in uestion. Infa&t, it even ad-itted that the su0?e&t propert# isowned 0# "a&aria "aglaui, -other of privaterespondent.T1!U Petitioner failed to esta0lish an#right whi&h would entitle its -e-0ers to o&&up#the land in an# &apa&it#, whether as lessees,tenants and the li9e. Petitioners onl# defenseagainst the evi&tion and de-olition orders is theirsupposed non)in&lusion in the original detainer&ase. his defense, however, has no legal supportsin&e its -e-0ers are trespassers or suatters whoare 0ound 0# the ?udg-ent.

Petitioners argu-ent that the par&els of lando&&upied 0# its -e-0ers 32ots I)5 and I)*4 werenot in&luded in the original e?e&t-ent &o-plainthas no 0asis. he &o-plaint private respondent;led with the "eC of Paraaue Cit#, Bran&h =%,&learl# in&luded 2ots I)5 and I)* as part of thesu0?e&t -atter under litigation in the unlawfuldetainer &ase.T11U hus, petitioners -e-0ers,together with all the parties in the unlawfuldetainer &ase, -ust va&ate the disputed land.

he Court &o--iserates with respondent,

alread# in her twilight #ears, who has 0eenunlawfull# deprived of her land for a good nu-0erof #ears. hus, we e7hort the &ourt of origin to

11$















e7e&ute this de&ision with reasona0le dispat&h,&onsistent with the reuire-ents of Se&tion $% of R( =$=+ and EO 1$, T1$U on evi&tion andde-olition.

7-EREFORE, the petition is here0# DENIEDand the de&ision of the Court of (ppeals in C()*RSP No. '>%>1 is (55IR"ED

G.R. No. 13616 !+#& 2, 2014

AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICEATOD, Petitioner,vs.-ON. COURT OF APPEALS NINETEENT-I<ISIOND "#$ :ERNIE G.MIAUE, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

LEONARO;E CASTRO, J.:

his petition for &ertiorari and prohi0ition of the (ir ransportation O:&e 3(O4 see9s the nulli;&ationof the Court of (ppeals Resolution1 dated "ar&h$+, $!!> and Resolution$ dated "a# !, $!!> inC()*.R. CEB)SP No. !1>!. he Resolution dated"ar&h $+, $!!> granted the appli&ation forte-porar# restraining order 3RO4 of Bernie *."iaue, while the Resolution dated "a# !, $!!>issued a writ of preli-inar# in?un&tion en?oining thei-ple-entation of the writ of e7e&ution issued 0#the Regional rial Court 3RC4 of Iloilo despite"iaues alleged &ontinued failure and refusal to-a9e &urrent the supersedeas 0ond and to pa# tothe ( O the rental and &on&ession privilege fees.

he pro&eedings on the -ain &ase of e?e&t-ent

"CC of Iloilo Cit#/ Civil Case No. !1 3%4

In "a# $!!1, the (O ;led a &o-plaint for unlawfuldetainer against "iaue in the "uni&ipal rial Courtin Cities 3"CC4 of Iloilo Cit#, Bran&h . It wasdo&9eted as Civil Case No. !1 3%4. he (O soughtthe following, a-ong others/

314 hat "iaue 0e ordered to per-anentl#

va&ate and pea&efull# return to the (Opossession of/

3a4 the %!!)suare -eterRefresh-ent Parlor fronting theNew er-inal Building)Iloilo (irportH

304 the 1!)suare -eterRestaurant*ift Shop inside theIloilo (irport er-inalH and

3&4 all areas o&&upied or otherwiseutilied 0# "iaue in&ident to his

operation of the Porterage Servi&ewithin the Iloilo (irportH and

3$4 hat "iaue 0e ordered to i--ediatel#pa# the (O the a-ount of not lessthan P1,$+>,1!.1!, representing unpaidspa&e rental and &on&essionaire privilegefees as of O&to0er 1, $!!! plus interestand additional rental and fees whi&h -a#0e proven during the trial.

he "CC su0seuentl# rendered a De&ision' dated"a# $=, $!!$ the dispositive part of whi&h reads/

@ERE5ORE, ?udg-ent is rendered ;ndingT"iaueU to 0e unlawfull# detaining the followingpre-ises and orders Thi-U, his -en and privies to/

a. va&ate the %!!T)Usuare -eterRefresh-ent Parlor fronting the New er-inal Building)Iloilo (irport. T"iaueU isfurther ordered to pa# Tthe (OU the rentaland &on&essionaire privilege feeTsUa&&ruing fro- Nove-0er 1+%> to O&to0er$!!!, totaling P'>!,!>!.=!, plusdiAerential 0illings fro- 8anuar# 1++! to

8ul# 1++ for P',>$.>! and interest&harges fro- 8anuar# $!!! to O&to0er$!!! for P$,>=%.% or a total a-ountof P'>=,+=.>% as of O&to0er $!!!, lessthe pa#-ents -ade 0# T"iaueU underO:&ial Re&eipt No. '1=%'$ datedDe&e-0er 1++%, and the -onthl# &urrentlease&on&ession privilege fee fro-Nove-0er $!!! until T"iaueU shall haveva&ated the pre-isesH

304 va&ate the 1!T)Usuare -eterRestaurant*ift Shop inside the Iloilo

er-inal Building whi&h was redu&ed to atotal of 1% suare -eters in 1++% 31.>suare -eters inside the pre)departurearea and 1$>.=$ suare -eters outside thepre)departure area4. T"iaueU is alsoordered to pa# Tthe (OUrentals&on&essionaires privilege feeTsUfro- 8anuar# 1>, 1++$ to O&to0er 1, $!!!in the total a-ount ofP=1+,=!%.' andfro- O&to0er 1>, $!!!, to pa# the &urrent-onthl# lease&on&essionaire privilege feesuntil T"iaueU shall have va&ated thepre-isesH and

3&4 va&ate the area o&&upied or used 0#T"iaueU in&ident to his operation of thePorterage Servi&e within the Iloilo (irport.T"iaueU is further ordered to pa# enderOAer 5ee due fro- "ar&h 1++$ to O&to0er$!!! in the total a-ount of P1!%,++=.!=.T"iaueU is further ordered to pa# the&urrent -onthl# &on&ession privilege feefro- O&to0er $!!! until su&h ti-e thatT"iaueU shall have va&ated the pre-ises.

Costs against T"iaueU.

RC of Iloilo Cit#/ Civil Case No. !$)$=$+$

11















"iaue appealed the "CC De&ision to the RC ofIloilo Cit#, Bran&h $'. It was do&9eted as Civil CaseNo. !$)$=$+$. he RC, in its De&ision> dated 8une=, $!!, a:r-ed the "CC De&ision in its entiret#."iaues -otion for re&onsideration wasdenied.= Court of (ppeals/ C()*.R. SP No. =+'+"iaue uestioned the RC De&ision in the Court of (ppeals 0# ;ling a petition for review, do&9eted asC()*.R. SP No. =+'+, on Septe-0er $, $!!. In aDe&ision% dated (pril $+, $!!, the Court of

(ppeals dis-issed the petition and a:r-ed theRC De&ision. "iaue -oved for re&onsideration0ut it was denied in a Resolution dated 8anuar# ,$!!>.+

Supre-e Court/ *.R. No. 1=1!++

"iaue 0rought the &ase to this Court in a petitionfor review, do&9eted as *.R. No. 1=1!++. In aResolution1!dated 5e0ruar# $$, $!!>, the petitionwas denied as no reversi0le error in the Court of(ppeals De&ision was su:&ientl# shown. he-otion for re&onsideration of "iaue was denied

with ;nalit#.11

he pro&eedings on e7e&ution

(s an in&ident of C()*.R. SP No. =+'+, the Courtof (ppeals issued on 5e0ruar# $=, $!!' ate-porar# restraining order 3RO4 eAe&tive for aperiod of >! da#s and reuired "iaue to post a0ond in the a-ount ofP1!!,!!!.!!.1$ (fter thelapse of the RO, the (O ;led an urgent -otionfor the e7e&ution of the RC De&ision pursuant toSe&tion $1, Rule =! of the Rules of Court. his wasopposed 0# "iaue.1

In an Order1' dated (ugust $, $!!', the RCgranted the (Os -otion/

herefore, in view of the a0ove &onsideration, the&ourt ;nds -erit TiUn the reasons given in the-otion of Tthe (OU and here0# *rants theissuan&e of a rit of E7e&ution.

Pursuant to Se&tion $1, Rule =! of the 1++= Rulesof Civil Pro&edure, whi&h -andates that the ?udg-ent of this Court 0eing i--ediatel#e7e&utor# in &ases of this nature, let a writ of

e7e&ution shall issue, ordering the sheriA of thisCourt to eAe&t its De&ision dated 8une =, $!!,a:r-ing the De&ision of the "CC, Bran&h , IloiloCit#.

