Sunteți pe pagina 1din 42

PROP CASES on the ground of fraud of a deed of be substituted for the deceased as

MARISTELA VS REYES sale of a parcel of land, part of respondents and that the running
which is involved in the complaint of the period within which to file a
1. ABATEMENT; ACTION ON for ejectment filed by Juan M. motion for reconsideration of the
ANNULMENT OF DEED OF SALE; Valerio in the Court of Industrial previous order denying the
EJECTMENT. — Where an action for Relations (Annex A to the deceased’s motion to dismiss be
annulment of the sale of a parcel of complaint in civil case No. 980 of suspended until after receipt by
land, on the ground of fraud, is the Court of First Instance of them of the order of the Court
pending in the Court of First Tarlac), executed by Alberto granting their motion for
Instance, and the defendant filed a Maristela by affixing his substitution (Annex 5). Juan M.
complaint for ejectment against the thumbmark to the deed (Annex 2; Valerio objected to the granting of
plaintiff in the Court of Agrarian Annex A to the motion to dismiss). the motion for substitution (Annex
Relations, Held: That the Juan M. Valerio objected to the 6). On 11 August 1956, counsel for
adjudication of the ejectment case motion (Annex 3). Upon the the widow and children of the late
should be held in abeyance until enactment of Republic Act No. Cecilio Rivera moved for
after the question of title, upon 1267, as amended by Republic Act reconsideration of the order of 24
which the ejectment case is No. 1409, the case was transferred July 1956 denying the motion to
anchored, shall have been decided. to the Court of Agrarian Relations dismiss (Annex 7). On 14
pursuant to section 7. On 24 July September 1956 the Court denied
1956 the Court denied the motion the two motions for reconsideration
On 8 December 1954, Juan M. to dismiss and directed Cecilio of the order denying the motion to
Valerio filed a complaint dated 3 Rivera to answer the complaint dismiss and for substitution, and
December 1954 in the Court of within the reglementary period ordered the widow and children of
Industrial Relations, Tarlac branch, provided in the Rules of the Court the late Cecilio Rivera to deliver
to dispossess Cecilio Rivera of his of Agrarian Relations and after harvest possession of the land
agricultural landholding situate at forwarded the record of the case to to Juan M. Valerio (Annex 9). The
Bamban, Tarlac (Annex 1). Cecilio the Commissioner of the Court of Court also denied their motion for
Rivera moved to dismiss the Agrarian Relations stationed at reconsideration of the last
complaint on the ground that the Tarlac (Annex 4). On the 7 August mentioned order (Annex 12).
Court of Industrial Relations had no 1956, the widow and children of
jurisdiction over the subject matter the late Cecilio Rivera filed a The widow and children of the late
of the action, there being a motion in the Court of Agrarian Cecilio Rivera, Lamberto, Belen and
pending case between the heirs of Relations alleging that they are the Rodolfo surnamed Rivera petition
the late Alberto Maristela and Juan surviving heirs, the first being the this Court after hearing to set aside
M. Valerio Et. Al. brought on 16 wife and the rest the children, of the order of 14 September 1956 of
October 1954 in the Court of First Cecilio Rivera who died on 21 the Court of Agrarian Relations, to
Instance of Tarlac for annulment March 1955, and praying that they declare null and void the
proceedings in the ejectment case upon the fact that Cecilio Rivera
had in the last mentioned court, to died on 21 March 1955, as alleged The petition is granted. The order
enjoin it from further proceeding in in the motion filed by the widow of 14 September 1956 complained
the aforesaid ejectment case and and heirs of the late Cecilio Rivera of is set aside. The respondent
to grant such other remedy as may to ask their substitution for the court is directed to allow the
be deemed just, proper and deceased in the case, and upon the substitution of the widow and
equitable, with costs against Juan assumption that there was a minor children of the late Cecilio
M. Valerio. tenancy relationship between the Rivera and enjoined from
respondent Valerio and the late proceeding with the ejectment case
The petitioners claim that the Cecilio Rivera in his lifetime. brought by the respondent Juan M.
respondent court had no Valerio against Cecilio Rivera or his
jurisdiction over the subject matter Our view is that the Court of successors-in-interest until after
of the action because of the Agrarian Relations committed an final judgment shall have been
pendency of a case which involved error by taking for granted the rendered in civil No. 980, without
the validity of title to the parcel of tenancy relationship between the pronouncement as to costs.
land, of a part of which respondent respondent Juan M. Valerio and
Juan M. Valerio prayed that the Cecilio Rivera without taking into Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor,
widow and children of the late consideration the fact that on 16 Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Cecilio Rivera and three others be October 1954, or before the filing Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. and
dispossessed. of the complaint for ejectment on 8 Endencia, JJ., concur.
December 1954, Brigida Maristela,
The Court of Agrarian Relations the widow of Cecilio Rivera,
proceeded to decide the ejectment together with other interested
case in the way and manner parties brought an action against
already stated, relying on section Juan M. Valerio to annul the sale of
9, Republic Act No. 1199, which the parcel of land, of a part of
provides that — which the respondent Juan M.
Valerio sought to dispossess Cecilio
The tenancy relationship is Rivera, the husband of Brigida
extinguished by the voluntary Maristela. The respondent court
surrender of the land by, or the should have held in abeyance the
death or incapacity of, the tenant, adjudication of the ejectment case
but his heirs or the members of his brought by the respondent Juan M.
immediate farm household may Valerio until after the question of
continue to work the land until the title shall have been decided by the
close of the agricultural year. . . . Court of First Instance of Tarlac in
civil case No. 980.
FE U. QUIJANO v. ATTY. DARYLL A. she demanded that the latter vacate it. better right to the possession of the
AMANTE, GR No. 164277, 2014-10-08 Despite several demands, the last of which disputed property.
was by the letter dated November 4,
Facts: Ruling:
1994,[7] the respondent refused to vacate,
Where the plaintiff does not prove her prompting... her to file agamst him on An ejectment case can be either for forcible
alleged tolerance of the defendant's February 14, 1995 a complaint for entry or unlawful detainer. It is a summary
occupation, the possession is deemed ejectment and damages in the Municipal proceeding designed to provide expeditious
illegal from the beginning. Trial Court in Cities of Cebu City (MTCC),... means to protect the actual possession or
The respondent denied that his possession the right to possession of the property
The petitioner and her siblings, namely: of the disputed portion had been by mere involved.
Eliseo, Jose and Gloria, inherited from their tolerance of Eliseo. He even asserted that
father, the late Bibiano Quijano, the parcel he was in fact the owner and lawful
of land registered in the latter's name under possessor of the property, having bought it An ejectment case can be either for
Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-188 from Eliseo forcible entry or unlawful detainer.
of the Registry of Deeds in Cebu City with It is a summary proceeding
an area of On February 5, 1996, the MTCC rendered designed to provide expeditious
its decision in favor of the petitioner,... On means to protect the actual
15,790 square meters, more or less. appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) possession or the right to
On reversed the judgment of the MTCC, and possession of the property
dismissed the complaint,[12] holding that involved.19 The sole question for
April 23, 1990, prior to any partition among the summary proceeding for ejectment was resolution in the case is the
the heirs, Eliseo sold a portion of his share, not proper because the serious question of physical or material possession
measuring 600 square meters, to ownership of the disputed property was (possession de facto) of the
respondent Atty. Daryll A. Amante involved property in question, and neither a
(respondent),... On July 25, 1991, Eliseo, claim of juridical possession
sickly and in need of money, sold an On May 26, 2004, the CA promulgated its
(possession de jure) nor an
additional 1/3 portion of his share in the decision,[15] affirming the decision of the
averment of ownership by the
property to the respondent, with their deed RTC, and dismissing the case for ejectment,
defendant can outrightly deprive
of absolute sale stating that the sale was but on the ground that the respondent was
the trial court from taking due
with the approval of Eliseo's siblings,... On either a co-owner or an assignee holding
cognizance of the case. Hence,
September 30, 1992, Fe, Eliseo, Jose and the right of possession over the disputed...
even if the question of ownership is
Gloria executed a deed of extrajudicial property.
raised in the pleadings, like here,
partition to divide their father's estate Issues: the court may pass upon the issue
(consisting of the aforementioned parcel of but only to determine the question
land) among themselves. To be resolved is the issue of who between of possession especially if the
the petitioner and the respondent had the question of ownership is
Due to the petitioner's needing her portion
that was then occupied by the respondent, inseparably linked with the
question of possession.20 The determined, and every co-owner states:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
adjudication of ownership in that exercises, together with his co-
instance is merely provisional, and participants, joint ownership of
will not bar or prejudice an action the pro indiviso property, in Article 497. The creditors or
between the same parties involving addition to his use and enjoyment assignees of the co-owners may
the title to the property.21 of it.24 take part in the division of the thing
owned in common and object to its
Considering that the parties are Even if an heir's right in the estate being effected without their
both claiming ownership of the of the decedent has not yet been concurrence. But they cannot
disputed property, the CA properly fully settled and partitioned and is impugn any partition already
ruled on the issue of ownership for thus merely inchoate, Article executed, unless there has been
the sole purpose of determining 49325cralawred of the Civil fraud, or in case it was made
who between them had the better Code gives the heir the right to notwithstanding a formal opposition
right to possess the disputed exercise acts of ownership. presented to prevent it, without
property. Accordingly, when Eliseo sold the prejudice to the right of the debtor
disputed property to the or assignor to maintain its validity.
The disputed property originally respondent in 1990 and 1991, he
formed part of the estate of the was only a co-owner along with his The respondent could not deny that
late Bibiano Quijano, and passed siblings, and could sell only that at the time of the sale he knew
on to his heirs by operation of law portion that would be allotted to that the property he was buying
upon his death.22 Prior to the him upon the termination of the was not exclusively owned by
partition, the estate was owned in co-ownership. The sale did not vest Eliseo. He knew, too, that the co-
common by the heirs, subject to ownership of the disputed property heirs had entered into an oral
the payment of the debts of the in the respondent but transferred agreement of partition vis-a-vis the
deceased.23 In a co-ownership, the only the seller's pro indiviso share estate, such knowledge being
undivided thing or right belong to to him, consequently making him, explicitly stated in his answer to
different persons, with each of as the buyer, a co-owner of the the complaint, to
them holding the property pro disputed property until it is wit:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
indiviso and exercising her rights partitioned.26
over the whole property. Each co-
owner may use and enjoy the As Eliseo's successor-in-interest or 12. That defendant, before he
property with no other limitation assignee, the respondent was acquired the land from Eliseo
than that he shall not injure the vested with the right under Article Quijano was informed by the latter
interests of his co-owners. The 497 of the Civil Code to take part that the portion sold to him was his
underlying rationale is that until a in the partition of the estate and to share already; that they
division is actually made, the challenge the partition undertaken have orally partitioned the whole lot
respective share of each cannot be without his consent.27 Article 497 before defendant acquired the
portion from partition if he wanted to. It was possession was originally lawful,
him.28chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary only on September 30, 1992, or but turned unlawful only upon the
two years and five months from expiration of the right to possess.
