Villa vs Abenoja1-1

7/25/2019 Villa vs Abenoja1-1

1/5

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

BRANCH 2, CEBU CITY

Virgina Villa, Teresio Villa, Florencia Villa,Cesar Villa, Concepcion Villa, Arsenio T. Villa, Jr.,

Teresita Tecson Villa, Arlene Therese Villa,

Vivian Navaja, Arsenio Navaja, Wade Francis Navaja

And Walter Navaja, all represented by: Virginia Villa,

Plaintiffs,

CRIMINAL CASE No. R-57899

-versus- FOR: EJECTMENT

Alberto Abenoja, Arman Agbo,

Josephene Agbo, Juanito Agbo,Nenita Alba, Jonathan Alberastine,

Lydia Alindato, Diosamenda Alvarez,

Ricardo Aniceta, Virginia Anion/ Arleen

Ricaforte, Abeth Arcenal/ Juliet Vilbar,

Joselito Arcilla, Liodovena Arenas, Romana

Arenas, Teresita Arias, Lorina Atillo, Eutaqiou

Auxtero, Myrna Baligwat, Raquel Bande,

Alix Bataluna, Julieto Bataluna, Paulita

Bataluna, Arnaldo Benedicto, Dionesia Benedicto,

Jocelyn Berido, Loreto Bitos, Mechell Bitos,

Casemero Bontelao, Lourdes Braga,

Prudencio Brusas, Mila Bucado,

Castro Buenaventura, et. al.

Defendants.

x------------------------------------- /

JUDGMENT

In their Complaint, plaintifs, represented by Virginia Villa, alleged that theywere the co-owners o two parcels o land located at T. Padilla Street, Cebu City,nown as !ot "#"-$ with land area o %our Thousand &ight 'undred Thirty %our (),*")+ suare meters (reerred as nne /0+ and !ot "#"-1 with land area o %our

Thousand &ight 'undred Thirty %our (), *")+ suare meters (reerred as nne /20+.

Plaintifs a3erred that the deendants and their respecti3e amilies occupiedthe said parcels o land by 3irtue o a Verbal Contract o !ease with the plaintifs. Inthe cited contract o lease, deendants were obliged to pay the monthly


2/5

installments4 howe3er, deendants deaulted in the payment o their monthlyrentals.

Sometime in #56# the Plaintifs through their authori7ed representati3einormed the rest o the occupants o the parcels o land sub8ect o this caseincluding those without rentals in arrears that they will no longer renew the contract

o lease. ccordingly, the herein plaintifs, through Virginia Villa, demanded orse3eral times to VCT& the premises but the deendants reused to 3acate.

To comply with the mandatory conciliation under P.9. 6:5*, as amended bythe !ocal $o3ernment Code o 6;;6, the plaintifs, through Virginia Villa, n ?ay @, #56" the plaintifs through counsel sent to the deendants thedemand letters or them to pay their rental-in-arrears and to 3acate the premisesattached as nnees /%0, /%-6 to %-6"#0.

The plaintifs, in their prayer, included the payment ull amount o unpaidrentals by the deendants amounting to SIA ?I!!I>1 %IV& 'B19&9 S&V&1TD %>B

T'>BS19 TE> 'B19&9 %I%TD TE> 19 SIAT&&1 C&1TS (P @, :F), #:#.6@+ andor moral damages in the sum o


3/5

/Sec.@. Eect of failure to answer. Should the deendant ail to

answer the complaint within the period abo3e pro3ided, the court,

motu proprio, or on motion o the plaintif, shall render 8udgment as

may be warranted by the acts alleged in the complaint and limited to

what is prayed or therein /

>n >ctober 6:, #56), an e parte ?aniestation was submitted by theplaintifs so that the court can act on the ?otion or =udgment on the pleadings ctober #;, #56)4 howe3er, no answer or responsi3e pleading was attached. 2y3irtue o interest o 8ustice, tty. osell was gi3en 65 days rom the receipt o >rder

to submit comment or opposition to the ?otion or =udgment o the Pleadings,ser3ing a copy thereo on the plaintif.

>n 1o3ember #@, #56), ?aniestation with Brgent ?otion to esol3ePending ?otion %or =udgment on the Pleadings was submitted by the plaintifs. Theyemphasi7ed on their pleading that to allow urther delay in the proceedings o theoregoing case would run counter against the 3ery essence o e8ectment caseswhich is to restore possession the rightul party in the most I1&AP&1SIV& and&AP&9ITI>BS manner.

=urisprudence cited by the plaintifsH

I. Victoria Milling Co. vs CA and IPI (G.R. No. 168062, Jn! 2",2010#

/In an e8ectment case mandated to be tried undersummary procedure, the paramount consideration is itsepeditious resolution without regard to technicalities.

The purpose o the ule on Summary Procedure is to

achie3e an epeditious and inepensi3e determination ocasesJ /

II. $i!nv!nido $arri!ntos vs Mario Ra%al (G.R. No. 16"&"',

Janar 20, 2011#

/&8ectment cases orcible entry and unlawul detainer are summary proceedings designed to pro3ide epeditiousmeans to protect actual possession or the right to possession o

">9&, >ctober #;, #56)


4/5

the property in3ol3ed. The only uestion that the courts resol3ein e8ectment proceedings isH who is entitled to the physicalpossession o the premises, that is, to the possession de actoand not to the possession de 8ure. It does not e3en matter i apartyGs title to the property is uestionable. In an unlawuldetainer case, the sole issue or resolution is physical or material

possession o the property in3ol3ed, independent o any claim oownership by any o the parties. Ehere the issue o ownership israised by any o the parties, the courts may pass upon the samein order to determine who has the right to possess the property.0

III. In $arri!ntos vs Ra%al citing t)! cas! o* +aont! vs C!ntr

+avings $an- (G. R. No 16'1/, Nov!!r 2&, 200", 60&

+CRA '8, '86#

/It should be stressed that unlawul detainer andorcible entry suits, under ule F5 o the ules o Court, aredesignated to summarily restore physical possession o a pieceo land or building to one who has been illegally or orciblydepri3ed thereo, without pre8udice to the settlement o thepartiesG opposing claims o 8uridical possession in appropriateproceedings. These actions are intended to a3oid disruption opublic order by those who would tae the law in their handspurportedly to enorce their claimed right o possession.0

>pposition to the ?otion or =udgment on the pleadings was ne 'undred Thirty (6"5+ indi3iduals along with

their amilies, will be afected i strict application o the 6;;6 e3ised ules onSummary Procedure will be implemented. 'owe3er, the Court) emphasi7ed thatcounsel or the deendants merely prayed that the ?otion be denied without e3enattaching their 1SE& to the complaint. Thus, such act o the deendants, to themind o the Court, was indicati3e o their apathetic outloo o this case causingundue delay in the proceeding. 'ence, ?otion or =udgment on the Pleadings o theplaintif was $1T&9.

Thereore, the case is submitted or decision.

)>rder, =anuary 6:, #56:


5/5

Documents

Villa vs Abenoja1-1