5urnish &opies of this order to the (sst. Soli&itor(l-ira o-a-pos of the O:&e of the Soli&itor*eneral and (tt#. Re7 Ri&o, &ounsel for T"iaueU.1

"iaue sought re&onsideration of the a0ove Order0ut the RC denied the -otion in an Order1> dated(ugust 1, $!!'. hereafter, the RC issued a ritof E7e&ution dated (ugust 1>, $!!'.1=

@owever, the Court of (ppeals issued aResolution1% dated (ugust 1%, $!!' ordering the

issuan&e of a writ of preli-inar# in?un&tion anden?oining the (O and all persons a&ting in its0ehalf fro- enfor&ing the respe&tive De&isions ofthe "CC and the RC while C()*.R. SP No. =+'+is pending. hus, after the dis-issal of "iauespetition for review in C()*.R. SP No. =+'+, the(O ;led another urgent -otion for e7e&ution ofthe RC De&ision. In its -otion, the (O pointed outthat the supersedeas 0ond ;led 0# "iaue hadlapsed and was not renewed and that the rental

and &on&essionaire privilege fees have not 0eenpaid at all in violation of Se&tion %, Rule =! of theRules of Court.1+ "iaue again opposed the (Osurgent -otion for e7e&ution,$! while the (O ;led asupple-ental urgent -otion for e7e&ution statingthat "iaues appeal in the Court of (ppeals had0een dis-issed.$1

In an Order$$ dated 8une 1, $!!, the RC grantedthe (Os urgent -otion for e7e&ution and issued arit of E7e&ution$ dated 8une $, $!!. On the 0asisof the said writ, a noti&e to va&ate was given to"iaue.$' On 8une , $!!, "iaue ;led a -otion

for re&onsideration of the Order dated 8une 1,$!!, with pra#er to set aside the writ of e7e&utionand noti&e to va&ate.$ (t the sa-e ti-e, he ;led a-otion in C()*.R. SP No. =+'+ pra#ing that theCourt of (ppeals order the RC ?udge and the&on&erned sheriAs to desist fro- i-ple-enting thewrit of e7e&ution.$> hereafter, the Court of (ppealsissued a Resolution$= dated 8une 1', $!! orderingthe sheriAs to desist fro- e7e&uting the De&isionsof the "CC and the RC while C()*.R. SP No.=+'+ is still pending. @owever, on 8une 1, $!!,0efore the &on&erned sheriAs re&eived a &op# ofthe Resolution dated 8une 1', $!!, the saidsheriAs i-ple-ented the writ of e7e&ution and

delivered the possession of the following pre-isesto the (O/

3a4 the Restaurant*ift Shop inside the Iloilo er-inal Building in the redu&ed area of1% suare -etersH and

304 the area whi&h "iaue o&&upied or usedin&ident to his operation of the PorterageServi&e within the Iloilo (irport.

he sheriAs who i-ple-ented the writ then ;led areturn of servi&e$% and issued reports of partial

deliver# of possession.$+ @owever, "iauesu0seuentl# regained possession of the saidpre-ises on the strength of the Court of (ppealsResolution dated 8une 1', $!!.!

On 5e0ruar# +, $!!>, after the Court of (ppealsissued its Resolution dated 8anuar# , $!!>den#ing "iaues -otion for re&onsideration of theDe&ision dated (pril $+, $!! in C()*.R. SP No.=+'+, the (O ;led with the RC a -otion for therevival of the writs of e7e&ution dated (ugust 1>,$!!' and 8une $, $!!.1 his was opposed 0#"iaue.$ (fter the RC heard the parties, it issued

an Order

dated "ar&h $!, $!!> granting the(Os -otion and revived the writs of e7e&utiondated (ugust 1>, $!!' and 8une $, $!!. "iaue

11'






































































;led a -otion for re&onsideration 0ut the RCdenied it.'

( new &ase in the Court of (ppeals/ C()*.R. CEB)SPNo. !1>!

On "ar&h $%, $!!>, "iaue ;led a petition for&ertiorari 3with pra#er for issuan&e of RO andorwrit of preli-inar# in?un&tion4 in the Court of(ppeals, do&9eted as C()*.R. CEB)SP No. !1>!,where he assailed the RCs Order dated "ar&h $!,$!!>. @e pra#ed, a-ong others, that thei-ple-entation of the writs of e7e&ution 0een?oined. It is here where the Court of (ppealsissued the Resolutions 0eing &hallenged in this&ase, na-el#, the Resolution dated "ar&h $+, $!!>issuing a RO eAe&tive for >! da#s, and Resolutiondated "a# !, $!!> issuing a writ of preli-inar#in?un&tion en?oining the i-ple-entation of thewrits of e7e&ution dated (ugust 1>, $!!' and 8une$, $!!. In parti&ular, the Resolution dated"a# !, $!!> reads/ Before us for resolution isT"iaueUs appli&ation for the issuan&e of a writ of

preli-inar# in?un&tion that would restrain therespondent ?udge, SheriAs "ar&ial B. 2a-0uso,inston . Eguia, Ca-ilo I. Divinagra&ia, 8r. and Eri&*eorge S. 2untao and all other persons a&ting forand in their 0ehalves, fro- enfor&ing the ordersissued 0# the respondent ?udge on "ar&h $!, $!!>and "ar&h $', $!!>, in&luding the writTsU ofe7e&ution issued pursuant thereto, while thepetition in the &ase at 0en&h is still pending withus.

(fter e7a-ining ?udi&iousl# the re&ord in this &ase,together with the su0-issions and &ontentions ofthe parties, we have &o-e up with a ;nding and sohold that there is a su:&ient showing 0# T"iaueUthat the grounds for the issuan&e of a writ ofpreli-inar# in?un&tion enu-erated in Se&tion ofRule % of the 1++= Revised Rules of Court e7ist.e ;nd that T"iaueU has a right in esse to 0eprote&ted and the a&ts against whi&h the in?un&tionis sought to 0e dire&ted are violative of said right. o our -ind, T"iaueU appears to have a &lear legalright to hold on to the pre-ises leased 0# hi- fro-(O at least until su&h ti-e when he shall have0een dul# e?e&ted therefro- 0# a writ of e7e&utionof ?udg-ent &aused to 0e issued 0# the "CC inIloilo Cit#, whi&h is the &ourt of origin of the

de&ision pro-ulgated 0# this Court in C()*.R. SPNo. =+'+ on (pril $+, $!!. Fnder the attendant&ir&u-stan&es, it appears that the respondent ?udge orthe RC in Iloilo Cit# has no ?urisdi&tion toorder the issuan&e of su&h writ of e7e&ution0e&ause we gave due &ourse to the petition forreview ;led with us in C()*.R. SP No. =+'+ and, infa&t, rendered a de&ision on the -erit in said &ase,there0# divesting the RC in Iloilo Cit# of ?urisdi&tion over the &ase as provided for in thethird paragraph of Se&tion %3a4 of Rule '$of the1++= Revised Rules of Court. In Cit# of "anila vs.Court of (ppeals, $!' SCR( >$, as &ited in "o&lesvs. "aravilla, $+ SCR( 1%%, the Supre-e Court

held as follows/

Ghe rule is that, if the ?udg-ent of the-etropolitan trial &ourt is appealed to the RC andthe de&ision of the latter itself is elevated to the C(whose de&ision thereafter 0e&a-e ;nal, the &aseshould 0e re-anded through the RC to the-etropolitan trial &ourt for e7e&ution.G

@ERE5ORE, in view of the foregoing pre-ises, aRI O5 PRE2I"IN(RL IN8FNCION is here0#ordered or &aused to 0e issued 0# us en?oining the

respondent ?udge, SheriAs "ar&ial B. 2a-0uso,inston . Eguia, Ca-ilo I. Divinagra&ia, 8r. and Eri&*eorge S. 2untao and all other persons a&ting forand in their 0ehalves, fro- enfor&ing the ordersissued 0# the respondent ?udge on "ar&h $!, $!!>and "ar&h $', $!!>, in&luding the writTsU ofe7e&ution issued pursuant thereto, while thepetition in the &ase at 0en&h is still pending withus.

his is su0?e&t to the petitioners putting up of a0ond in the su- of ONE @FNDRED @OFS(NDPESOS3P1!!,!!!.!!4 to the eAe&t that he will pa#

to the respondent (O all da-ages whi&h saido:&e -a# sustain 0# reason of the in?un&tive writif we should ;nall# de&ide that T"iaueU is notentitled thereto.>

he present petition

he (O &lai-s that the Court of (ppeals a&tedwith grave a0use of dis&retion a-ounting to la&9 ore7&ess of ?urisdi&tion in issuing the RO and thesu0seuent writ of preli-inar# in?un&tion throughthe Order dated "ar&h $+, $!!> and the Resolutiondated "a# !,$!!>, respe&tivel#. (&&ording to the

(O, the Court of (ppeals ignored thegovern-ents right under the law, Rules of Court, ?urispruden&e and euit# to the possession as wellas to the pa#-ent of rental and &on&essionprivilege fees whi&h, at the ti-e of the ;ling of thispetition, alread# a-ounted to P$ "illion. Su&h righthad alread# 0een de&ided with ;nalit# 0# thisCourt, whi&h a:r-ed the De&ision dated (pril $+,$!! of the Court of (ppeals in C()*.R. SP No.=+'+, 0ut the Court of (ppeals has repeatedl#thwarted it. he RC a&ted properl# and pursuantto Se&tion $1, Rule =! of the Rules of Court when itissued the writs of e7e&ution.= "oreover, the (Oasserts that a RO &annot restrain an a&&o-plished

fa&t, as the RCs writ of e7e&ution dated 8une 1,$!! had alread# 0een partiall# i-ple-ented.%

he (O also argues that, 0# his ad-ission that theissues in C(*.R. SP No. =+'+ and C()*.R. CEB)SPNo. !1>! are e7a&tl# the sa-e, "iaue has&o--itted foru- shopping. In this &onne&tion, the(O points out that, in his opposition to the (Os-otion for additional period of ti-e to ;le its&o--ent on "iaues petition in C()*.R. CEB)SPNo. !1>!, "iaue pointed out the si-ilarit# of the&ore issues in C()*.R. SP No. =+'+ and C()*.R.CEB)SP No. !1>!, to wit/

04 he legal issues raised 0# the petitionTin C()*.R. CEBSP No. !1>!U are ver#

11














si-ple and not &o-pli&ated. In fa&t, thethreshold issue, i.e., whether or notrespondent &ourt 3RC4 has ?urisdi&tion toissue the writ of e7e&ution after the appealover its de&ision had 0een perfe&ted andthe petition for review Tin C()*.R. SP No.=+'+U given due &ourse, is e7a&tl# thesa-e one earlier raised 0# Tthe (O itselfin itsU G"otion for Re&onsiderationG of theResolution dated 8une 1', $!!, in C( *.R.

No. =+'+, entitled GBernie *. "iaue vs.@on. Danilo P. *alve and (ir ransportation O:&e 3(O4G, 3sa-e partiesin this pro&eeding4, then pending 0eforethe $!th Division, Court of (ppeals, Ce0uCit#.

@en&e, all that Tthe (O hasU to do is si-pl# toreiterate TitsU said argu-ents, the law and ?urispruden&e Tit hasU earlier invo9ed and, if TitwishesU, add so-e -ore argu-ents, laws or ?urispruden&e thereto. Su&h an e7er&ise wouldde;nitel# not reuire a si7t# 3>!4 da# period. ( ten

31!4 da# period is -ore than su:&ient.