His knowledge of Eliseo's co- the time of the first sale
ownership with his co-heirs, and of transaction, and a year and two To show that the possession was
their oral agreement of partition months from the time of the initially lawful, the basis of such
notwithstanding, the respondent second sale transaction, that the lawful possession must then be
still did not exercise his right under co-heirs executed the deed of established. With the averment
Article 497. Although Eliseo made extrajudicial partition. Having been here that the respondent's
it appear to the respondent that silent despite his ample opportunity possession was by mere tolerance
the partition had already been to participate in or to object to the of the petitioner, the acts of
completed and finalized, the co- partition of the estate, the tolerance must be proved, for bare
heirs had not taken possession yet respondent was bound by whatever allegation of tolerance did not
of their respective shares to signify was ultimately agreed upon by the suffice. At least, the petitioner
that they had ratified their Quijanos. should show the overt acts
agreement, if any. For sure, the indicative of her or her
respondent was no stranger to the There is no question that the predecessor's tolerance, or her co-
Quijanos, because he himself had holder of a Torrens title is the heirs' permission for him to occupy
served as the lawyer of Eliseo and rightful owner of the property the disputed property.31 But she
the petitioner herself.29 In that thereby covered and is entitled to did not adduce such evidence.
sense, it would have been easy for its possession.30 However, the Instead, she appeared to be herself
him to ascertain whether the Court cannot ignore that the not clear and definite as to his
representation of Eliseo to him was statements in the petitioner's possession of the disputed property
true. As it turned out, there had complaint about the respondent's being merely tolerated by Eliseo,
been no prior oral agreement possession of the disputed property as the following averment of her
among the heirs to partition the being by the mere tolerance of petition for review
estate; otherwise, Eliseo would Eliseo could be the basis for indicates:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibra
have questioned the deed of unlawful detainer. Unlawful ry
extrajudicial partition because it detainer involves the defendant's
did not conform to what they had withholding of the possession of
supposedly agreed upon. Had the the property to which the plaintiff 6.9. Their ignorance of the said
respondent been vigilant in is entitled, after the expiration or transaction of sale, particularly
protecting his interest, he could termination of the former's right to the petitioner, as they were not
have availed himself of the rights hold possession under the contract, duly informed by the vendor-
reserved to him by law, particularly whether express or implied. A co[-]owner Eliseo Quijano, [led]
the right to take an active part in requisite for a valid cause of action them to believe that the
the partition and to object to the of unlawful detainer is that the respondent's occupancy of the
subject premises was by mere
tolerance of Eliseo, so that upon Regardless, the issue of possession
partition of the whole property, between the parties will still
said occupancy continued to be remain. To finally resolve such
under tolerance of the petitioner issue, they should review their
when the subject premises became options and decide on their proper
a part of the land adjudicated to the recourses. In the meantime, it is
latter;32 (emphasis wise for the Court to leave the door
supplied)chanroblesvirtuallawlibrar open to them in that respect. For
y now, therefore, this recourse of the
petitioner has to be dismissed.
In contrast, the respondent
consistently stood firm on his WHEREFORE, the
assertion that his possession of the Court AFFIRMS the decision
disputed property was in the promulgated on May 26, 2004
concept of an owner, not by the subject to
mere tolerance of Eliseo, and the MODIFICATION that the
actually presented the deeds of unlawful detainer action is
sale transferring ownership of the dismissed for being an improper
property to him.33 remedy; and ORDERS the
petitioner to pay the costs of suit.
Considering that the allegation of
the petitioner's tolerance of the SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary
respondent's possession of the
disputed property was not
established, the possession could
very well be deemed illegal from
the beginning. In that case, her
action for unlawful detainer has to
fail.34 Even so, the Court would not
be justified to treat this ejectment
suit as one for forcible entry
because the complaint contained
no allegation that his entry in the
property had been by force, G.R. No. 195814
intimidation, threats, strategy or
stealth.
EVERSLEY CHILDS SANITARIUM, submission of a Motion to Withdraw the residents (collectively, the occupants).
represented by DR. GERARDO M. Motion for Reconsideration. The Spouses Barbarona alleged that
AQUINO, JR. (now DR. PRIMO JOEL they had sent demand letters and that
S. ALVEZ) CHIEF OF Eversley is a public health facility the occupants were given until April 15,
SANITARIUM,, Petitioner operated by the Department of Health to 2005 to vacate the premises. They
vs administer care and treatment to further claimed that despite the lapse of
SPOUSES ANASTACIO patients suffering from Hansen's the period, the occupants refused to
PERLABARBARONA, Respondents disease, commonly known as leprosy, vacate; hence, they were constrained to
and to provide basic health services to file the Complaint.9
A case for unlawful detainer must state non-Hansen's cases.4 Since 1930, it has
the period from when the occupation by occupied a portion of a parcel of land In their Answer, 10 the occupants alleged
tolerance started and the acts of denominated as Lot No. 1936 in that since they had been in possession
tolerance exercised by the party with the Jagobiao, Mandaue City, Cebu.5 of the property for more than 70 years,
right to possession. If it is argued that the case was effectively one for
the possession was illegal from the start, Spouses Anastacio and Perla recovery of possession, which was
the proper remedy is to file an accion Barbarona (the Spouses Barbarona) beyond the jurisdiction of the Municipal
publiciana, or a plenary action to recover allege that they are the owners of Lot Trial Court. They likewise claimed that
the right of possession. Moreover, while No. 1936 by virtue of Transfer Certificate the Spouses Barbarona were guilty of
an ejectment case merely settles the of Title (TCT) No. 53698. They claim laches since it took more than 60 years
issue of the right of actual possession, that they have acquired the property for them to seek the issuance of a
the issue of ownership may be from the Spouses Tarcelo B. Gonzales Torrens title over the property. They also
provisionally passed upon if the issue of and Cirila Alba (the Spouses averred that the Spouses Barbarona's
possession cannot be resolved without Gonzales),6 whose ownership was certificate of title was void since they,
it. Any fina1 disposition on the issue of covered by Original Certificate of Title the actual inhabitants of the property,
ownership, however, must be resolved (OCT) No. R0-824. Per the Spouses were never notified of its issuance. 11
in the proper forum. Barbarona's verification, OCT No. R0-
824 was reconstituted based on Decree In its September 29, 2005
This is a Petition for Review No. 699021, issued to the Spouses Decision, 12 the Municipal Trial Court in
on Certiorari 1 assailing the Court of Gonzales by the Land Registration Cities ordered the occupants to vacate
Appeals February 17, 2011 Office on March 29, 1939.7 the property, finding that the action was
Decision,2 which upheld the judgments one for unlawful detainer, and thus,
of the Municipal Trial Court and On May 6, 2005, the Spouses within its jurisdiction. It likewise found
Regional Trial Court ordering Eversley Barbarona filed a Complaint for that the Spouses Barbarona were the
Childs Sanitarium (Eversley) to vacate Ejectment (Complaint)8 before the lawful owners of Lot No. 1936 and that
the disputed property. Eversley assails Municipal Trial Court in Cities of the occupants were occupying the
the August 31, 2011 Resolution3 of the Mandaue City against the occupants of property by mere tolerance. 13
Court of Appeals for resolving its Motion Lot No. 1936, namely, Eversley,
for Reconsideration despite its earlier Jagobiao National High School, the The Municipal Trial Court in Cities also
Bureau of Food and Drugs, and some held that a titled property could not be
acquired through laches. It found that P20,000 as reasonable recognizing that the subsequent
even the occupants' tax declarations in attorney[']s fees; and invalidation of the Spouses Barbarona's
their names could not prevail over a certificate of title was prejudicial to their
valid certificate of title. 14 The dispositive 3. The cost of suit. cause of action.21
portion of its Decision read:
Counterclaims of the [occupants] are On February 17, 2011, the Court of
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby hereby ordered DISMISSED for lack of Appeals rendered its
rendered in favor of the [the Spouses merit. Decision, 22 denying the Petition.
Barbarona] and against all the According to the Court of Appeals, the
[occupants] and ordering the latter to SO ORDERED.15 allegations in the Complaint were for the
peacefully vacate the portion of the recovery of the physical possession of
premises in question and remove their The occupants appealed to the Regional the property and not a determination of
houses, structures or any building and Trial Court. In its November 24, 2006 the property's ownership. The action,
improvements introduced or constructed Decision, 16 the Regional Trial Court thus, was one for unlawful detainer and
on said portion on Lot 1936 covered by affirmed in toto the Decision of the was properly filed with the Municipal
TCT No. 53698. Municipal Trial Court in Cities. One of Trial Court. 23
the occupants, Eversley, filed a motion
The [occupants] are further ordered to for reconsideration. 17 The Court of Appeals held that the
pay the following, to wit: subsequent invalidation of the issuance
During the pendency of Eversley's of the certificate of title was immaterial,
1. The amount of ₱10.00 motion, or on February 19, 2007, the stating:
per square meter for the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-SP
area occupied by each [of No. 01503 rendered a Decision, Whether or not [the Spouses Barbarona
the occupants] as cancelling OCT No. R0-824 and its are] holder[s] or not of a certificate of
reasonable monthly derivative titles, including TCT No. title is immaterial. The matter of the
compensation for the use 53698, for lack of notice to the owners of issuance of the decree by the Land
of the portion of the the adjoining properties and its Registration Office in favor of [the
property of [the Spouses occupants. 18 Spouses Barbarona's] predecessor[s-
Barbarona] from the date ]in[-]interest has not been resolved on
of the filing of the On April 23, 2007, the Regional Trial the merits by the RTC. [The Spouses
complaint until [the Court issued an Order denying Barbarona,] having acquired all the
occupants] shall have Eversley's Motion for rights of their predecessors-in-interest[,]
actually vacated and Reconsideration. 19 have[,] from the time of the issuance of
turned over the portion of the decree[,] also derived title over the
their possession to the Eversley filed a Petition for property and nullification of the title
[Spouses Barbarona]; Review20 with the Court of Appeals, based on procedural defects is not
arguing that the Municipal Trial Court tantamount to the nullification of the
2. The amount of ₱20,000 had no jurisdiction over the action and decree. The decree stands and remains
as litigation expenses and that the Regional Trial Court erred in not a prima facie source of the [Spouses
Barbarona's] right of ownership over the evidence to prove that they have over their complaint since prior physical
subject property. 24 acquired the property from Tarcelo B. possession is not an indispensable
Gonzales, the owner named in the requirement and all that is required is
Eversley, represented by the Office of decree.28 "that the one-year period of limitation
the Solicitor General, filed a Petition for commences from the time of demand to
Review25 with this Court assailing the Petitioner points out that respondents' vacate."33
February 17, 2011 Decision of the Court Complaint before the trial court was a
of Appeals. It likewise prayed for the case for accion publiciana, not one for While the Petition was pending before
issuance of a Temporary Restraining unlawful detainer, since respondents this Court, respondents raised a few
Order and/or Writ of Preliminary have not proven petitioner's initial procedural concerns before submitting
Injunction26 to restrain the immediate possession to be one of mere tolerance. their Comment. In their Motion for Leave
execution of the assailed judgment and It claims that respondents' bare to File
to prevent impairing the operations of allegation that they merely tolerated Comment/Manifestation,34 respondents
the government hospital, which had petitioner's possession is insufficient in a informed this Court that petitioner still
been serving the public for more than 80 case for unlawful detainer, especially had a pending and unresolved Motion
years. with petitioner's possession of the for Reconsideration35 before the Court of
property since 1930, which pre-dates Appeals, in violation of the rule against
In its May 13, 2011 Resolution, 27 this the decree that was reconstituted in 193 forum shopping. Respondents,
Court issued a Temporary Restraining 9. 29 It argues that its long occupancy nonetheless, filed their
Order enjoining the implementation of should have been the subject of judicial Comment/Manifestation,36 to which this
the Court of Appeals February 17, 2011 notice since it is a government hospital Court ordered petitioner to reply.37
Decision. Respondents were also serving the city for decades and is even
directed to comment on the Petition. considered as a landmark of the city. 30 Petitioner filed its Reply38 and submitted
a Manifestation,39 explaining that the
In its Petition before this Court, On the other hand, respondents counter Court of Appeals had issued a
petitioner argues that the nullification of that the cancellation of TCT No. 53698 Resolution40 on August 31, 2011,
TCT No. 53698 should have been "does not ... divest respondents of their denying its Motion for Reconsideration
prejudicial to respondents' right to rightful ownership of the subject despite its earlier filing on April 14, 2011
recover possession over the property. property[,] more so their right of of a Manifestation and Motion to
Petitioner claims that since the possession"31 since their predecessors- Withdraw its Motion for Reconsideration.