+

he (O further &ontends that the su0?e&t pre-isesfor- part of a pu0li& utilit# infrastru&ture and,pursuant to Presidential De&ree No. 1%1%, theissuan&e of a RO against a pu0li& utilit#infrastru&ture is prohi0ited.'!

he (O adds that "iaues petition for &ertiorariin C()*.R. CEBSP No. !1>! introdu&es a new-atter whi&h is the alleged novation of the "CCDe&ision when he deposited the a-ountof P1+,+!!.!! to the 2and Ban9 of the Philippinesa&&ount of the (O in 5e0ruar# $!!>. (t an# rate,the (O asserts that its tena&it# in pursuing thee7e&ution of the ?udg-ent against "iaue 0elies its&onsent to the alleged novation.'1

5or his part, "iaue argues that this Court has no ?urisdi&tion to dis-iss a petition still pending withthe Court of (ppeals. hus, the (O &annotproperl# pra# that this Court dis-iss C()*.R. CEB)SP No. !1>!. (&&ording to "iaue, the ?urisdi&tionof this Court is li-ited onl# to the deter-ination ofwhether or not the Court of (ppeals gravel#a0used its dis&retion in issuing a RO and,su0seuentl#, a preli-inar# in?un&tion in C()*.R.

CEB)SP No. !1>!. In this &onne&tion, "iaueinsists that the Court of (ppeals a&ted well withinits ?urisdi&tion in the issuan&e of 0oth the Orderdated "ar&h $+, $!!> granting a RO and theResolution dated "a# !, $!!> issuing a writ ofpreli-inar# in?un&tion in C()*.R. CEB)SP No.!1>!. (s this Court has eAe&tivel# a:r-ed the"CC De&ision, then it is the "CC and not the RCwhi&h should have dire&ted the e7e&ution of the"CC De&ision. "oreover, the RC had no ?urisdi&tion to issue the writs of e7e&ution dated(ugust 1>, $!!' and 8une 1, $!! 0e&ause the said&ourt alread# lost its ?urisdi&tion when "iaue ;ledan appeal to the Court of (ppeals on Septe-0er$, $!!, whi&h appeal was given due &ourse.'$

"iaue also asserts that the (Os &lai- that theRCs writ of e7e&ution had 0een partiall#i-ple-ented is not true and that he is inpossession of the entire su0?e&t pre-ises when theCourt of (ppeals issued the RO and writ ofpreli-inar# in?un&tion 0eing &hallenged in this&ase.

5inall#, "iaue alleges that no writ -a# 0e issuedto enfor&e the "CC De&ision as the said de&ision

had alread# 0een novated 0# his depositof P1+,!!!.!! to the (Os a&&ount with the 2andBan9 of the Philippines in 5e0ruar# $!!>.'

his Court, in a Resolution'' dated (ugust 1', $!!>,issued a RO en?oining the Court of (ppeals,"iaue, and his agents and representatives fro-i-ple-enting the Resolution dated "ar&h $+, $!!>and the Resolution dated "a# !, $!!> in C()*.R.CEB)SP No. !1>!.

he Courts ruling


Preli-inaril#, the Court notes that the &hallenge tothe Order dated "ar&h $+, $!!> granting a RO,eAe&tive for >! da#s, is -oot as its eAe&tivit# hadalread# lapsed.

Cutting through the tangled we0 of issuespresented 0# the &ontending parties, the 0asi&uestion in this petition is whether or not the Courtof (ppeals &o--itted grave a0use of dis&retiona-ounting to la&9 or e7&ess of ?urisdi&tion inissuing the Resolution dated "a# !, $!!> whi&h

granted petitioners appli&ation for the issuan&e ofa writ of preli-inar# in?un&tion in C()*.R. CEB)SPNo. !1>!.

Se&tion $1, Rule =! of the Rules of Court providesthe 9e# to that uestion/ Se&. $1. I--ediatee7e&ution on appeal to Court of (ppeals orSupre-e Court. M he ?udg-ent of the Regional rial Court against the defendant shall 0ei--ediatel# e7e&utor#, without pre?udi&e to afurther appeal that -a# 0e ta9en therefro-.3E-phasis supplied.4

his ree&ts Se&tion $1 of the Revised Rule onSu--ar# Pro&edure/

Se&. $1. (ppeal. ) he ?udg-ent or ;nal order shall0e appeala0le to the appropriate Regional rialCourt whi&h shall de&ide the sa-e in a&&ordan&ewith Se&tion $$ of Batas Pa-0ansa Blg. 1$+. hede&ision of the Regional rial Court in &ivil &asesgoverned 0# this Rule, in&luding for&i0le entr# andunlawful detainer, shall 0e i--ediatel# e7e&utor#,without pre?udi&e to a further appeal that -a# 0eta9en therefro-. Se&tion 1! of Rule =! shall 0edee-ed repealed. 3E-phasis and unders&oring

supplied.4

11>
















he a0ove provisions are supple-ented andreinfor&ed 0# Se&tion ', Rule + and Se&tion %304,Rule '$ of the Rules of Court whi&h respe&tivel#provide/

Se&. '. 8udg-ents not sta#ed 0# appeal. M 8udg-ents in a&tions for in?un&tion, re&eivership,a&&ounting and support, and su&h other ?udg-entsas are now or -a# hereafter 0e de&lared to 0ei--ediatel# e7e&utor#, shall 0e enfor&ea0le after

their rendition and shall not 0e sta#ed 0# an appealta9en therefro-, unless otherwise ordered 0# thetrial &ourt. On appeal therefro-, the appellate&ourt in its dis&retion -a# -a9e an ordersuspending, -odif#ing, restoring or granting thein?un&tion, re&eivership, a&&ounting, or award ofsupport.

he sta# of e7e&ution shall 0e upon su&h ter-s asto 0ond or otherwise as -a# 0e &onsidered properfor the se&urit# or prote&tion of the rights of theadverse part#.

7 7 7 7

Se&. %. Perfe&tion of appealH eAe&t thereof.M

3a4 Fpon the ti-el# ;ling of a petition for reviewand the pa#-ent of the &orresponding do&9et andother lawful fees, the appeal is dee-ed perfe&tedas to the petitioner.

he Regional rial Court loses ?urisdi&tion over the&ase upon the perfe&tion of the appeals ;led in dueti-e and the e7piration of the ti-e to appeal of theother parties.

@owever, 0efore the Court of (ppeals gives due&ourse to the petition, the Regional rial Court -a#issue orders for the prote&tion and preservation ofthe rights of the parties whi&h do not involve an#-atter litigated 0# the appeal, approve&o-pro-ises, per-it appeals of indigent litigants,order e7e&ution pending appeal in a&&ordan&e withSe&tion $ of Rule +, and allow withdrawal of theappeal.

304 E7&ept in &ivil &ases de&ided under the Rules onSu--ar# Pro&edure, the appeal shall sta# the

?udg-ent or ;nal order unless the Court of(ppeals, the law, or these Rules shall provideotherwise. 3E-phases supplied.4

he totalit# of all the provisions a0ove shows thefollowing signi;&ant &hara&teristi&s of the RC ?udg-ent in an e?e&t-ent &ase appealed to it/

314 he ?udg-ent of the RC against thedefendant)appellant is i--ediatel#e7e&utor#, without pre?udi&e to a furtherappeal that -a# 0e ta9en therefro-H and

3$4 Su&h ?udg-ent of the RC is not sta#ed0# an appeal ta9en therefro-, unlessotherwise ordered 0# the RC or, in the

appellate &ourts dis&retion, suspended or-odi;ed.

he ;rst &hara&teristi& )) the ?udg-ent of the RC isi--ediatel# e7e&utor# )) is e-phasied 0# the fa&tthat no resolutor# &ondition has 0een i-posed thatwill prevent or sta# the e7e&ution of the RCs ?udg-ent.' he signi;&an&e of this -a# 0e 0etterappre&iated 0# &o-paring Se&tion $1 of Rule =!with its pre&ursor, Se&tion 1!, Rule =! of the 1+>'

Rules of Court whi&h provided/

Se&. 1!. Sta# of e7e&ution on appeal to Court of(ppeals or Supre-e Court. M here defendantappeals fro- a ?udg-ent of the Court of 5irstInstan&e, e7e&ution of said ?udg-ent, with respe&tto the restoration of possession, shall not 0e sta#edunless the appellant deposits the sa-e a-ountsand within the periods referred to in se&tion % ofthis rule to 0e disposed of in the sa-e -anner astherein provided.

Fnder the old provision, the pro&edure on appeal

fro- the RCs ?udg-ent to the Court of (ppealswas, with the e7&eption of the need for asupersedeas 0ond whi&h was not appli&a0le,virtuall# the sa-e as the pro&edure on appeal ofthe "Cs ?udg-ent to the RC. hus, in the&onte-plated re&ourse to the Court of (ppeals, thedefendant, after perfe&ting his appeal, &ould alsoprevent the i--ediate e7e&ution of the ?udg-ent0# -a9ing the periodi& deposit of rentals duringthe penden&# of the appeal and there0#&orrespondingl# prevent restitution of the pre-isesto the plaintiA who had alread# twi&e vindi&ated his&lai- to the propert# in the two lower &ourts. Onthe other hand, under the a-endator# pro&edureintrodu&ed 0# the present Se&tion $1 of Rule =!,the ?udg-ent of the RC shall 0e i--ediatel#e7e&utor# and &an a&&ordingl# 0e enfor&edforthwith. It shall not 0e sta#ed 0# the -ere&ontinuing deposit of -onthl# rentals 0# thedispossess or during the penden&# of the &ase inthe Court of (ppeals or this Court, although su&he7e&ution of the ?udg-ent shall 0e withoutpre?udi&e to that appeal ta9ing its due &ourse. hisreiterates Se&tion $1 of the Revised Rule onSu--ar# Pro&edure whi&h repla&ed the appellatepro&edure in, and repealed, the for-er Se&tion 1!,Rule =! of the 1+>' Rules of Court.'> eresa .

*onales 2aO V Co., In&. v. SheriA @ata0'=

states/

Fnli9e Rule =! of the 1+>' Revised Rules of Courtwhere the defendant, after perfe&ting his appeal,&ould prevent the i--ediate e7e&ution of the ?udg-ent 0# ta9ing an appeal and -a9ing aperiodi& deposit of -onthl# rentals during thependen&# of the appeal there0# preventing theplaintiA fro- ta9ing possession of the pre-ises inthe -eanti-e, the present wording of Se&tion $1,Rule =! e7pli&itl# provides that the ?udg-ent of theregional trial &ourt in e?e&t-ent &ases appealed toit shall 0e i--ediatel# e7e&utor# and &an 0eenfor&ed despite the perfe&tion of an appeal to ahigher &ourt.'% 3E-phasis supplied.4

11=











he RCs dut# to issue a writ of e7e&ution underSe&tion $1 of Rule =! is -inisterial and -a# 0e&o-pelled 0# -anda-us.'+ Se&tion $1 of Rule =!presupposes that the defendant in a for&i0le entr#or unlawful detainer &ase is unsatis;ed with theRCs ?udg-ent and appeals to a higher &ourt. Itauthories the RC to i--ediatel# issue a writ ofe7e&ution without pre?udi&e to the appeal ta9ing itsdue &ourse.! he rationale of i--ediate e7e&utionof ?udg-ent in an e?e&t-ent &ase is to avoid

in?usti&e to a lawful possessor.1 Nevertheless, itshould 0e stressed that the appellate &ourt -a#sta# the writ of e7e&ution should &ir&u-stan&es soreuire.$

he se&ond &hara&teristi& )) the ?udg-ent of theRC is not sta#ed 0# an appeal ta9en therefro- Mreinfor&es the ;rst.1)*phi1 he ?udg-ent of theRC in an e?e&t-ent &ase is enfor&ea0le upon itsrendition and, upon -otion, i--ediatel# e7e&utor#notwithstanding an appeal ta9en therefro-. hee7e&ution of the RCs ?udg-ent is notdis&retionar# e7e&ution under Se&tion $, Rule + of

the Rules of Court whi&h provides/

Se&tion $. Dis&retionar# e7e&ution. M

3a4 E7e&ution of a ?udg-ent or a ;nal orderpending appeal. M On -otion of the prevailing part#with noti&e to the adverse part# ;led in the trial&ourt while it has ?urisdi&tion over the &ase and isin possession of either the original re&ord or there&ord on appeal, as the &ase -a# 0e, at the ti-eof the ;ling of su&h -otion, said &ourt -a#, in itsdis&retion, order e7e&ution of a ?udg-ent or ;nalorder even 0efore the e7piration of the period toappeal.

(fter the trial &ourt has lost ?urisdi&tion, the -otionfor e7e&ution pending appeal -a# 0e ;led in theappellate &ourt.

Dis&retionar# e7e&ution -a# onl# issue upon goodreasons to 0e stated in a spe&ial order after duehearing.

304 E7e&ution of several, separate or partial ?udg-ents. M ( several, separate or partial ?udg-ent -a# 0e e7e&uted under the sa-e ter-s

and &onditions as e7e&ution of a ?udg-ent or ;nalorder pending appeal.

Dis&retionar# e7e&ution is authoried while the trial&ourt, whi&h rendered the ?udg-ent sought to 0ee7e&uted, still has ?urisdi&tion over the &ase as theperiod to appeal has not #et lapsed and is inpossession of either the original re&ord or there&ord on appeal, as the &ase -a# 0e, at the ti-eof the ;ling of the -otion for e7e&ution. It is part of the trial &ourts residual powers, or those powerswhi&h it retains after losing ?urisdi&tion over the&ase as a result of the perfe&tion of the appeal. (sa rule, the ?udg-ent of the RC, rendered in the

e7er&ise of its appellate ?urisdi&tion, 0eing soughtto 0e e7e&uted in a dis&retionar# e7e&ution issta#ed 0# the appeal to the Court of (ppeals

pursuant to Se&tion %304, Rule '$ of the Rules ofCourt. On the other hand, e7e&ution of the RCs ?udg-ent under Se&tion $1, Rule =! is notdis&retionar# e7e&ution 0ut a -inisterial dut# ofthe RC.' It is not governed 0# Se&tion $, Rule +of the Rules of Court 0ut 0# Se&tion ', Rule + ofthe Rules of Court on ?udg-ents not sta#ed 0#appeal. In this &onne&tion, it is not &overed 0# thegeneral rule, that the ?udg-ent of the RC issta#ed 0# appeal to the Court of (ppeals under

Se&tion %304, Rule '$ of the Rules of Court, 0ut&onstitutes an e7&eption to the said rule. In&onne&tion with the se&ond &hara&teristi& of theRC ?udg-ent in an e?e&t-ent &ase appealed to it,the &onseuen&e of the a0ove distin&tions 0etweendis&retionar# e7e&ution and the e7e&ution of theRCs ?udg-ent in an e?e&t-ent &ase on appeal tothe Court of (ppeals is that the for-er -a# 0eavailed of in the RC onl# 0efore the Court of(ppeals gives due &ourse to the appeal while thelatter -a# 0e availed of in the RC at an# stage ofthe appeal to the Court of (ppeals. But then again,in the latter &ase, the Court of (ppeals -a# sta#the writ of e7e&ution issued 0# the RC should&ir&u-stan&es so reuire. Cit# of Naga v. @on.(sun&ion> e7plains/

his is not to sa# that the losing defendant in ane?e&t-ent &ase is without re&ourse to avoidi--ediate e7e&ution of the RC de&ision. hedefendant -a# 7 7 7 appeal said ?udg-ent to theCourt of (ppeals and therein appl# for a writ ofpreli-inar# in?un&tion. hus, as held in Benedi&to v.Court of (ppeals, even if RC ?udg-ents in unlawfuldetainer &ases are i--ediatel# e7e&utor#,preli-inar# in?un&tion -a# still 0e granted.3Citation o-itted.4

o reiterate, despite the i--ediatel# e7e&utor#nature of the ?udg-ent of the RC in e?e&t-ent&ases, whi&h ?udg-ent is not sta#ed 0# an appealta9en therefro-, the Court of (ppeals -a# issue awrit of preli-inar# in?un&tion that will restrain oren?oin the e7e&ution of the RCs ?udg-ent. In thee7er&ise of su&h authorit#, the Court of (ppealsshould &onstantl# 0e aware that the grant of apreli-inar# in?un&tion in a &ase rests on the sounddis&retion of the &ourt with the &aveat that itshould 0e -ade with great &aution.=

( writ of preli-inar# in?un&tion is an e7traordinar#event whi&h -ust 0e granted onl# in the fa&e ofa&tual and e7isting su0stantial rights. he dut# ofthe &ourt ta9ing &ognian&e of a pra#er for a writ of preli-inar# in?un&tion is to deter-ine whether thereuisites ne&essar# for the grant of an in?un&tionare present in the &ase 0efore it. In the a0sen&e ofthe sa-e, and where fa&ts are shown to 0ewanting in 0ringing the -atter within the&onditions for its issuan&e, the an&illar#writ -ust0e stru&9 down for having 0een rendered in gravea0use of dis&retion.%

In this &ase, the de&isions of the "CC in Civil CaseNo. !1 3%4, of the RC in Civil Case No. !$)$=$+$,and of the Court of (ppeals in C(*.R. SP No. =+'+

11%




























unani-ousl# re&ognied the right of the (O topossession of the propert# and the &orrespondingo0ligation of "iaue to i--ediatel# va&ate thesu0?e&t pre-ises. his -eans that the "CC, theRC, and the Court of (ppeals all ruled that "iauedoes not have an# right to &ontinue in possessionof the said pre-ises. It is therefore puling howthe Court of (ppeals ?usti;ed its issuan&e of thewrit of preli-inar# in?un&tion with the sweepingstate-ent that "iaue Gappears to have a &lear

legal right to hold on to the pre-ises leased 0# hi-fro- (O at least until su&h ti-e when he shallhave 0een dul# e?e&ted therefro- 0# a writ ofe7e&ution of ?udg-ent &aused to 0e issued 0# the"CC in Iloilo Cit#, whi&h is the &ourt of origin ofthe de&ision pro-ulgated 0# this Court in C()*.R.SP No. =+'+.G Fnfortunatel#, in its Resolutiondated "a# !, $!!> granting a writ of preli-inar#in?un&tion in "iaues favor, the Court of (ppealsdid not state the sour&e or 0asis of "iaues G&learlegal right to hold on to the TsaidU pre-ises.G his isfatal.

In Nis&e v. Euita0le PCI Ban9, In&.,

+

this Courtstated that, in granting or dis-issing an appli&ationfor a writ of preli-inar# in?un&tion, the &ourt -uststate in its order the ;ndings and &on&lusions0ased on the eviden&e and the law. his is toena0le the appellate &ourt to deter-ine whetherthe trial &ourt &o--itted grave a0use of itsdis&retion a-ounting to e7&ess or la&9 of ?urisdi&tion in resolving, one wa# or the other, theplea for in?un&tive relief. In the a0sen&e of proof ofa legal right and the in?ur# sustained 0# one whosee9s an in?un&tive writ, an order for the issuan&eof a writ of preli-inar# in?un&tion will 0e nulli;ed. hus, where the right of one who see9s an in

?un&tive writ is dou0tful or disputed, a preli-inar#in?un&tion is not proper. he possi0ilit# ofirrepara0le da-age without proof of an a&tuale7isting right is not a ground for a preli-inar#in?un&tion.

he sole 0asis of the Court of (ppeals in issuing itsResolution dated "a# !, $!!> is its view that theRC Ghas no ?urisdi&tion to order the issuan&e ofTtheU writ of e7e&utionG 0e&ause, when it gave due&ourse to the petition for review in C()*.R. SP No.=+'+, the RC was alread# divested of ?urisdi&tionover the &ase pursuant to the third paragraph of

Se&tion %3a4, Rule '$ of the Rules of Court. heCourt of (ppeals is -ista9en. It disregards 0oth 314the i--ediatel# e7e&utor# nature of the ?udg-entof the RC in e?e&t-ent &ases, and 3$4 the rule thatsu&h ?udg-ent of the RC is not sta#ed 0# anappeal ta9en there fro-. It ignores the nature ofthe RCs fun&tion to issue a writ of e7e&ution of its ?udg-ent in an e?e&t-ent &ase as -inisterial andnot dis&retionar#.