Metropolitan Trial Comi relied on in-interest's title was still valid and Thus, it manifested its intention to
respondents' title to determine their right protected under the Torrens system. likewise question the Court of Appeals
of possession over the property, the They insist that "petitioner has not August 31, 2011 Resolution with this
subsequent nullification of their title shown . . . any sufficient evidence Court.
should have invalidated their right of proving [its] ownership ... much less, [its]
possession. Petitioner maintains that right of possession."32 On November 28, 2011, this Court noted
even if Decree No. 699021 was valid, that petitioner's Reply and Manifestation
the effect of its validity does not extend Respondents maintain that the and directed respondents to comment
to respondents since there is no Municipal Trial Court had jurisdiction on the Manifestation.41
In their Comment on Petitioner's In City of Taguig v. City of Makati, 44 this whereby a court, in conflicts of law
Manifestation,42 respondents assert that Court discussed the definition, origins, cases, may refuse impositions on its
while petitioner submitted a and purpose of the rule on forum jurisdiction where it is not the most
Manifestation and Motion to Withdraw its shopping: "convenient" or available forum and the
Motion for Reconsideration, the Court of parties are not precluded from seeking
Appeals did not issue any order Top Rate Construction & General remedies elsewhere.
considering petitioner's Motion for Services, Inc. v. Paxton Development
Reconsideration to have been Corporation explained that: In this light, Black's Law Dictionary says
abandoned. The Court of Appeals that forum-shopping "occurs when a
instead proceeded to resolve it in its Forum shopping is committed by a party party attempts to have his action tried in
August 31, 2011 Resolution; hence, who institutes two or more suits -in a particular court or jurisdiction where he
respondents submit that petitioner different courts, either simultaneously or feels he will receive the most favorable
violated the rule on non-forum successively, in order to ask the courts judgment or verdict." Hence, according
shopping.43 to rule on the same or related causes or to Words and Phrases, "a litigant is open
to grant the same or substantially the to the charge of 'forum shopping'
Based on the arguments of the parties, same reliefs, on the supposition that one whenever he chooses a forum with
this Court is asked to resolve the or the other court would make a slight connection to factual
following issues: favorable disposition or increase a circumstances surrounding his suit, and
party's chances of obtaining a favorable litigants should be encouraged to
First, whether or not the nullification of decision or action. attempt to settle their differences without
the Spouses Anastacio and Perla imposing undue expense and vexatious
Barbarona's title had the effect of First Philippine International Bank v. situations on the courts."
invalidating their right of possession Court of Appeals recounted that forum
over the disputed property; and shopping originated as a concept in Further, Prubankers Association v.
private international law: Prudential Bank and Trust
Second, whether or not the Spouses Co. recounted that:
Anastacio and Perla Barbarona's To begin with, forum-shopping
complaint against Eversley Childs originated as a concept in private The rule on forum-shopping was first
Sanitarium was for accion publiciana or international law, where non-resident included in Section 17 of the Interim
for unlawful detainer. litigants are given the option to choose Rules and Guidelines issued by this
the forum or place wherein to bring their Court on January 11, 1983, which
Before these issues may be passed suit for various reasons or excuses, imposed a sanction in this wise: "A
upon, however, this Court must first including to secure procedural violation of the rule shall constitute
resolve the procedural question of advantages, to annoy and harass the contempt of court and shall be a cause
whether or not Eversley Childs defendant, to avoid overcrowded for the summary dismissal of both
Sanitarium violated the rule on non- dockets, or to select a more friendly petitions, without prejudice to the taking
forum shopping. venue. To combat these less than of appropriate action against the counsel
honorable excuses, the principle of or party concerned." Thereafter, the
I forum non conveniens was developed Court restated the rule in Revised
Circular No. 28-91 and Administrative party shall certify under oath in the contempt, as well as a cause for
Circular No. 04-94. Ultimately, the rule complaint or other initiatory pleading administrative sanctions.
was embodied in the 1997 amendments asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn
to the Rules of Court. 45 certification annexed thereto and Petitioner, through the Office of the
simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that Solicitor General, is alleged to have
There is forum shopping when a party he has not theretofore commenced any committed forum shopping when it filed
files different pleadings in different action or filed any claim involving the its Petition for Review on Ce1iiorari with
tribunals, despite having the same same issues in any court, tribunal or this Court, despite a pending Motion for
"identit[ies] of parties, rights or causes of quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of Reconsideration with the Court of
action, and reliefs sought."46 Consistent his knowledge, no such other action or Appeals.
with the principle of fair play, parties are claim is pending therein; (b) if there is
prohibited from seeking the same relief such other pending action or claim, a According to the Solicitor General, it
in multiple forums in the hope of complete statement of the present filed a Motion for Extension of Time to
obtaining a favorable judgment. The rule status thereof; and (c) if he should File a Petition for Review
against forum shopping likewise fulfills thereafter learn that the same or similar on Certiorariwith this Court on March 10,
an administrative purpose as it prevents action or claim has been filed or is 2011 but that another set of solicitors
conflicting decisions by different pending, he shall report that fact within erroneously filed a Motion for
tribunals on the same issue. five (5) days therefrom to the court Reconsideration with the Court of
wherein his aforesaid complaint or Appeals on March 11, 2011.47 Thus, it
In filing complaints and other initiatory initiatory pleading has been filed. was constrained to file a Manifestation
pleadings, the plaintiff or petitioner is and Motion to Withdraw its Motion for
required to attach a certification against Failure to comply with the foregoing Reconsideration on April 14, 2011,48 the
forum shopping, certifying that (a) no requirements shall not be curable by same date as its Petition for Review
other action or claim involving the same mere amendment of the complaint or on Certiorariwith this Court. Indeed, its
issues has been filed or is pending in other initiatory pleading but shall be Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, as
any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial cause for the dismissal of the case certified by State Solicitor Joan V.
agency, (b) if there is a pending action without prejudice, unless otherwise Ramos-Fabella, provides:
or claim, the party shall make a provided, upon motion and after hearing.
complete statement of its present status, The submission of a false certification or ....
and (c) if the party should learn that the non-compliance with any of the
same or similar action has been filed or undertakings therein shall constitute 5. I certify that there is a pending
is pending, that he or she will report it indirect contempt of court, without Motion/or Reconsideration erroneously
within five (5) days to the tribunal where prejudice to the corresponding filed in the Court of Appeals, Special
the complaint or initiatory pleading is administrative and criminal actions. If Eighteenth Division which we
pending. Thus, Rule 7, Section 5 of the the acts of the party or his counsel have asked to be withdrawn. Aside from
Rules of Court provides: clearly constitute willful and deliberate said pending motion, I have not
forum shopping, the same shall be commenced any action or filed any
Section 5. Certification against forum ground for summary dismissal with claim involving the same issues in any
shopping. - The plaintiff or principal prejudice and shall constitute direct court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency
and, to the best of my knowledge, no Appeals as abandoned, pursuant to its can be faulted for filing a motion instead
such other action or claim is pending Internal Rules. However, it filed a Motion of a mere manifestation, it cannot be
therein; and should I thereafter learn to Withdraw, effectively submitting the faulted for presuming that the Court of
that the same or similar action or claim withdrawal of its Motion for Appeals would follow its Internal Rules
is pending before any other court, Reconsideration to the Court of Appeals' as a matter of course.
tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, I shall sound discretion. A motion is not
report such fact within five (5) days presumed to have already been acted Rule VI, Section 15 of the Internal Rules
therefrom from the court wherein this upon by its mere filing. Prudence of the Court of Appeals is provided for
petition has been filed. 49 (Emphasis dictated that the Office of the Solicitor precisely to prevent forum shopping. It
supplied) General await the Court of Appeals' mandates that once a party seeks relief
action on its Motion to Withdraw before with this Court, any action for relief with
The Office of the Solicitor General, considering its Motion for the Court of Appeals will be deemed
however, mistakenly presumed that the Reconsideration as withdrawn. abandoned to prevent conflicting
mere filing of a motion to withdraw has decisions on the same issues. Had the
the effect of withdrawing the motion for Ordinarily, "a motion that is not acted Court of Appeals applied its own Internal
reconsideration without having to await upon in due time is deemed Rules, petitioner's Motion for
the action of the Court of Appeals. The denied."50 When the Court of Appeals Reconsideration would have been
Office of the Solicitor General's basis is denied the Office of the Solicitor deemed abandoned.
its reading of Rule VI, Section 15 of the General's Motion for Reconsideration
2002 Internal Rules of the Court of without acting on its Motion to Withdraw, Moreover, unlike this Court, which can
Appeals: the latter was effectively denied. suspend the effectivity of its own rules
Petitioner, thus, committed forum when the ends of justice require it,51the
Section 15. Effect of Filing an Appeal in shopping when it filed its Petition before Court of Appeals cannot exercise a
the Supreme Court. - No motion for this Court despite a pending Motion for similar power. Only this Court may
reconsideration or rehearing shall be Reconsideration before the Court of suspend the effectivity of any provision
acted upon if the movant has previously Appeals. in its Internal Rules.52 Thus, it would be
filed in the Supreme Court a petition for reasonable for litigants to expect that the
review on certiorari or a motion for To rule in this manner, however, is to Court of Appeals would comply with its
extension of time to file such petition. If unnecessarily deprive petitioner of its own Internal Rules.
such petition or motion is subsequently day in court despite the Court of
filed, the motion for reconsideration Appeals' failure to apply its own Internal Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration
pending in this Court shall be deemed Rules. The Internal Rules of the Court of having been deemed abandoned with its
abandoned. Appeals clearly provide that a filing of a Motion for Extension of Time
subsequent motion for reconsideration before this Court, the Court of Appeals'
This would have been true had the shall be deemed abandoned if the August 31, 2011 Resolution denying the
Office of the Solicitor General merely movant filed a petition for review or Motion for Reconsideration, thus, has no
manifested that it had already motion for extension of time to file a legal effect. It is as if no motion for
considered its Motion for petition for review before this Court. reconsideration was filed at
Reconsideration before the Court of While the Office of the Solicitor General all. 53 Considering that petitioner
counted the running of the period to file competent jurisdiction upon the question by the simple expedient of asserting
its Petition with this Court from its of ownership. It is obviously just that the ownership over the property.
receipt of the Court of Appeals February person who has first acquired
17, 2011 Decision, and not of the Court possession should remain in possession In forcible entry and unlawful detainer
of Appeals August 31, 2011 Resolution, pending this decision; and the parties cases, even if the defendant raises the
it does not appear that petitioner cannot be permitted meanwhile to question of ownership in his pleadings
"wanton[ly] disregard[ed] the rules or engage in a petty warfare over the and the question of possession cannot
cause[d] needless delay in the possession of the property which is the be resolved without deciding the issue of
administration of justice."54 In this subject of dispute. To permit this would ownership, the lower courts and the
particular instance, petitioner did not be highly dangerous to individual Court of Appeals, nonetheless, have the
commit a fatal procedural error. security and disturbing to social order. undoubted competence to provisionally
Therefore, where a person supposes resolve the issue of ownership for the
II himself to be the owner of a piece of sole purpose of determining the issue of
property and desires to vindicate his possession.