he RC was validl# e7er&ising its ?urisdi&tionpursuant to Se&tion $1, Rule =! of the Rules ofCourt when it issued the writs of e7e&ution dated(ugust 1>, $!!' and 8une $,$!!. hile the Court

of (ppeals in C()*.R. SP No. =+'+ en?oined thee7e&ution of the RCs ?udg-ent during thependen&# of C()*.R. SP No. =+'+, the RC revived

the writs of e7e&ution dated (ugust 1>, $!!' and 8une 1, $!! in its Order dated "ar&h $!, $!!>,after the Court of (ppeals denied "iaues -otionfor re&onsideration of the dis-issal of the petitionin C()*.R. SP No. =+'+. Indeed, the said writs ofe7e&ution need not even 0e revived 0e&ause the#&ontinue in eAe&t during the period within whi&hthe ?udg-ent -a# 0e enfor&ed 0# -otion, that iswithin ;ve #ears fro- entr# of ?udg-ent, pursuantto Se&tion 1',>! Rule + of the Rules of Court in

relation to Se&tion >>1 of the sa-e Rule.

here is grave a0use of dis&retion when an a&t is314 done &ontrar# to the Constitution, the law or ?urispruden&e, or 3$4 e7e&uted whi-si&all#,&apri&iousl# or ar0itraril# out of -ali&e, ill will orpersonal 0ias.>$ In this &ase, the Court of (ppealsissued the Resolution dated "a# !, $!!> granting"iaues pra#er for a writ of preli-inar# in?un&tion&ontrar# to Se&tion $1, Rule =! and other relevantprovisions of the Rules of Court, as well as thisCourts pronoun&e-ents in eresa . *onales 2aOV Co., In&.> and Nis&e.>' hus, the Court of (ppeals

&o--itted grave a0use of dis&retion when it issuedthe Resolution dated "a# !, $!!> in C()*.R. CEB)SP No. !1>!.

his Court notes that the &ontrovers# 0etween theparties in this &ase has 0een undul# protra&ted,&onsidering that the de&isions of the "CC, theRC, the Court of (ppeals, and this Court in favor of the (O and against "iaue on the e?e&t-ent &aseare alread# ;nal and e7e&utor#. he Court of(ppeals should therefore pro&eed e7peditiousl# inresolving C()*.R. CEBSP No. !1>!.

@ERE5ORE, the petition is here0# *R(NED. heResolution dated "a# !, $!!> of the Court of(ppeals in C()*.R. CEB)SP No. !1>! is (NNF22EDfor having 0een rendered with grave a0use ofdis&retion. he Court of (ppeals is dire&ted to&ondu&t its pro&eedings in C()*.R. CEB)SP No.!1>! e7peditiousl# and without dela#

G.R. No. 196219 !+l 30, 2014

SPOUSES MAURICIO M. TA:INO "#$ LEONILAELA CRUH;TA:INO, Petitioners,vs.LAHARO M. TA:INO, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

EL CASTILLO, J.:

his Petition for Review on Certiorari1 see9s to setaside the (ugust $, $!1! De&ision$ of the Court of (ppeals in C()*.R. SP No. 1!=+=, entitled G2aaro" a0ina, Petitioner, versus Spouses "auri&io a0ina and 2eonila dela Cru)a0ina, Respondents,Gas well as its "ar&h 1%, $!11 Resolution den#ingre&onsideration of the assailed ?udg-ent.

5a&tual (nte&edents

11+

























Pro&la-ation No. 1%' 3Pro&. 1%4 e43&luded fro-the operation of Pro&. '$ M whi&h esta0lished the-ilitar# reservation 9nown as 5ort Bonifa&iosituated in the then -uni&ipalities of Pasig, aguig,Pateros and ParaKaue, Provin&e of Rial and Pasa#Cit# M &ertain portions in said reservation 9nownand identi;ed as Baranga#sCe-0o, South Ce-0o,est Re-0o, East Re-0o, Co-e-0o, Pe-0o, andPitogo, situated in "a9ati, and de&lared thesa-eopen for disposition in a&&ordan&e with

Repu0li& (&t 3R(4 No. $=',> and R( =!= in relationto the provisions of Co--onwealth (&t No. 1'1.%

(-ong others, Pro&. 1% allowed a -a7i-u- areaof !! suare -eters for disposition to an# 0ona;deo&&upantsresidents of said Baranga#sCe-0o,South Ce-0o, est Re-0o, East Re-0o,Co-e-0o, Pe-0o, and Pitogo who have resided inor o&&upied su&h areas on or 0efore 8anuar# =,1+%>.

In 1+%, petitioner "auri&io ". a0ino 3"auri&io4 M ate&hni&al sergeant in the -ilitar# M and his 0rother,

respondent 2aaro ". a0ino M a &olonel in the-ilitar# M o&&upied a )suare -eter lot inPe-0o, "a9ati Cit#. "auri&io esta0lished residen&ewithin the lot, while respondent &ontinued to residein Novali&hes, Queon Cit#.+ he lot was latersu0divided into two portions, deno-inated as 2ots$ and , Blo&9 $, one 1$, *roup 1!,Sa-paguita E7tension, Pe-0o, "a9ati Cit#.

2ot $ M &ontaining an area of 1%' suare-eters Mwas applied for &overage under Pro&. 1% 0#"auri&io, while 2ot M &ontaining an area of 1>+suare -eters M was applied for 0# respondent.Respondent was later on issued 0# the 5ortBonifa&io Post Co--ander a Revo&a0le Per-it1! too&&up# his lot, 0ut the per-it authoried hi- too&&up# an area of onl# 1! suare -eters.

In 1+%%, 2ot was awarded to respondent, and aCerti;&ate11 to su&h eAe&t was issued 0# theBureau of 2ands 3now 2and "anage-ent Bureau4.

On "a# 11, $!!', respondent ;led an e?e&t-ent&ase against "auri&io and the latters wife, 2eoniladela Cru 3petitioners4 with the "etropolitan rialCourt of "a9ati 3"eC4. Do&9etedas Civil Case No.%!' and assigned to Bran&h >', the e?e&t-ent&ase is 0ased on the theor# that respondent is thetrue and sole owner of the )suare -eter lotHthat he used "auri&io onl# for the purpose of&ir&u-venting the !!)suare -eter li-it set 0#Pro&. 1% 0# as9ing the latter to appl# for thepur&hase of a portion of the lot after su0dividingthe sa-e into two s-aller lotsH that "auri&ios sta#in the pre-ises is -erel#0# toleran&e ofrespondentH that petitioners introdu&ed per-anentstru&tures on the landH and that petitioners refusedto va&ate the pre-ises upon respondents for-alde-and. Respondent thus pra#ed that petitioners0e ordered to va&ate 2ots$ and and to pa# the

for-er rentals, attorne#s fees, and &osts of suit.1$

Petitioners &ounteredin their (nswer1 thatrespondent had no right to e?e&t the-H that theparties trueagree-ent was that petitioners woulda&t as &areta9ers of respondents 2ot , and forthis, respondent would pa# petitioners a -onthl#salar# of P%!!.!!H that respondent failed to honorthe agree-entH and that relative to 2ot $, therewas a pending Protest ;led with the RegionalE7e&utive Dire&tor of the Depart-ent ofEnviron-ent and Natural Resour&es

3DENR4National Capital Region.

Protests in the Depart-ent of Environ-ent andNatural Resour&es

It appears that petitioners and respondent 0oth;led Protests with the DENR relative to 2ots $ and. In a 8une 1, $!!> De&ision, respondents ProtestM do&9eted as Case No. $!!')%$1 and entitledG2aaro ". a0ino, Protestant, versus "auri&io a0ino and 2eonila C. a0ino, ProtesteesG M wasresolved as follows/

@ERE5ORE, pre-ises &onsidered, the instantProtest should 0e as it is here0# GDENIEDG for la&9of-erit. he "is&ellaneousSales (ppli&ation ;led0# "auri&io a0ino over 2ot $, Blo&9 $, one 1$,*roup 1+!, Sa-paguita St., Pe-0o, "a9ati shouldnow 0e given due &ourse 0# this O:&e. 7 7 71'

he DENR held in Case No. $!!')%$1 thatrespondent is not uali;ed to a&uire 2ot $ underPro&. 1% sin&e he was alread# awarded a ho-e lotin 5ort Bonifa&io, spe&i;&all# 2ot 1+, Blo&9 $$, 5ortBonifa&io 3(5POJ(I4, aguig. "oreover, he failed toprovethat "auri&io was not a 0ona

;deresidento&&upant of 2ot $H on the &ontrar#, ithas 0een shown that "auri&io, and not respondent,has 0een in a&tual possession and o&&upation ofthe lot.

In an (ugust $%, $!!= Order,1 the a0ovedisposition was reiterated after respondents-otion for re&onsideration was denied.

On the other hand, petitioners Protest,do&9eted asCase No. $!!)++ and entitled G2eonila a0ino and(drian a0ino, Protestants, versus 2aaro a0inoand Rafael a0ino, RespondentsG, was resolved in

an (ugust $%, $!!= Order,

1>

whi&h de&reed thus M

@ERE5ORE, pre-ises &onsidered, the Protestlodged 0efore this O:&e on $1 8anuar# $!! 0#2eonila a0ino and (drian a0ino as against the(ppli&ation of 2aaroRafael a0ino over 2ot , Bl9.$, one 1$, Pe-0o, "a9ati Cit# is, as it is here0#G*R(NEDG. (s a &onseuen&e, the "S(3Fnnu-0ered4 of Rafael @. a0ino is here0#C(NCE22ED and DROPPED fro- the re&ords of theO:&e. hus, the Order dated 8ul# 1>, $!!' re/Can&ellation Order No. !')!$ should 0e, as it ishere0# SE (SIDE. (fter the ;nalit# of thisDe&ision, Clai-ant)Protestant (drian a0ino -a#

now ;le his land appli&ation over the su0?e&t lot.

1$!

































In reversing the trial &ourt, the C( held that the1++' a:davit M whi&h petitioners do not dispute Mshould 0e ta9en as an ad-ission 0# "auri&io thathe was -erel# appointed 0# respondent as the&areta9er of 2ot $, and that respondent is the truepossessor and owner thereof. his 0eing the &ase,petitioners o&&up# the pre-ises 0# -ere toleran&eof respondent, and are 0oundto the i-pliedpro-ise that the# shall va&ate the sa-euponde-and. he C(added that while respondent was

authoried to o&&up# onl# 1! suare -eters, thiswas irrelevant sin&e the onl# issue that -ust 0eresolvedin an unlawful detainer &ase is a&tualph#si&al or -aterial possession, independent ofan# &lai- of ownershipH sin&e respondent hassatisfa&toril# shown 0# preponderant eviden&e thathe was in a&tual possession of 2ots $ and , he isentitled to re&over the sa-e fro- petitioners.

he C( also held that while respondentsappli&ation for 2ot $ was denied 0# the DENR in its 8une 1, $!!> De&isionM sin&e he was alread# anawardee of another lot within 5ort Bonifa&io, the

issue of possession was not tou&hed upon. 5or thisreason, the DENR De&ision has no 0earing on theunlawful detainer &ase. (dditionall#, the DENRrulings are still the su0?e&t of appeals, and thus&ould not have &on&lusive eAe&t.

Petitioners -oved for re&onsideration, 0ut in a"ar&h 1%, $!11 Resolution, the C( stood itsground. @en&e, the instant Petition.

Issues

Petitioners raise the following issues/

1. C(N @E 5INDIN*S O5 5(CS BL @EDENR IN RESO2JIN* CON52ICIN* C2(I"S(S O @O @(S ( BEER RI*@ O5POSSESSION BEEEN PEIIONERS (NDRESPONDEN OJER SFB8EC P(RCE2S O52O BE NF22I5IED BL @E COFR FNDER(N E8EC"EN C(SE[

$. @(S @E COFR J(2ID2L (CQFIRED 8FRISDICION O @E(R (ND (D8FDIC(EON REJIE @E 5INDIN*S O5 5(CS BL (N(D"INISR(IJE BODL I@OF @(JIN*

(D"INISR(IJE RE"EDIES 5IRSE@(FSED[

. @(S RESPONDEN JIO2(ED@E RF2E(*(INS 5ORF") S@OPPIN* IN 5I2IN*E8EC"EN C(SE (*(INS PEIIONERSDFRIN* @E PENDENCL O5 @E"ISCE22(NEOFS S(2ES (PP2IC(IONC(SES BE5ORE @E DENR @IC@(D"INISR(IJE BODL, IN EERCISE O5 ISQF(SI)8FDICI(2 5FNCION, @(S 5IRS(CQFIRED 8FRISDICION OJER @E S("EP(RIES, S("E SFB8EC "(ER (NDS("E ISSFES O5 5(C (ND 2([$>

Petitioners (rgu-ents

In their Petition and Repl#,$= petitioners see9 areversal of the assailed C( dispositions and thereinstate-ent of the "eCs (pril ', $!!% De&ision,arguing that the e?e&t-ent &ase &onstituted anatta&9 on the DENR rulings in Case Nos. $!!')%$1and $!!)++ M whi&h disuali;ed respondent fro-a&uiring 2ots $ and on the ground that he wasalread# an awardee of a lot within 5ort Bonifa&ioHthat "auri&io has 0een in a&tual possession ando&&upation of 2ots $ and sin&e 1+%H and that

respondent is not a 0ona ;deresidento&&upant of2ot $ or M whi&h is not allowed, as it en&roa&hedon the ad-inistrative authorit# of the DENR. he#argue that respondent should not have resorted tothe e?e&t-ent &aseH instead, he should havee7hausted all ad-inistrativere-edies -adeavaila0le to hi- through the DENR. Petitioners addthat respondent is guilt# of foru-)shopping in ;lingthe e?e&t-ent &ase without awaiting resolution ofthe pending DENR Protests, whi&h ne&essaril#tou&hed upon the issue of possession.

Respondents (rgu-ents

Respondent argues in his Co--ent$% thatpetitioners are estopped fro- &lai-ing that thee?e&t-ent &ase indire&tl#atta&9ed the DENR rulingsand that it &onstituted foru-)shopping, sin&e theseissues were not raised 0# petitioners in theirpleadings 0elowH thatthe &ourts are not divested of ?urisdi&tion over the e?e&t-ent &ase, sin&e the onl#issue involved therein is possession and not who isentitled to a -is&ellaneous sales appli&ation&overing the disputed lot M whi&h the DENR istas9ed to deter-ineH and thatas a &onseuen&e of"auri&ios 1++' a:davit, petitioners are estoppedfro- uestioning respondents possession.

Our Ruling

he Court partiall# grants the Petition.

Respondent is &orre&t in arguing that petitioners-a# not raise the issues of e7haustion ofad-inistrative re-edies and foru-)shopping, afterhaving voluntaril# su0-itted the-selves to the ?urisdi&tion of the "eC and the RC tr#ing thee?e&t-ent &ase. Besides, these issues are 0eingraised for the ;rst ti-e at this stage of thepro&eedings. "oreover, petitioners in the instantPetition pra# for the reinstate-ent of the "eCDe&isionHas su&h, the# &annot 0e allowed tosi-ultaneousl# atta&9 and adopt the pro&eedingsor a&tions ta9en 0# the lower &ourts.

Nonetheless, the Court ;nds that the appellate&ourt erred in ordering petitioners to va&ate thepre-ises. ith the penden&# of the DENR ProtestsM Case Nos. $!!')%$1 and $!!)++ M respondents&lai- of possession and his right to re&over thepre-ises is seriousl# pla&ed in issue. If thee?e&t-ent &ase M Civil Case No. %!' M is allowedto pro&eed without awaiting the result of the DENR

Protests, then a situation -ight arise where thee7isting stru&tures thereon would have to 0ede-olished. If petitioners position, as a:r-ed 0#

1$$











interferen&e with -atters &o-ing pri-aril# 3al0eitnot e7&lusivel#4 withinthe &o-peten&e of the otherdepart-ents. he theor# is that the ad-inistrativeauthorities are in a 0etter position to resolveuestions addressed to their parti&ular e7pertiseand that errors &o--itted 0# su0ordinates in theirresolution -a# 0e re&ti;ed 0# their superiors ifgiven a &han&e to do so. Stri&t enfor&e-ent of therule &ould also relieve the &ourts of a &onsidera0lenu-0er of avoida0le &ases whi&h otherwise would

0urden their heavil# loaded do&9ets.

hus, the part# with an ad-inistrative re-ed#-ust not onl# &o--en&e with the pres&ri0edad-inistrative pro&edure to o0tain relief 0ut alsopursue it to its appropriate &on&lusion 0eforesee9ing ?udi&ial intervention to give thead-inistrative agen&# an opportunit# to de&ide the-atter itself &orre&tl# and prevent unne&essar#and pre-ature resort to the &ourt. he non)o0servan&e of the do&trine of e7haustion ofad-inistrative re-edies results in la&9 of &ause ofa&tion, whi&h is one of the grounds in the Rules of

Court ?ustif#ing the dis-issal of the &o-plaint.

Indeed, the do&trine of e7haustion ofad-inistrative re-edies ad-its of e7&eptions, 0utnone of these appl# in this&ase.1)*phi1 Conseuentl#, 2aaro and Rafaelshould have ;rst appealed to the O:&e ofthePresident, whi&h has the power to review theorders or a&ts of the DENR Se&retar#, 0eing hissu0ordinate, 0efore &o-ing to Fs through apetition for review. 7 7 7

7 7 7 7

5OR @ESE RE(SONS, eDIS"ISS the petition.

SO ORDERED.

In Sa-onte v. Centur# Savings Ban9,1 this Court-ade the following pronoun&e-ent/

Onl# in rare instan&es is suspension allowed toawait the out&o-e of a pending &ivil a&tion. In Jda.de 2egaspi v. (vendaKo, and (-agan v. "ara#ag,we ordered the suspension of the e?e&t-entpro&eedings on &onsiderations of euit#. e

e7plained that the e?e&t-ent of petitioners thereinwould -ean a de-olition of their house and would&reate &onfusion, distur0an&e, in&onvenien&e, ande7pense. Needlessl#, the &ourt would 0e wasting-u&h ti-e and eAort 0# pro&eeding to a stagewherein the out&o-e would at 0est 0e te-porar#0ut the result of enfor&e-ent would 0e per-anent,un?ust and pro0a0l# irrepara0le.$

On the other hand, Jda. de 2egaspi v. @on.(vendaKo, whi&h Sa-onte refers to, states/

7 7 7 here the a&tion, therefore, TisU one of illegal

detainer, as distinguished fro- one of for&i0leentr#, and the right ofthe plaintiA to re&over thepre-ises is seriousl# pla&ed in issue in a proper

?udi&ial pro&eeding, it is -ore euita0le and ?ustand less produ&tive of &onfusion and distur0an&e of ph#si&al possession, with all its &on&o-itantin&onvenien&e and e7penses. 5or the Court inwhi&h the issue of legal possession, whetherinvolving ownership or not, is 0rought to restrain,should a petition for preli-inar# in?un&tion 0e ;ledwith it, the eAe&ts of an# order or de&ision in theunlawful detainer &ase in order to await the ;nal ?udg-ent in the -ore su0stantive &ase involving

legal possession or ownership. It is onl# wherethere has 0een for&i0le entr# that as a -atter ofpu0li& poli&# the right to ph#si&al possessionshould 0e i--ediatel# set at rest in favor of theprior possession regardless of the fa&t that theother part# -ight ulti-atel# 0e found to havesuperior &lai- to the pre-ises involved, there0# todis&ourage an# atte-pt to re&over possession thrufor&e, strateg# or stealth and without resorting tothe &ourts.'

"ore signi;&antl#, (-agan v. "ara#ag di&tates,thus M

(s a general rule, an e?e&t-ent suit &annot 0ea0ated or suspended 0# the -ere ;ling 0efore theregional trial &ourt 3R C4 of another a&tion raisingownership of the propert# as an issue. (s ane7&eption, however, unlawful detainer a&tions -a#0e suspended even on appeal, on &onsiderations of euit#, su&h as when the de-olition of petitionershouse would result fro- the enfor&e-ent of the-uni&ipal &ir&uit trial &ourt 3"CC4 ?udgrnent.>

In light of the develop-ents in the DENR Protests,the Court &annot in good &ons&ien&e order thepetitioners to va&ate the pre-ises at this point. he 0etter alternative would 0e to await theout&o-e of these Protests, 0efore an# a&tion ista9en in the e?e&t-ent &ase.