By its very nature, an ejectment case ownership against the party actually in
only resolves the issue of who has the possession, it is incumbent upon him to Such decision, however, does not bind
better right of possession over the institute an action to this end in a court the title or affect the ownership of the
property. The right of possession in this of competent jurisdiction; and he land nor is conclusive of the facts
instance refers to actual possession, not [cannot] be permitted, by invading the therein found in a case between the
legal possession. While a party may property and excluding the actual same parties upon a different cause of
later be proven to have the legal right of possessor, to place upon the latter the action involving possession. 58
possession by virtue of ownership, he or burden of instituting an action to try the
she must still institute an ejectment case property right.56 In this instance, respondents anchor
to be able to dispossess an actual their right of possession over the
occupant of the property who refuses to In ejectment cases, courts will only disputed property on TCT No.
vacate. In Mediran v. Villanueva: 55 resolve the issue of ownership 5369859 issued in their names. It is true
provisionally if the issue of possession that a registered owner has a right of
Juridically speaking, possession is cannot be resolved without passing possession over the property as this is
distinct from ownership, and from this upon it. In Co v. Militar: 57 one of the attributes of
distinction are derived legal ownership.60 Ejectment cases, however,
consequences of much importance. In We have, time and again, held that the are not automatically decided in favor of
giving recognition to the action of only issue for resolution in an unlawful the party who presents proof of
forcible entry and detainer the purpose detainer case is physical or material ownership, thus:
of the law is to protect the person who in possession of the property involved,
fact has actual possession; and in case independent of any claim of ownership Without a doubt, the registered owner of
of controverted right, it requires the by any of the party litigants. Moreover, real property is entitled to its
parties to preserve the status quo until an ejectment suit is summary in nature possession. However, the owner cannot
one or the other of them sees fit to and is not susceptible to circumvention simply wrest possession thereof from
invoke the decision of a court of whoever is in actual occupation of the
property. To recover possession, he property, or if there was, it may have Barbarona] is covered by a Torrens
must resort to the proper judicial remedy been lost or destroyed during the Certificate of Title. Until such time or
and, once he chooses what action to Second World War. The heirs of the period that such title is rendered
file, he is required to satisfy the Spouses Gonzales subsequently worthless, the same is BINDING UPON
conditions necessary for such action to executed a Deed of Full Renunciation of THE WHOLE WORLD in terms of
prosper. Rights, Conveyance of Full Ownership ownership[.]64 (Emphasis in the original)
and Full Waiver of Title and Interest on
In the present case, petitioner opted to March 24, 2004 in respondents' favor. During the interim, the Republic of the
file an ejectment case against Thus, respondent Anastacio Barbarona Philippines, represented by the Office of
respondents. Ejectment cases - forcible succeeded in having Decree No. the Solicitor General, filed a Petition for
entry and unlawful detainer - are 699021 reconstituted on July 27, 2004 Annulment of Judgment before the
summary proceedings designed to and having TCT No. 53698 issued in Court of Appeals to assail the
provide expeditious means to protect respondents' names on February 7, reconstitution of Decree No. 699021,
actual possession or the right to 2005.63 docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 01503. On
possession of the property involved. The February 19, 2007,65 the Court of
only question that the courts resolve in The Municipal and Regional Trial Courts Appeals in that case found that the trial
ejectment proceedings is: who is entitled referred to respondents' Torrens title as court reconstituted the title without
to the physical possession of the basis to rule the ejectment case in their having issued the required notice and
premises, that is, to the possession de favor: initial hearing to the actual occupants,
facto and not to the possession de rendering all proceedings void. The
Jure. It does not even matter if a party's The complaint in this case sufficiently ... dispositive portion of the Decision read:
title to the property is questionable. For establish[es] beyond doubt that [the
this reason, an ejectment case will not Spouses Barbarona] are the lawful WHEREFORE, in the light of the
necessarily be decided in favor of one owners of Lot 1936, situated at foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered
who has presented proof of ownership Jagobiao, Mandaue City, as evidenced GRANTING the instant petition and
of the subject property. Key jurisdictional by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 53698 SETTING ASIDE the Order of Branch
facts constitutive of the particular .... 55 of the Regional Trial Court, Mandaue
ejectment case filed must be averred in City in Case No. 3 G.L.R.O., Record No.
the complaint and sufficiently .... 4030.
proven.61 (Emphasis supplied)
A certificate of title is a conclusive SO ORDERED.66
Here, respondents alleged that their evidence of ownership and as owners,
right of ownership was derived from their the [the Spouses Bnrbarona] are entitled As a consequence of this ruling, TCT
predecessors-in-interest, the Spouses to possession of the property . . . . No. 53698 was cancelled by the
Gonzales, whose Decree No. 699021
was issued on March 29, 1939.62 The This Court however cannot just simply Register of Deeds on January 25,
Register of Deeds certified that there closed (sic) its eyes into the fact 2011.67
was no original certificate of title or presented before the trial court that the
owner's duplicate issued over the subject lot owned by [the Spouses
Despite these developments, the Court The institution was built by the Leonard that a certificate of title does not vest
of Appeals in this case proceeded to Wood Memorial with most of the funds ownership. The Torrens system "simply
affirm the Municipal Trial Court's and donated by the late Mr. Eversley Childs recognizes and documents ownership
Regional Trial Court's judgments on the of New York, USA, hence the name, and provides for the consequences of
basis that Decree No. 699021 was still Eversley Childs Sanitarium, in honor of issuing paper titles."71
valid, stating: the late donor. The total cost was about
400,000.00 which were spent for the Without TCT No. 53698, however,
Whether or not [the Spouses Barbarona construction of 52 concrete buildings (11 respondents have no other proof on
are] holder[s] or not of a certificate of cottages for females and 22 for males, 5 which to anchor their claim. The Deed of
title is immaterial. The matter of the bathhouses, 2 infirmaries, powerhouse, Full Renunciation of Rights,
issuance of the decree by the Land carpentry shop, general kitchen and Conveyance of Full Ownership and Full
Registration Office in favor of [the storage, consultation and treatment Waiver of Title and Interest executed in
Spouses Barbarona's] predecessor[ s- clinics and offices), waterworks, their favor by the heirs of the Spouses
]in[-]interest has not been resolved on sewerage, road and telephone system, Gonzales is insufficient to prove
the merits by the RTC. [The Spouses equipment and the likes. conveyance of property since no
Barbarona,] having acquired all the evidence was introduced to prove that
rights of their predecessors-in-interest[,] The construction of the building [was] ownership over the property was validly
have[,] from the time of the issuance of started sometime on May 1928 and was transferred to the Spouses Gonzales'
the decree[,] also derived title over the completed 2 years later. It was formally heirs upon their death.
property and nullification of the title turned over the Philippine government
based on procedurai defects is not and was opened [on] May 30, 1930 with Moreover, Proclamation No. 507, series
tantamount to the nullification of the 540 patients transferred in from Caretta of 1932, reserved portions of the
decree. The decree stands and remains Treatment Station, now Cebu Skin Clinic property specifically for petitioner's use
a prima facie source of the [Spouses in Cebu City.69 as a leprosarium. Even assuming that
Barbarona's] right of ownership over the Decree No. 699021 is eventually held as
subject property. 68 Proclamation No. 507 was issued on a valid Torrens title, a title under the
October 21, 1932, "which reserved Torrens system is always issued subject
Blinded by respondents' allegedly valid certain parcels of land in Jagobiao, to the annotated liens or encumbrances,
title on the property, the three (3) Mandaue City, Cebu as additional or what the law warrants or reserves.
tribunals completely ignored how leprosarium site for the Eversley Childs Thus:
petitioner came to occupy the property Treatment Station."70 Petitioner's
in the first place. possession of the property, therefore, Under the Torrens system of
pre-dates that of respondents' registration, the government is required
Petitioner, a public hospital operating as predecessors-in-interest, whose Decree to issue an official certificate of title to
a leprosarium dedicated to treating No. 699021 was issued in 1939. attest to the fact that the person named
persons suffering from Hansen's is the owner of the property described
disease, has been occupying the It is true that defects in TCT No. 53698 therein, subject to such liens and
property since May 30, 1930. According or even Decree No. 699021 will not encumbrances as thereon noted or what
to its history: affect the fact of ownership, considering
the law warrants or summary in nature, are filed with the A requisite for a valid cause of action in
reserves. 72 (Emphasis supplied) Municipal Trial Courts. Accion an unlawful detainer case is that
publiciana, however, can only be taken possession must be originally lawful,
Portions occupied by petitioner, having cognizance by the Regional Trial and such possession must have turned
been reserved by law, cannot be Court.74 unlawful only upon the expiration of the
affected by the issuance of a Torrens right to possess. It must be shown that
title. Petitioner cannot be considered as Petitioner argues that the Municipal Trial the possession was initially lawful;
one occupying under mere tolerance of Court has no jurisdiction over the case hence, the basis of such lawful
the registered owner since its since respondents' cause of action possession must be established. If, as in
occupation was by virtue of law. makes a case for ace ion publiciana and this case, the claim is that such
Petitioner's right of possession, not ejectment through unlawful detainer. possession is by mere tolerance of the
therefore, shall remain unencumbered It asserts that respondents failed to plaintiff, the acts of tolerance must be
subject to the final disposition on the prove that petitioner occupied the proved.
issue of the property's ownership. property by mere tolerance.
Petitioner failed to prove that
III Jurisdiction over subject matter is respondents' possession was based on
conferred by the allegations stated in the his alleged tolerance.1âwphi1 He did not
There are three (3) remedies available complaint. 75 Respondents' Complaint offer any evidence or even only an
to one who has been dispossessed of before the Municipal Trial Court states: affidavit of the Garcianos attesting that
property: (I) an action for ejectment to they tolerated respondents' entry to and
recover possession, whether for That [the occupants] are presently occupation of the subject properties. A
unlawful detainer or forcible entry; occupying the above-mentioned bare allegation of tolerance will not
(2) accion publiciana or accion plenaria property of the [Spouses Barbarona] suffice. Plaintiff must, at least, show
de posesion, or a plenary action to without color [of] right or title. Such overt acts indicative of his or his
recover the right of · possession; and occupancy is purely by mere tolerance. predecessor's permission to occupy the
(3) accion reivindicatoria, or an action to Indeed, [the occupants'] occupying the subject property . . . .
recover ownership. 73 lot owned by [the Spouses Barbarona] is
illegal and not anchored upon any ....
Although both ejectment and accion contractual relations with the [Spouses
publiciana are actions specifically to Barbarona.]76 In addition, plaintiff must also show that
recover the right of possession, they the supposed acts of tolerance have
have two (2) distinguishing differences. Indeed, no mention has been made as been present right from the very start of
The first is the filing period. Ejectment to how petitioner came to possess the the possession - from entry to the
cases must be filed within one (I) year property and as to what acts constituted property. Otherwise, if the possession
from the date of dispossession. If the tolerance on the part of respondents or was unlawful from the start, an action for
dispossession lasts for more than a their predecessors-in-interest to allow unlawful detainer would be an improper
year, then an accion publiciana must be petitioner's occupation. In Carbonilla v. remedy. Notably, no mention was made
filed. The second distinction concerns Abiera:77 in the complaint of how entry by
jurisdiction. Ejectment cases, being respondents was effected or how and
when dispossession started. Neither assert their right of possession or their
was there any evidence showing such right of ownership.
details.
Considering that respondents filed the
In any event, petitioner has some other improper case before the Municipal Trial
recourse. He may pursue recovering Court, it had no jurisdiction over the
possession of his property by filing case. Any disposition made, therefore,
an accion publiciana, which is a plenary was void. The subsequent judgments of
action intended to recover the better the Regional Trial Court and the Court of
right to possess; or an accion Appeals, which proceeded from the void
reivindicatoria, a suit to recover Municipal Trial Court judgment, are
ownership of real property. We stress, likewise void.
however, that the pronouncement in this
case as to the ownership of the land WHEREFORE, the Petition
should be regarded as merely is GRANTED. The February 17, 2011
provisional and, therefore, would not bar Decision and August 31, 2011
or prejudice an action between the same Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
parties involving title to the land. 78 CAG. R. SP No. 02762
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
The same situation is present in this Temporary Restraining Order dated May
case. Respondents failed to state when 13, 2011 is made PERMANENT.
petitioner's possession was initially
lawful, and how and when their SO ORDERED.
dispossession started. All that appears
from the Complaint is that petitioner's
occupation "is illegal and not anchored
upon any contractual relations with
[respondents.]"79

This, however, is insufficient to


determine if the action was filed within a
year from dispossession, as required in
an ejectment case. On the contrary,
respondents allege that petitioner's
occupation was illegal from the start.
The proper remedy, therefore, should
have been to file an accion CGR CORPORATION, et al. v.
publiciana or accion reivindicatoria to ERNESTO L. TREYES, JR. 522
SCRA 765 (2007)
The recoverable damages in forcible HELD: and even decapitating the heads of some
entry and detainer cases refer to “rents” of them, after the act of dispossession
or “the reasonable compensation for the The Court held that the ―rents‖ or the had occurred. Restated in its bare
use and occupation of the premises” or ―reasonable compensation for the use of essentials, the forcible entry case has one
“fair rental value of the property” and the premises or the fair rental value of the cause of action, namely, the alleged
attorney’s fees and costs. CGR property and attorney‘s fees may be unlawful entry by petitioner into the
Corporation, owned by Herman M. recovered through a separate action leased premises out of which three (3)
Benedicto and Alberto R. Benedicto, while the forcible entry case is pending. reliefs arose: (a) the restoration by the
leased several hectares of public land, The recoverable damages in forcible lessor of the possession of the leased
mostly consisting of fishponds, in Negros entry and detainer cases refer to ―rents‖ premises to the lessee, (b) the claim for
Occidental. Ernesto L. Treyes, Jr., with or ―the reasonable compensation for the actual damages due to the losses suffered
his men, forcibly entered the leased use and occupation of the premises‖ or by private respondent such as the
properties and barricaded the entrance ―fair rental value of the property‖ and deterioration of perishable foodstuffs
to the fishponds, set up a barbed wire attorney‘s fees and costs. There is no stored inside the premises and the
fence along the road going to CRG basis for the MTC to award actual, moral, deprivation of the use of the premises
Corporation‘s fishponds, and harvested and exemplary damages in view of the causing loss of expected profits; and, (c)
several tons of milkfish, fry and settled rule that in ejectment cases, the the claim for attorney‘s fees and costs of
fingerlings. CGR filed with the Municipal only damage that can be recovered is the suit. CGR Corporation‘s filing of an
Trial Court (MTC) in Sagay City separate fair rental value or the reasonable independent action for damages other
complaints for Forcible Entry with compensation for the use and occupation than those sustained as a result of their
Temporary Restraining Order with of the property. Considering that the only dispossession or those caused by the loss
Preliminary Injunction and Damages issue raised in ejectment is that of of their use and occupation of their
and reserved a separate civil action. The rightful possession, damages which could properties could not thus be considered
MTC found Treyes and his men guilty of be recovered are those which the plaintiff as splitting of a cause of action.
forcible entry. CGR filed a separate could have sustained as a mere
complaint alleging therein that he possessor, or those caused by the loss of
suffered damages for the actions of the use and occupation of the property,
Treyes during and after the forcible and not the damages which he may have
entry. A claim for additional damages suffered but which have no direct relation
which arose from incidents occurring to his loss of material possession. Other
after the dispossession by Treyes of the damages must thus be claimed in an
premises was thereafter prayed for. The ordinary action. As reflected in the
MTC awarded the claims of CGR. allegations in the complaint for damages
of CGR et al., it had to do with Treyes‘
ISSUE: alleged harvesting and carting away
several tons of milkfish and other marine FLORAIDA TERAÑA v. ANTONIO DE
Whether or not additional damages can products in their fishponds, ransacking SAGUN, GR No. 152131, 2009-04-29
be awarded resulting from events that and destroying of a chapel built by CGR
took place after Treyes left the property Facts:
Corporation, and stealing religious icons
The respondent Antonio Simuangco knowledge and consent of the respondent; Petitioner then filed a Notice of Appeal on
(respondent) owned a house and lot at 138 that the original house was old and was on November 12, 1997. [29] The records of the
J.P. Laurel St., Nasugbu, Batangas, which the verge of... collapsing;[17] that without case were ordered elevated to the Regional
he leased to the petitioner.[4] Sometime in the timely repairs made by the petitioner, Trial Court (RTC)
1996, the petitioner demolished the leased the house's collapse would have caused the
The RTC rendered judgment affirming the
house and erected a new one in its... death of the petitioner and her family.
decision of the MTC on February 26, 1998.
place.[5] The respondent alleged that this
The trial court called for a preliminary
was done without his consent. The petitioner filed a Motion for
conference under Section 7 of the Revised
Reconsideration and/or for New Trial
The petitioner allegedly also gave the Rules of Summary Procedure (RSP) and
materials from the demolished house to her Section 8 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, The petitioner argued that the appealed
sister, who built a house adjacent to the and required the parties to file their MTC decision was not supported by any
respondent's property.[8] When the position papers and affidavits of their evidence, and that the respondent failed to
respondent discovered what the petitioner witnesses after they failed... to reach an substantiate the allegations of his...
did, he immediately confronted her and amicable settlement. complaint and to discharge the burden of
advised her to... vacate the premises.[9] proving these allegations after the
both parties moved for an extension of time
She refused. On February 3, 1997, the petitioner denied them in her Sagot.
to file the necessary pleadings. The trial
respondent sent a letter demanding the
court denied both motions on the ground In her motion for a new trial, the petitioner
petitioner to vacate the leased
that the RSP and the Rules of Court,... argued that her failure to submit her
property.[10] Despite this letter of demand,
particularly Rule 70, Section 13(5), prohibit position paper and the affidavits of her
which the petitioner received on February
the filing of a motion for extension of time. witnesses within the 10-day period was due
10,[11] she still refused to vacate the said
property. to excusable negligence. She explained that
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is
she incurred delay because of the distance
hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff
The respondent thus filed a complaint for of some of her... witnesses' residence. The
Antonio B. Simuangco and against the
unlawful detainer... on the ground of the petitioner alleged that she had a good and
defendant Aida Terana as follows:
petitioner's violation of the terms of the meritorious claim against the respondent,
Contract of Lease. Ordering the defendant Aida Terana and all and that aside from her position paper and
persons claiming right under her to vacate the affidavits of her witnesses, she would
The presiding judge of the Municipal Trial
and surrender possession of the subject adduce receipts and other pieces of
Court... inhibited from the case on the
house to the plaintiff; documentary evidence to establish the
ground that she is related to the
costs... incurred in the demolition of the old
respondent. Ordering the said defendant to pay the
house and the construction of the new
amount of Five Thousand Pesos
petitioner denied allegations of the one... the RTC granted the motion for
(P5,000.00) as Attorney's fees; and
complaint reconsideration, and thus reversed its
To pay the costs of suit. February 26, 1998 judgment, as well as the
She claimed that she demolished the old
November 5, 1997 decision of the MTC.
building and built a new one with the
petitioner challenged the order of remand witnesses; and 3) whether the
through another motion for complaint for unlawful detainer
reconsideration. should be dismissed.
The CA affirmed the RTC in a decision Ruling:
promulgated on September 7, 2001.[35]
The CA noted that the RTC's order of Remand Not Necessary
remand was not just based on equity and
We find that a remand of the case to the
substantial justice, but was also based on
lower courts is no longer necessary, given
law, specifically Section 6 of Rule 135. Thus,
the pleadings and submissions filed, and
the CA ruled... that the RTC did not err in
the records of the proceedings below. A
remanding the case to the MTC and
remand would delay the overdue resolution
ordering the conduct of further
of this case (originally filed with the MTC on
proceedings after giving the respondent an
April 16, 1997), and... would run counter to
opportunity to present his position paper
the spirit and intent of the RSP.
and the affidavits of his witnesses. This
ruling did not satisfy petitioner, giving way That a position paper is not indispensable
to the... present petition. to the court's authority to render judgment
is further evident from what the RSP
Issues:
provides regarding a preliminary LAJAVE AGRICULTURAL
[W]hether under the Rules of Summary conference: "on the basis of the pleadings MANAGEMENT AND
Procedure, the Regional Trial Court, as well and the stipulations and admissions made DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES,
as the Court of Appeals, may order the case by the parties, judgment may be... INC., PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES
remanded to the MTC after the plaintiff, rendered without the need for further AGUSTIN JAVELLANA AND
herein respondent, failed to submit proceedings, in which event the judgment FLORENCE APILIS-JAVELLANA,
RESPONDENTS.
evidence in support of his complaint shall be rendered within 30 days from the
because his Position Paper, affidavit... of issuance of the order."[44] Thus, the
DECISION
witnesses and evidence, were not proceedings may stop at that point, PERALTA, J.:
submitted on time and the extension of without need for the submission of position Before us is a Petition for Review
time to file the same was denied because it papers. In... such a case, what would be on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997
is prohibited under the Rules on Summary extant in the record and the bases for the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to
Procedure. judgment would be the complaint, answer, nullify the Court of Appeals
and the record of the preliminary Decision[1] dated August 28, 2015 and
1. whether a remand is proper; 2) conference. its Resolution[2] dated March 21, 2016 in
whether the Court should CA-G.R. SP No. 134659 entitled
appreciate the petitioner's position "Spouses Agustin Javellana and
paper and the affidavits of her Florence Apilis-Javellana v. Lajave
Agricultural Management and also agreed therein that upon the demand to vacate was reiterated in a
Development Enterprises, Inc."[3] expiration of the term of the lease or any letter[7] dated March 5, 2012.
extension and renewals thereof, Lajave Subsequently, on March 5, 2012,
The facts of the case are as follows: would peaceably and voluntarily Agustin also sent a demand letter[8] to
surrender to Agustin the land leased Lajave to vacate the property in Talisay
On July 7, 1987, Agustin Javellana's without need of demand.[5] City. However, despite demands to
(Agustin) father, the late Justice Luis vacate the subject properties, Lajave
Javellana, executed a Deed of Absolute After the death of Agustin's father, continued to occupy the latter.