@ERE5ORE, the Petition is P(RI(22L *R(NED. he assailed (ugust $, $!1! De&ision of the Courtof (ppeals in C()*.R. SP No. 1!=+= is "ODI5IED,in that the dire&tive for petitioners to va&ate thesu?e&t pre-ises is REJERSED and SE (SIDE.

(&&ordingl#, the pro&eedings in the e?e&t-ent&ase, Civil Case No. %!', are orderedSFSPENDED until the pro&eedings in DENR CaseNos. $!!')%$1 and $!!)++ are &on&luded. No&osts.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 1699, !"#+"r 12, 201

RU:EN MANALANG, CARLOS MANALANG,CONCEPCION GONHALES AN LUIS

MANALANG,Petitioners, v. :IEN<ENIO ANMERCEES :ACANI, $espon%ents.

E C I S I O N

:ERSAMIN, J.?

1$'

















In the e7er&ise of its appellate ?urisdi&tion, theRegional rial Court 3RC4 shall de&ide the appeal of the ?udg-ent of the "uni&ipal rial Court 3"C4 inunlawful detainer or for&i0le entr# &ases on the0asis of the entire re&ord of the pro&eedings had inthe &ourt of origin and su&h -e-oranda andor0riefs as -a# 0e reuired 0# the RC. here is notrial %e novo of the &ase.&ralawred

T%& C"'&

he petitioners assail the de&ision pro-ulgated onO&to0er 1%, $!!$ in C()*.R. SP No.>%'1+,1where0# the Court of (ppeals 3C(4 reversedand set aside the de&ision of the RC, Bran&h '+, in*uagua, Pa-panga, and reinstated the ?udg-entrendered on (ugust 1, $!!! 0# the "C of*uagua, Pa-panga dis-issing their &o-plaint forunlawful detainer and the respondents&ounter&lai-. he# also here0# assail theresolution pro-ulgated on 8anuar# $', $!!den#ing their -otion forre&onsideration.$&hanRo0lesvirtual2awli0rar#

A#(&)&$&#('

Petitioners Ru0en "analang, (-ado "analang,Carlos "analang, Con&ep&ion ". *onales, 2adislao"analang and 2uis "analang were the &o)ownersof 2ot No '$> with an area of +1' suare -etersof the *uagua Cadastre, and de&lared for ta7ationpurposes in the na-e of o-asa B. *ar&ia. heland was &overed 0# approved surve# plan (p)!)!!'1'. (d?a&ent to 2ot '$> was the respondents2ot No. '$ &overed 0# Original Certi;&ate of itle3OC4 No. N)$1>=!1. In 1++=, the petitioners&aused the relo&ation and veri;&ation surve# of 2ot'$> and the ad?oining lots, and the result showedthat the respondents had en&roa&hed on 2ot No.

'$> to the e7tent of '! suare -eters. (preli-inar# relo&ation surve# &ondu&ted 0# the2ands "anage-ent Se&tion of the Depart-ent ofEnviron-ent and Natural Resour&es 3DENR4&on;r-ed the result on the en&roa&h-ent. henthe respondents refused to va&ate the en&roa&hedportion and to surrender pea&eful possessionthereof despite de-ands, the petitioners&o--en&ed this a&tion for unlawful detainer on(pril $1, 1++= in the "C of *uagua 3Civil Case No.!+4, and the &ase was assigned to Bran&h $ ofthat &ourt.&hanRo0lesvirtual2awli0rar#

On Septe-0er 1=, 1++%, the "C 3Bran&h $4dis-issed Civil Case No. !+ for la&9 of

?urisdi&tion 0ased on its ;nding that the a&tioninvolved an essentiall# 0oundar# dispute thatshould 0e properl# resolved in an accionreivin%icatoria.' It stated that the &o-plaint did notaver an# &ontra&t, whether e7press or i-plied,0etween the petitioners and the respondents thatuali;ed the &ase as one for unlawful detainerH andthat there was also no showing that therespondents were in possession of the disputedarea 0# the -ere toleran&e of the petitioners dueto the latter having 0e&o-e aware of theen&roa&h-ent onl# after the relo&ation surve# heldin 1++=.

On appeal, however, the RC reversed the "C3Bran&h $4, and re-anded the &ase for furtherpro&eedings, holding that 0e&ause there was anapparent withholding of possession of the propert#

and the a&tion was 0rought within one #ear fro-su&h withholding of possession the proper a&tionwas e?e&t-ent whi&h was within the ?urisdi&tion ofthe "CH and that the &ase was not a 0oundar#dispute that &ould 0e resolved in an accionreinvi%icatoria, &onsidering that it involved asiea0le area of propert# and not a -eretransferring of0oundar#.>&hanRo0lesvirtual2awli0rar#

Fpon re-and, the "C, Bran&h 1,= ulti-atel#dis-issed the &o-plaint and &ounter&lai- for la&9of -erit through the de&ision rendered on (ugust1, $!!!,% ruling that the petitioners failed toaddu&e &lear and &onvin&ing eviden&e showingthat the respondents had en&roa&hed on theirpropert# and had 0een o&&up#ing and possessingpropert# outside the -etes and 0ounds des&ri0edin Bienvenido Ba&anis OC No. N)$1>=!1H that thepreponderan&e of eviden&e was in favor of therespondents right of possessionH and that therespondents &ounter&lai- for da-ages should also0e dis-issed, there 0eing no showing that the&o-plaint had 0een ;led in gross and evident 0adfaith.+&hanRo0lesvirtual2awli0rar#

On&e -ore, the petitioners appealed to the RC.

(t that point, the RC ordered the petitioners to&ondu&t a relo&ation surve# to deter-ine theirallegation of en&roa&h-ent, and also heard thetesti-on# of the surve#or, Engr. E--anuel 2i-pin,then (&ting Chief of the Surve# Se&tion of theCENR) DENR.

On Septe-0er 1+, $!!1,1! the RC rendered its ?udg-ent where0# it reversed and set aside the"Cs de&ision of (ugust 1, $!!!, o0serving thatthe respondents had en&roa&hed on thepetitioners propert# 0ased on the &ourt)ordered

relo&ation surve#, the reports 0# Engr. 2i-pin, andhis testi-on#H11 that the respondents &ould not rel#on their OC No. N)$1>=!1, &onsidering thatalthough their title &overed onl# '%1 suare-eters, the relo&ation surve# revealed that the#had o&&upied also >! suare -eters of thepetitioners 2ot No. '$>H1$ that the petitioners didnot su0stantiate their &lai-s for reasona0le&o-pensation, attorne#s fees and litigatione7pensesH and that, nevertheless, after it had 0eenesta0lished that the respondents had en&roa&hedupon and used a portion of the petitionerspropert#, the latter were entitled toP1,!!!.!!-onth as reasona0le &o-pensation fro-

the ;ling of the &o-plaint up to ti-e that therespondents a&tuall# va&ated the en&roa&hedpropert#, plus P$!,!!!.!! attorne#sfees.1&hanRo0lesvirtual2awli0rar#

he respondents -oved for re&onsideration, 0utthe RC denied their -otion for its la&9 of-erit.1'&hanRo0lesvirtual2awli0rar#

he respondents appealed.

On O&to0er 1%, $!!$, the C( pro-ulgated itsassailed de&ision,1vi5 /&hanro0lesvirtuallawli0rar#

@ERE5ORE, the appealed RC de&ision is here0#

REJERSED and SE (SIDE, and the de&isions of the"C of *uagua, Pa-panga, Bran&hes 1 and $, areREINS(ED.

1$



No pronoun&e-ent as to &osts.

SO ORDERED.

he C( &on&luded that the RC, 0# ordering therelo&ation and veri;&ation surve# _in aid of itsappellate ?urisdi&tion` upon -otion of thepetitioners and over the o0?e&tion of therespondents, and -a9ing a deter-ination of

whether there was an en&roa&h-ent 0ased onsu&h surve# and testi-on# of the surve#or, hada&ted as a trial &ourt in &o-plete disregard of these&ond paragraph of Se&tion 1%, Rule =! ofthe $ules o( Court . It de&lared su&h a&tion 0# theRC as unwarranted 0e&ause it a-ounted to thereopening of the trial, whi&h was not allowed underSe&tion 134 Rule =! of the$ules o( Court . Ito0served that the relo&ation and veri;&ationsurve# was in&on&lusive inas-u&h as the surve#orhad hi-self ad-itted that he &ould not deter-inewhi&h of the three surve# plans he had used was&orre&t without a full)0lown trial.

he C( held that &onsidering that the petitioners

&o-plaint for unlawful detainer did not set forthwhen and how the respondents had entered theland in uestion and &onstru&ted their housesthereon, ?urisdi&tion did not vest in the "C to tr#and de&ide the &aseH that the &o-plaint, if at all,-ade out a &ase for either accionreivin%icatoria or accion publiciana, either of whi&hfell within the original ?urisdi&tion of the RCH andthat the RCs relian&e on Benite5 v. Court o( Appeals1> and Calubaan v. errer 1= was -ispla&ed,0e&ause the &ontrolling ruling was thatin Sarmiento v. Court o( Appeals,1% in whi&h the&o-plaint was -ar9edl# si-ilar to that ;led in the&ase.

he petitioners sought re&onsideration, 0ut the C(denied their -otion for its la&9 of -erit in theresolution of 8anuar# $',$!!.1+&hanRo0lesvirtual2awli0rar#

I''+&'

@en&e, this appeal.

he petitioners &ontend that the RC had authorit#to re&eive additional eviden&e on appeal in ane?e&t-ent &ase 0e&ause it was not a0solutel#&on;ned to the re&ords of the trial in resolving theappealH that the respondents were estopped fro-assailing the relo&ation and veri;&ation surve#ordered 0# the RC 0e&ause the# had a&tivel#parti&ipated in the surve# and had even &ross)e7a-ined Engr. 2i-pin, the surve#or tas9ed to&ondu&t the surve#H$! that Engr. 2i-pins testi-on#-ust 0e given &reden&e, honoring the well)entren&hed prin&iple of regularit# in theperfor-an&e of o:&ial fun&tionsH$1 that the RC didnot &ondu&t a trial %e novo 0# ordering therelo&ation and veri;&ation surve# and hearing thetesti-on# of the surve#orH that the desira0ilit# ofthe relo&ation and veri;&ation surve# had alwa#s0een part of the pro&eedings even 0efore the &asewas appealed to the RCH$$ that, in an# &ase, the

pe&uliar events that transpired ?usti;ed the RCsorder to &ondu&t a relo&ation and veri;&ationsurve#H$ that the &ase, 0e&ause it involved

en&roa&h-ent into anothers propert#, uali;ed asan e?e&t-ent &ase that was within the ?urisdi&tionof the "CH and that the respondents were 0arred0# la&hes for never uestioning the RCs 5e0ruar#11, 1+++ ruling on the issue of ?urisdi&tion.$'&hanRo0lesvirtual2awli0rar#