Sale transferring ownership of a Lajave continued to lease the said
property containing an area of forty-nine property in Silay City and even Thus, on March 26, 2012, Agustin and
(49) hectares located in Silay City, expanded the coverage of the lease to his wife Florence Apilis-Javellana filed a
Negros Occidental in favor of Agustin include the other shares of Agustin in Complaint[9] for unlawful detainer in the
and his six (6) siblings. The ownership other properties he inherited from his Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC),
over the remaining area of the Silay City father located in Barangay Matab-ang, Silay City, docketed as Civil Case No.
property was transferred to Agustin and Talisay City, Negros Occidental, and 1149-C, involving the property in
his co-owners through intestate covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Hacienda San Isidro, Silay City. On July
succession when the late Justice No. T-142126 of the. Register of Deeds 16, 2012, Agustin filed another
Javellana passed away on August 25, of Negros Occidental. No new contract Complaint [10] for unlawful detainer in the
1993 without leaving any last will and of lease was executed for these MTCC, Talisay City, docketed as Civil
testament. additional areas. Case No. (12)-925, pertaining to the
property in Hacienda Sta. Maria, Talisay
On May 13, 1998, for the purpose of When the contract of lease expired after City. Both cases were dismissed for lack
planting sugarcane and other the crop year 1997-1998, Lajave of jurisdiction to try the case (Civil Case
agricultural crops, petitioner Lajave continued to use and occupy the sugar No. 1149-C) and lack of cause of action
Agricultural Management and farms in Hacienda San Isidro in Silay and jurisdiction (Civil Case No. 12-925).
Development Enterprises, Inc. (Lajave) City without any renewal or extension of
entered into a Contract of Lease[4] with the contract. Agustin alleged that Agustin also claimed that from January
Agustin for the lease of the latter's Lajave's occupancy was merely 22, 2003 to June 25, 2010, Lajave paid
portion of the property, consisting of tolerated. Lajave paid Agustin the the total amount of P928,928.27 only as
seven (7) hectares of sugar land in annual compensation for the use and rentals for the use and occupancy of the
Hacienda San Isidro, Silay City for a occupancy of the said properties, but the leased property in Silay City. However,
period of ten (10) years, beginning with latter alleged that they were never Agustin averred that based on the
the crop year 1988-1989 to 1997-1998. apprised of how the annual rental was statistics provided by the Sugar
The property is covered by Transfer determined and the payment of lease Regulatory Administration on the
Certificate of Title No. T-7203 of the rentals was more often delayed. national average millsite composite price
Register of Deeds of Silay City. Lajave of sugar, Lajave should have paid the
agreed that it shall pay Agustin an Thus, on March 1, 2010, Agustin sent a total amount of P1,253,423.15, thus,
annual rental of thirteen (13) piculs of demand letter[6] to Lajave to vacate the there is still an unpaid balance of
sugar per hectare of the land. It was property in Silay City. The same P324,494.88.
Dismiss)[13] where he argued that there March 5, 2014.
Consequently, on September 24, is no splitting of cause of action and no
2012, albeit the pendency of the violation of litis pendentia, since the Unperturbed, petitioners filed a petition
unlawful detainer cases, Agustin and his damages sought to be recovered in the for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of
wife also filed a Complaint[11] for complaint for collection of sum of money Court before the Court of Appeals.
collection of sum of money, docketed as have no direct relation to their loss of
Civil Case No. 12-41648 representing material possession because they were In the assailed Decision dated August
the deficiency in rentals paid for Lajave's sustained prior. to the time when 28, 2015, the Court of Appeals set aside
use and occupancy of the properties Lajave's possession of the leased the Decision dated October 14, 2013
covering the period 2000-2001 up to premises became unlawful. and the Order dated March 5, 2014. The
2008-2009. dispositive portion of the Court of
On December 10, 2012, the Appeals Decision reads:
On October 29, 2012, Lajave filed a Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING,
Motion to Dismiss[12] on the following Quezon City, Branch 38, issued an the instant petition is GRANTED. The
grounds: (1) the complaint violates the Order[14] granting Lajave's motion to assailed Decision dated October 14,
rules against splitting a single cause of dismiss, and dismissed the complaint for 2013 and the Order dated March 5,
action under Rule 2, Section 4 of the collection of sum of money. The trial 2014 are SET ASIDE. The Metropolitan
Rules of Court and litis pendentia; and court ruled that the deficiency in rentals Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City,
(2) Agustin is guilty of forum shopping of the property leased by Lajave for the Branch 38, is hereby ordered to conduct
as there are other pending actions crop years 2000-2001 to 2008-2009 further proceedings in Civil Case No. 38-
between the same parties for the same must be recovered in the ejectment suits 41648 with deliberate dispatch.
cause. It claimed that although and the present suit cannot be allowed
described as a collection of sum of to prosper as it would violate the rule on SO ORDERED.[16]
money, Lajave argued that it was, in splitting of cause of action. Thus, the instant appeal before us
fact, an action for compensation for the raising the following arguments:
use and occupation of the properties On October 14, 2013, on appeal, the I
which were already subject of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
unlawful detainer cases. Thus, Lajave Branch 84, affirmed with modification UNDER PREVAILING LAW AND
argued that the complaint for collection the MeTC's ruling.[15] The dispositive SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE ON
of money should be dismissed on the portion of the Decision reads: EJECTMENT ACTIONS BROUGHT
ground of litis pendentia, stating that the WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing UNDER RULE 70 OF THE RULES OF
parties, the rights asserted and reliefs considerations, the Order of Dismissal of COURT, ARREARS IN
sought in this complaint are one and the the Court a quo is hereby AFFIRMED RENTALS/COMPENSATION FOR THE
same with the unlawful detainer cases with modification, that the Dismissal is USE AND OCCUPATION OF THE
pending before the courts in Silay City without prejudice. LEASED PREMISES ARE "DAMAGES"
and Talisay City. WHICH SHOULD BE RECOVERED IN
SO ORDERED. THE ACTION FOR UNLAWFUL
On November 5, 2012, Agustin filed an Petitioner's motion for reconsideration DETAINER INSTITUTED BY THE
Opposition (to the Motion to was, likewise, denied in the Order dated LANDOWNER TO EJECT THE
ALLEGED DEFORCIANT FROM THE WARRANTS CORRECTION BY THE related to their loss of material
PREMISES. THE QUESTIONED HONORABLE COURT. possession after Lajave refused to heed
DECISION OF THE COURT OF their demand to vacate the subject
APPEALS ALLOWING RESPONDENT III properties. While in the complaint for
SPOUSES' PURSUIT OF AN collection of sum of money, Agustin
INDEPENDENT ACTION FOR THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE asserted that his cause of action was to
"COLLECTION OF SUM OF MONEY" ESTABLISH A CLEAR CASE OF recover differential payment in view of
IN MTC QUEZON CITY FORUM-SHOPPING IN VEXATIOUS Lajave's payment of incorrect amount of
NOTWITHSTANDING THE MULTIPLE SUITS BEFORE VARIOUS rentals, and has no direct relation to
EXISTENCE OF THE UNLAWFUL FORUMS AS TO WARRANT THE their loss of material possession of the
DETAINER CASES IN MTCC SILAY OUTRIGHT DISMISSAL OF THE leased properties since the damages
AND MTCC TALISAY INVOLVING THE COLLECTION CASE BELOW. THIS were sustained prior to the time when
SAME PARTIES AND PROPERTIES IS WAS INEXPLICABLY OVERLOOKED Lajave's possession of the leased
THEREFORE BLATANTLY NOT IN OR OTHERWISE IGNORED BY THE properties became unlawful.
ACCORD WITH THE LAW OR WITH COURT OF APPEALS IN PLAIN
THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF DISREGARD OF THE EXPRESS LAW In a nutshell, the issue is whether,
THE SUPREME COURT AS TO CALL AND JURISPRUDENCE ON THE during the pendency of Agustin's
FOR THE EXERCISE OF REVIEW MATTER, DESERVING CORRECTION complaints for unlawful detainer, he can
POWERS BY THE HONORABLE IN THE PRESENT REVIEW also independently maintain an action
COURT. PROCEEDINGS.[17] for collection of sum of money which
Lajave asserted that the complaint for allegedly stemmed from incidents
II collection of sum of money violated the occurring before the possession by
rules against splitting a single cause of Lajave of the leased properties became
CONSIDERING THE COURT'S action. It argued that the complaint for unlawful, without violating the prohibition
ABHORRENCE FOR SPLITTING collection of money should be dismissed on splitting of a single cause of
CAUSES OF ACTION AND on the ground of litis pendentiabecause action, litis pendentia and forum
MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS AS BEING the parties, the rights asserted and shopping.
CONTRARY TO THE OBJECT OF THE reliefs sought in the complaint for
RULES OF AFFORDING LITIGANTS A collection of sum of money were one Stated otherwise, did Agustin commit
JUST, SPEEDY, AND INEXPENSIVE and the same with the unlawful detainer violation of the rules on forum shopping,
ADJUDICATION OF THEIR DISPUTES, cases pending before the courts in Silay on splitting of a single cause of action,
THE COURT OF APPEALS' REFUSAL City and Talisay City. and on litis pendentia when he filed the
TO AFFIRM THE ORDERED complaint for collection of sum of money
DISMISSAL OF RESPONDENT On the other hand, Agustin claimed that during the pendency of the unlawful
SPOUSES' COLLECTION CASE IN in the unlawful detainer cases, the detainer cases?
MTC QUEZON CITY CONSTITUTES A damages being prayed for pertained to
DEPARTURE FROM THE ACCEPTED the unpaid rentals for the crop years We answer in the negative.
AND USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 and every
PROCEEDINGS WHICH EMINENTLY crop year thereafter which were directly To lay down the basics, litis pendentia,
as a ground for the dismissal of a civil forum shopping by filing multiple cases requirements are lacking. While the
action, refers to that situation wherein based on the same cause of action, but complaints appear to involve the the
another action is pending, between the with different prayers, where the ground same parties and properties, we find,
same parties for the same cause of of dismissal is litis pendentia (or res however, no identity of causes of action.
action, such that the second action judicata, as the case may be).[19] In the unlawful detainer cases filed by
becomes unnecessary and vexatious. Agustin, in view of Lajave's failure to
For the bar of litis pendentia to be Applying this concept of litis pendentia, vacate the subject properties and non-
invoked, the following requisites must Lajave asserts that Agustin is guilty of payment of rentals, his cause of action
concur: (a) identity of parties, or at least, forum shopping. It argued that the stemmed from the prejudice he suffered
such parties as represent the same complaint for collection of sum of money due to the loss of possession of his
interests in both actions; (b) identity of should be dismissed on the ground properties and the damages incurred
rights asserted and relief prayed for, the of litis pendentia and forum shopping after the dispossession.
relief being founded on the same facts; because the parties, the rights asserted
and (c) the identity of the two preceding and reliefs sought in the complaint for Meanwhile, in the complaint for
particulars is such that any judgment sum of money are one and the same collection of sum of money, the same
rendered in the pending case, with the unlawful detainer cases pending was founded upon alleged violation of
regardless of which party is successful before the courts in Silay City and Lajave, as lessee, of certain stipulations
would amount to res judicata in the Talisay City. with regard to payment of the lease, i.e.,
other.[18] whether' Lajave correctly paid the rental
However, in determining whether a party fees for the subject period as stipulated
The underlying principle of litis violated the rule against forum shopping, in the lease agreement.
pendentia is the theory that a· party is the most important factor to consider is
not allowed to vex another more than whether the elements of litis It must be emphasized anew that in
once regarding the same subject matter pendentia concur, to reiterate: "(a) [there forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases,
and for the same cause of action. This is] identity of parties, or at least, such the only damage that can be recovered
theory is founded on the public policy parties who represent the same is the fair rental value or the reasonable
that the same subject matter should not interests in both actions; (b) [there is] compensation for the use and
be the subject of controversy in courts identity of rights asserted and relief occupation of the leased property. The
more than once, in order that possible prayed for, the relief being founded on reason for this is that in such cases, the
conflicting judgments may be avoided the same facts; and (c) [that] the identity only issue raised in ejectment cases is
for the sake of the stability of the rights with respect to the two preceding that of rightful possession; hence, the
and status of persons, and also to avoid particulars in the two cases is such that damages which could be recovered are
the costs and expenses incident to any judgment that may be rendered in those which the plaintiff could have
numerous suits. Consequently, a party the pending case, regardless of which sustained as a mere possessor, or those
will not be permitted to split up a single party is successful, would amount to res caused by the loss of the use and
cause of action and make it a basis for judicata in the other case." occupation of the property, and not the
several suits as the whole cause must damages which he may have suffered
be determined in one action. To be sure, In the instant case, a perusal of the but which have no direct relation to his
splitting a cause of action is a mode of records shows that the second and third loss of material possession.[20]
made on March 1, 2010, thus, it was that the damages recoverable in an
While the court has the authority to fix only after said demand that Lajave's ejectment case must have a direct
the reasonable value for the continued continued possession of the leased relation to the loss of material
use and occupancy of the premises, the properties became unlawful. Prior to the possession giving rise to an action for
said authority can only be exercised lapse of the fifteen-day period to vacate illegal detainer. These are damages
after termination of the lease contract. the property as stated in the demand caused by the loss of the use and
During the term of the lease contract, letter, the damages sustained from possession of the premises. As We
the agreement therein is binding to the January 2003 to February 2010 do not have explained, the deficiency in rentals
parties to the contract. have a direct relation to Agustin's loss of could not be included in the damages to
material possession since they do not be awarded in the ejectment cases for
In the instant case, insofar as the result from Lajave's refusal to vacate the these were sustained prior to the
complaint for collection of sum of money leased premises. These damages must dispossession or the unlawful
is concerned, it is not a simple case of be claimed in an ordinary action, as in withholding of possession by respondent
recovering the unpaid balance of the subject complaint for collection of which happened only after 2009 when
rentals. It must be pointed out that there sum of money. they failed to pay the rentals and heed
are several factors to consider if and the demand to pay and vacate.[21]
when the collection of sum of money will The ratiocination of the Court of Appeals In the case of Proguard Security
prosper, i.e., the determination if indeed is enlightening, to wit: Services Corporation v. Tormil Realty
recovery of the alleged balance is The Court observes, however, that and Development Corporation,[22] the
proper, the correct amount of rental to these rentals in arrears or back rental Court was instructive as to the reckoning
be to paid or recovered, the intention which the trial court can award in period of the recovery of damages in
and/or agreement of the parties as to ejectment cases pertain to rentals with unlawful detainer:
the terms of payment of rental in order specific or determinable amount from "While indeed Tormil, as the victor in the
to arrive at a correct amount, among the time the cause of action for illegal unlawful detainer suit, is entitled to the
others. Indeed, as correctly observed by detainer accrued. fair rental value for the use and
the appellate court, the resolution of occupation of the unit in the building,
whether Lajave paid the correct rental The case before Us is different. The such compensation should not be
fees and if there is a deficiency in the deficiency in rentals cannot be reckoned from the time Pro-Guard
payment of rentals requires a full-blown ascertained during the crop years 2000- began to occupy the same, but from
trial through the submission of 2001 up to 2008-2009 for it was only in the time of the demand to vacate. "In
documentary and testimonial evidence 2012 that petitioners discovered that unlawful detainer cases, the
by the parties which cannot be passed respondent had a shortfall in the defendant is necessarily in prior
upon in a summary proceeding. payment of rentals based on the data lawful possession of the property but
provided by the Sugar Regulatory his possession eventually becomes
Moreover, in unlawful detainer, the Administration on the composite price of unlawful upon termination or
recoverable damages are reckoned from sugar. Before 2009, petitioner has no expiration of his right to possess." In
the time the possession of the property cause of action for illegal detainer other words, the entry is legal but the
becomes unlawful. In the instant case, against private respondent. Thus, We possession thereafter became illegal. x
the initial demand to vacate was only agree with the contention of petitioners x x[23]
Suffice it to say, an action for collection Indeed, in the instant case, Agustin's hence, litis pendentiamay not be
of sum of money may not be properly filing of a complaint for collection of sum invoked to dismiss Agustin's complaint
joined with the action for ejectment. The of money other than those sustained as for collection of sum of money.
former is an ordinary civil action a result of their dispossession or those
requiring a full-blown trial, while an caused by the loss of their use and Res judicata will not apply because the
action for unlawful detainer is a special occupation of their properties could not court in an unlawful detainer case has
civil action which requires a summary thus be considered as splitting of a no jurisdiction over claims for damages
procedure. The joinder of the two cause of action. The cause of action is other than the use and occupation of the
actions is specifically enjoined by different. There is no splitting of action premises and attorney's fees. Agustin's
Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court, because the complaint for collection of filing of an independent action for
which provides: money prays for the payment of the collection of sum of money other than
Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. - differential amount representing the those sustained as a result of their
A party may in one pleading assert, in unpaid balance in rental fees after the dispossession or those caused by the
the alternative or otherwise, as many deduction of the actual payment made loss of their use and occupation of their
causes of action as he may have by Lajave. Since the damages prayed properties could not thus be considered
against an opposing party, subject to the for in the collection case before the as splitting of a cause of action. The
following conditions: MeTC pertain to deficiency in the rental causes of action in the subject cases are
(a) The party joining the causes of payments for the contested period not the same; the rights violated are
action shall comply with the rules on before the dispossession, the claims different; and the reliefs sought are also
joinder of parties; have no direct relation to the loss of different. Hence, Civil Case No. 12-
possession of the premises. Insofar as 41648 stands to be reinstated and
(b) The joinder shall not include the collection case is concerned, remanded to the Metropolitan Trial Court
special civil actions or actions Agustin's claim had to do with Lajave's of Quezon City for further proceedings.
governed by special rules; deficiency in the payment of rentals
only, without regard to the unlawfulness WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
(c) Where the causes of action are of the occupancy. This cannot be The Decision dated August 28, 2015
between the same parties but pertain to litigated in the ejectment suits before the and the Resolution dated March 21,
different venues or jurisdictions, the MeTC by reason of misjoinder of causes 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
joinder may be allowed in the Regional of action. SP No. 134659 are hereby AFFIRMED.
Trial Court provided one of the causes Civil Case No. No. 12-41648
of action falls within the jurisdiction of As to the third requisite of litis is REINSTATED and REMANDED to
said court and the venue lies therein; pendentia- that the identity between the the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon
and pending actions, with respect to the City, Branch 38, tor further proceedings.
parties, rights asserted and reliefs
(d) Where the claims in all the causes of prayed for, is such that any judgment SO ORDERED.
action are principally for recovery of rendered on one action will, regardless
money, the aggregate amount claimed of which is successful, amount to res
shall be the test of jurisdiction. judicata in the action under
[Underscoring supplied.] consideration - the same is not present,
PERALTA, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for


review on certiorari under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court assailing the
Decision2 of the Court of Appeals
(CA), Cagayan de Oro City, dated
July 31, 2013 in CA-G.R. SP No.
04500. The questioned CA Decision
set aside the Joint Decision3 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
30, Surigao City, dated August 17,
2011, which affirmed with
modification the February 25, 2011
Omnibus Judgment4 of the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities
(MTCC), Branch 1, Surigao City, in
five (5) consolidated cases
for accion publiciana and/or
recovery of possession.
SECOND DIVISION
The pertinent factual and
G.R. No. 210504, January 24, procedural antecedents of the case
2018 are as follows:
HEIRS OF ALFONSO YUSINGCO,
On August 11, 2005, herein
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
petitioners filed five separate (5)
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, TEODORO
Complaints5 for accion
K.
publiciana and/or recovery of
YUSINGCO, Petitioners, v. AMELI
possession against herein
TA BUSILAK, COSCA NAVARRO,
respondents and a certain
FLAVIA CURAYAG AND
Reynaldo Peralta. The suits, which
LIXBERTO1 CASTRO, Respondent
were subsequently consolidated,
s.
were filed with the MTCC of
Surigao City, which were later
DECISION
raffled to Branch 1 thereof.