In &ontrast, the respondents assail the relo&ationand veri;&ation surve# ordered 0# the RC asi--aterial, 0e&ause 3a4 it &ould not vest a right ofpossession or ownershipH 304 the petitioners were-ere &lai-ants, not the owners of the propert#H 3&4the petitioner had never 0een in possession of thearea in uestionH and 3d4 &adastral surve#s werenot relia0le. @en&e, the# -aintain that whether ornot the relo&ation and veri;&ation surve# was&onsidered would not alter the out&o-e of the&ase.$&hanRo0lesvirtual2awli0rar#

R+li# o* (%& Co+r(

he appeal has no -erit.

o start with, the RC, in an appeal of the ?udg-entin an e?e&t-ent &ase, shall not &ondu&t a rehearing

or trial %e novo.$> In this &onne&tion, Se&tion 1%,Rule =! of the Rules of Court &learl#provides/&hanro0lesvirtuallawli0rar#

Se&. 1%. 6u%gment conclusive onl on possession8not conclusive in actions involving title oro*nership. 7 7 7.

7 7 7 7

T%& B+$&#( or #"l or$&r '%"ll &"pp&"l"l& (o (%& "ppropri"(& R&io#"l Tri"lCo+r( %i)% '%"ll $&)i$& (%& '"& o# (%&"'i' o* (%& &#(ir& r&)or$ o* (%& pro)&&$i#'

%"$ i# (%& )o+r( o* orii# "#$ '+)%&or"#$" "#$or ri&*' "' " &'+i((&$ (%& p"r(i&' or r&+ir&$ (%&R&io#"l Tri"l Co+r(.3=a4

@en&e, the RC violated the foregoing rule 0#ordering the &ondu&t of the relo&ation andveri;&ation surve# _in aid of its appellate ?urisdi&tion` and 0# hearing the testi-on# of thesurve#or, for its doing so was tanta-ount to itsholding of a trial de novo. he violation wasa&&ented 0# the fa&t that the RC ulti-atel#de&ided the appeal 0ased on the surve# and thesurve#ors testi-on# instead of the re&ord of thepro&eedings had in the &ourt of origin.

Se&ondl#, on whether or not Civil Case No. !+was an e?e&t-ent &ase within the original ande7&lusive ?urisdi&tion of the "C, de&isive are theallegations of the &o-plaint. (&&ordingl#, thepertinent allegations of the petitioners &o-plaintfollow/&hanro0lesvirtuallawli0rar#

$. PlaintiAs are &o)owners of land 9nown as 2ot no.'$> of the *uagua &adastre. PlaintiAs inheritedthe said par&el of residential land fro- o-asa B.*ar&ia)"analang who is the a0solute owner of thesaid propert# and the sa-e is de&lared for ta7ationpurposes in her na-e under a7 De&laration No.

!=!1'+!>, a &op# of whi&h is hereto atta&hed as(nne7 _(`H

1$>



. 2ot No. '$> is &overed 0# an approved plan,Plan (p)!)!!'1' 3a &op# -ade (nne7 \B`4 and it&onsists of +1' suare -etersH

'. (d?a&ent to plaintiAs TpUropert# is 2ot No. '$of the *uagua Cadastre and &overed 0# approvedplan (s)!)!! 3&op# -ade (nne7 _C`4 whi&h is0eing &lai-ed 0# defendants and is the su0?e&t-atter of Cadastral Case No. N)$$+ of the Regional rial Court of *uagua, Bran&h where a de&ision3&op# -ade (nne7 _D`4 was rendered 0# said &ourton (ugust $%, 1++> &on;r-ing the title over saidlot in favor of defendant Bienvenido Ba&ani. hesaid de&ision is now ;nal and e7e&utor#

. On 5e0ruar# $, 1++=, plaintiAs &aused therelo&ation and veri;&ation surve# of &adastral NotNo. '$> of the *uagua Cadastre 0elonging toplaintiA and the ad?oining lots, parti&ularl# 2ot No.'$ 0eing &lai-ed 0# defendantsH

>. he relo&ation and veri;&ation surve# &ondu&ted0# Engr. Rufo R. Rivera, a dul# li&ensed *eodeti&Engineer per plan 3&op# -ade (nne7 _5`4 revealedthat defendants had en&roa&hed an area of '!

suare -eters of the par&el of land 0elonging toplaintiAs. In fa&t, the whole or part of the houses of the said defendants have 0een ere&ted in saiden&roa&hed portionH

=. So-eti-e in 8une of 1++=, plaintiAs throughplaintiA Con&ep&ion *onales lodged a &o-plaint0efore the Baranga# Coun&il of San 8uan, *uagua,Pa-panga against defendants regarding theen&roa&hed portion. ( preli-inar# relo&ationsurve# was &ondu&ted 0# the 2ands "anage-entSe&tor of the DENR and it was found that indeed,defendants en&roa&hed into the par&el of land0elonging to plaintiAs. his ;nding was &on;r-ed0# the approved plan (p)!)!!'1'H

%. Sin&e defendants refused to va&ate the pre-isesand surrender the pea&eful possession thereof toplaintiA, the Baranga# Captain of San 8uan,*uagua, Pa-panga issued a &erti;&ation to ;lea&tion 3&op# -ade (nne7 _*4 dated "ar&h ', 1++=to ena0le the plaintiA to ;le the appropriate a&tionin &ourtH

+. On "ar&h 1!, 1++=, plaintiAs sent a for-alde-and letter 3&op# -ade (nne7 \@`4 todefendants to va&ate the pre-ises and to pa#reasona0le &o-pensation for the use of the saiden&roa&hed portionH

1!. Despite re&eipt of said de-and letter perregistr# return &ards atta&hed to the letter,defendants failed and refused to va&ate theen&roa&hed portion and surrender the pea&efulpossession thereof to plaintiAsH

11. PlaintiAs are entitled to a reasona0le&o-pensation in the a-ount of P ,!!!.!! fro-defendants for the illegal use and o&&upation oftheir propert# 0# defendantsH

1$. B# reason of the un?ust refusal of defendants tova&ate the pre-ises and pa# reasona0le&o-pensation to plaintiAs, the latter were

&onstrained to engage the servi&es of &ounsel forP!,!!.!! plus P1,!!!.!! per appearan&e andin&ur litigation e7penses in the a-ount of

P1!,!!!.!!.$=

*iven the foregoing allegations, the &ase should 0edis-issed without pre?udi&e to the ;ling of a non)su--ar# a&tion li9e accion reivin%icatoria. In ourview, the C( &orre&tl# held that a 0oundar# dispute-ust 0e resolved in the &onte7t of accionreivin%icatoria, not an e?e&t-ent &ase. he0oundar# dispute is not a0out possession, 0uten&roa&h-ent, that is, whether the propert#

&lai-ed 0# the defendant for-ed part of theplaintiAs propert#. ( 0oundar# dispute &annot 0esettled su--aril# under Rule =! of the $ules o(Court , the pro&eedings under whi&h are li-ited tounlawful detainer and for&i0le entr#. In unlawfuldetainer, the defendant unlawfull# withholds thepossession of the pre-ises upon the e7piration orter-ination of his right to hold su&h possessionunder an# &ontra&t, e7press or i-plied. hedefendants possession was lawful at the0eginning, 0e&o-ing unlawful onl# 0e&ause of thee7piration or ter-ination of his right of possession.In for&i0le entr#, the possession of the defendant isillegal fro- the ver# 0eginning, and the issue&enters on whi&h 0etween the plaintiA and the

defendant had the prior possession %e (acto.

hirdl#, the "C dis-issed the a&tion 0e&ause itdid not have ?urisdi&tion over the &ase. hedis-issal was &orre&t. It is funda-ental that theallegations of the &o-plaint and the &hara&ter ofthe relief sought 0# the &o-plaint deter-ine thenature of the a&tion and the &ourt that has ?urisdi&tion over the a&tion.$% o 0e &lear, unlawfuldetainer is an a&tion ;led 0# a lessor, vendor,vendee, or other person against who- thepossession of an# land or 0uilding is unlawfull#withheld after the e7piration or ter-ination of theright to hold possession 0# virtue of an# &ontra&t,

e7press or i-plied.$+

o vest in the "C the ?urisdi&tion to eAe&t the e?e&t-ent fro- the land of the respondents as the o&&upants in unlawfuldetainer, therefore, the &o-plaint should e-0od#su&h a state-ent of fa&ts &learl# showing theattri0utes of unlawful detainer.! @owever, theallegations of the petitioners &o-plaint did notshow that the# had per-itted or tolerated theo&&upation of the portion of their propert# 0# therespondentsH or how the respondents entr# had0een eAe&ted, or how and when the dispossession0# the respondents had started. (ll that thepetitioners alleged was the respondents _illegaluse and o&&upation` of the propert#. (s su&h, thea&tion was not unlawful detainer.

2astl#, the &on&lusion 0# the "C that thepetitioners failed to show 0# &lear and &onvin&ingeviden&e that the respondents had en&roa&hed onthe petitioners propert# was also warranted. In&ontrast, the onl# 0asis for the RCs de&ision wasthe result of the relo&ation and veri;&ation surve#as attested to 0# the surve#or, 0ut that 0asisshould 0e disallowed for the reasons earlier-entioned. Fnder the &ir&u-stan&es, thereinstate-ent of the ruling of the "C 0# the C(was in a&&ord with the eviden&e.&hanro0leslaw

7-EREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the de&ision

pro-ulgated on O&to0er 1%, $!!$Hand ORERS the petitioners to pa# the &osts ofsuit.

1$=



.

Documents

Rule 68 to 70 (Full Cases)