Petitioners uniformly alleged in the
said Complaints that: they are respondents vacate the said Cosca Navarro, Amelita Busilak,
owners of three (3) parcels of land, properties, but the latter refused. Lexberto Castro, Reynaldo Peralta
denominated as Lot Nos. 519, 520 and Adriano Solamo and all those
and 1015, which are all located In their Answer, respondents claiming rights under them to
at Barangay Taft, Surigao City; raised essentially similar defenses, vacate the premises of the lots
they inherited the lots from their contending, in essence, that: they respectively occupied by them and
predecessor-in-interest, Alfonso have been in possession of the to remove their improvements
Yusingco; they were in possession subject properties for more than from the premises and restore
of the said properties prior to and thirty (30) years; petitioners never possession to the plaintiffs;
at the start of the Second World actually possessed the said parcels
War, but lost possession thereof of land and that they never had 2. Defendant Amelita Busilak to
during the war; after the war, title over the same; thus, pay the plaintiffs a monthly
petitioners discovered that the petitioners' claim would be in compensation of 1,200.00 for the
subject properties were occupied conflict with and inferior to use of the property occupied by her
by several persons, which respondents' claim of possession. at 2763 P. Reyes cor. Narciso Sts.,
prompted petitioners to file Surigao City, computed from the
separate cases for accion After the issues were joined, trial time of the filing of the complaint
reivindicatoria and recovery of ensued. on August 11, 2005 until she
possession against these persons; vacates the subject property;
during the pendency of these On February 25, 2011, the MTCC,
cases, herein respondents entered Branch 1, Surigao City issued an 3. Defendant Cosca Navarro to pay
different portions of the same Omnibus Judgment in favor of the plaintiffs a monthly
properties and occupied them herein petitioners and disposed as compensation of P2,120.00 for the
without the knowledge and consent follows: use of the property occupied by her
of petitioners; petitioners were located at 03240 Borromeo St.,
forced to tolerate the illegal WHEREFORE, premises Surigao City, computed from the
occupation of respondents as they considered judgment is hereby time of the filing of the complaint
did not have sufficient resources to rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, on August 11, 2005 until she
protect their property at that time Heirs of Alfonso Yusingco, vacates the subject property;
and also because their ownership represented by their attorney-in-
was still being disputed in the fact Teodoro E. Yusingco, against 4. Defendant Flavia Curayag to pay
earlier cases filed; subsequently, defendants Flavia Curayag, Cosca the plaintiffs a monthly
the cases which they earlier filed Navarro, Amelita Busilak, Lexberto compensation of P1,760.00 for the
were decided in their favor and Castro, Reynaldo Peralta and use of the property occupied by her
they were declared the owners of Adriano Solamo ordering: located at 03818, Narciso St.,
the subject properties; thereafter, Surigao City, computed from the
petitioners demanded that 1. Defendants Flavia Curayag, time of the filing of the complaint
on August 11, 2005 until she dated August 30, 1982 (CA-G.R.
vacates the subject property; No. 66508-R), which became final SO ORDERED7
and executory on December 18,
5. Defendant Lexberto Castro to 1986, herein petitioners were
pay the plaintiffs a monthly declared the true and lawful co- Herein respondents then filed with
compensation of P1,500.00 for the owners of the subject properties; the CA a petition for review under
use of the property occupied by her on the other hand, evidence Rule 42 of the Rules of Court
located at SLB Pension House, showed that respondents were assailing the abovementioned Joint
Borromeo St., Surigao City, mere intruders on the lots in Decision of the RTC.
computed from the time of the question; thus, as judicially-
filing of the complaint on declared owners of the said lots, On July 31, 2013, the CA
November 27, 2007 until he petitioners are entitled to promulgated its Decision granting
vacates the subject property; possession thereof as against the petition of herein respondents.
respondents whose entries into the The CA disposed as follows:
6. Defendants Reynaldo Peralta said properties are illegal.
and Adriano Solamo to pay the WHEREFORE, the petition is
plaintiffs a monthly compensation Herein respondents filed an appeal GRANTED. The Joint Decision dated
of P2,000.00 for the use of the with the RTC of Surigao City. August 17, 2011 of the Regional
property occupied by them located Trial Court, 10th Judicial Region,
at 04286, Navarro St., Surigao On August 17, 2011, the RTC, Branch 30, Surigao City is SET
City, computed from the time of Branch 30, Surigao City, rendered ASIDE and a new one rendered:
the filing of the complaint on a Joint Decision, which affirmed, (1) SETTING ASIDE the Omnibus
November 27, 2007 until they with modification, the Omnibus Judgment dated February 25, 2011
vacate the subject property Judgment of the MTCC. The of the Municipal Trial Court in
dispositive portion of the RTC Joint Cities, Branch 1, Surigao City, in
7. All the defendants to pay the Decision reads, thus: consolidated civil cases for Accion
cost of the suit. Publiciana and/or Recovery of
WHEREFORE, the assailed Possession, and (2) DISMISSING
SO ORDERED.6 Omnibus Judgment dated February the consolidated cases for lack of
25, 2011 of the Municipal Trial merit.
Court in Cities, Branch 1, Surigao
The MTCC held that: in an earlier City is AFFIRMED WITH SO ORDERED.8
case for accion reivindicatoria (Civil MODIFICATION as to the
Case No. 1645) decided by the judgment against defendants
Court of First Instance of Surigao Reynaldo Peralta and Adriano The CA ruled that the RTC and CA
Del Norte on June 8, 1979 and Solamo who did not file an appeal Decisions used by the MTCC in
affirmed by the CA in its Decision therefrom. x x x holding that herein petitioners are
owners of the subject properties reivindicatoria and an action for the complaints filed by petitioners
and are, thus, entitled to legal recovery of possession, hence in shows that the actions were
possession thereof, are based on a personam, and as such, they captioned as "Accion
previous accion bound only the parties properly Publiciana and/or Recovery of
reivindicatoria, which is a suit in impleaded and duly heard or given Possession." However, the Court
personam. The CA held that, being an opportunity to be heard; even if agrees with the ruling of the lower
an action in personam, the such principle is inapplicable in the courts that the complaints filed
judgments in the said case binds instant case. were actually accion reivindicatoria.
only the parties properly impleaded
therein. Since respondents were 2. When Honorable Court of In a number of cases,10 this Court
not parties to the said action, the Appeals impliedly ruled that herein had occasion to discuss the three
CA concluded that they could not respondents would have a better (3) kinds of actions available to
be bound by the judgments right of possession over the subject recover possession of real
declaring petitioners as owners of matter property over herein property, to wit:
the disputed properties. Hence, petitioners, despite the rulings in
petitioners' present actions to the prior judgments showing the x x x (a) accion
recover possession of the said contrary. interdictal; (b) accion
properties from respondents, on publiciana; and (a) accion
the basis of the said judgments, reivindicatoria
must fail. The petition is meritorious.
Accion interdictal comprises two
Aggrieved by the CA Decision, The issues raised in the instant distinct causes of action, namely,
herein petitioners are now before petition boil down to the basic forcible entry (detentacion) and
this Court via the instant petition question of whether or not the final unlawful detainer (desahuico) [sic].
for review on certiorari contending and executory decisions rendered In forcible entry, one is deprived of
that the assailed CA Decision is in a previous accion physical possession of real property
replete with legal infirmities, to reivindicatoria, finding petitioners by means of force, intimidation,
wit: to be the lawful owners of the strategy, threats, or stealth
subject properties, are binding whereas in unlawful detainer, one
1. When Honorable Court of upon respondents. illegally withholds possession after
Appeals held that the prior the expiration or termination of his
judgments declaring herein This Court rules in the affirmative. right to hold possession under any
petitioners as the true and lawful contract, express or implied. The
co-owners of the property did not At the outset, the Court finds it two are distinguished from each
bind herein respondents, as they proper to look into the nature of other in that in forcible entry, the
were not parties to the actions, the actions filed by petitioners possession of the defendant is
saying that these were an accion against respondents. A perusal of illegal from the beginning, and that
the issue is which party has forcible entry or illegal detainer,
prior de factopossession while in but an accion publiciana. On the Proceeding to the main issue in the
unlawful detainer, possession of other hand, accion reivindicatoria is instant petition, there is no dispute
the defendant is originally legal but an action to recover ownership also that the RTC Decision in Civil Case
became illegal due to the brought in the proper regional trial No. 1645 and the CA Decision in
expiration or termination of the court in an ordinary civil CA-G.R. CV No. 66508-R used by
right to possess. proceeding. the MTCC in the present case as
bases in holding that herein
The jurisdiction of these two petitioners are owners of the
actions, which are summary in Accion reivindicatoria or accion de subject properties and are, thus,
nature, lies in the proper municipal reivindicacion is, thus, an action entitled to legal possession thereof,
trial court or metropolitan trial whereby the plaintiff alleges are judgments on a previous case
court. Both actions must be ownership over a parcel of land for accion reivindicatoria, which
brought within one year from the and seeks recovery of its full was filed by petitioners against
date of actual entry on the land, in possession.11 It is a suit to recover persons other than herein
case of forcible entry, and from the possession of a parcel of land as an respondents.
date of last demand, in case of element of ownership.12 The
unlawful detainer. The issue in said judgment in such a case It is settled that a judgment
cases is the right to physical determines the ownership of the directing a party to deliver
possession. property and awards the possession of a property to another
possession of the property to the is in personam.15 It is conclusive,
Accion publiciana is the plenary lawful owner.13 It is different not against the whole world, but
action to recover the right of from accion interdictal or accion only "between the parties and their
possession which should be publiciana where plaintiff merely successors in interest by title
brought in the proper regional trial alleges proof of a better right to subsequent to the commencement
court when dispossession has possess without claim of title.14 of the action."16 An action to
lasted for more than one year. It is recover a parcel of land is a real
an ordinary civil proceeding to On the basis of the above action but it is an action in
determine the better right of discussions, it is clear that the personam, for it binds a particular
possession of realty independently lower courts did not err in ruling individual only although it concerns
of title. In other words, if at the that the suits filed by petitioners the right to a tangible thing.17 Any
time of the filing of the complaint are accion judgment therein is binding only
more than one year had elapsed reivindicatoria, not accion upon the parties properly
since defendant had turned plaintiff publiciana, as petitioners seek to impleaded and duly heard or given
out of possession or defendant's recover possession of the subject an opportunity to be
possession had become illegal, the lots on the basis of their ownership heard.18 However, this rule admits
action will be, not one of the thereof. of the exception that even a non-
party may be bound by the defendants had declared their therefore, that as between the
judgment in an ejectment houses and improvements for tax plaintiffs [herein petitioners] who
suit19 where he is any of the purposes, not one of them had had been judicially declared the
following: (a) trespasser, squatter declared in his name the lot in owners of the land and the
or agent of the defendant which his house or improvement is defendants [herein respondents]
fraudulently occupying the property built on. They just waited for the who are mere squatters therein,
to frustrate the judgment; (b) Yusingcos to show proof of their the former are entitled to such
guest or occupant of the premises ownership of the lot. legal protection.21
with the permission of the
defendant; (c) transferee pendente It was indeed revealing that while
lite; (d) sublessee; (e) co-lessee; professing that the lots are public On the basis of the foregoing, the
or (f) member of the family, land, the defendants never CA erred in ruling that the
relative or privy of the defendant.20 bothered to apply under any of the judgments of the RTC (in Civil Case
legal modes of acquiring land of No. 1645) and the CA (in CA-GR.
In the instant case, the Court finds the public domain for the portion CV No. 66508-R) on the suit
no cogent reason to depart from occupied by them. Obviously, their for accion reivindicatoria filed by
the findings and conclusions of the physical possession of the premises petitioners against persons other
MTCC, as affirmed by the RTC, that was not under claim of ownership than herein respondents are not
respondents are mere intruders or or in the concept of an owner. binding upon the latter.
trespassers who do not have a Hence, the defendants' possession Respondents, being trespassers on
right to possess the subject lots. cannot ripen into ownership by the subject lots are bound by the
Thus, the Court adopts the prescription as claimed by them. said judgments, which find
discussion of the MTCC on the They are intruders, plain and petitioners to be entitled to the
matter, to wit: simple, without any right of possession of the subject lots as
possession to be protected. owners thereof.
On the other hand, the evidence
for the defendants showed that The plaintiff[s] [herein petitioners] WHEREFORE, the instant petition
they are mere intruders on the lots prayed that their right of is GRANTED. The July 31, 2013
in question. They are occupying possession of the lots is entitled to Decision of the Court of Appeals in
their respective portions simply as protection under the law. In the CA-G.R. SP No. 04500
places to stay with intention of case at bar, the evidence showed is REVERSED and SET
acquiring the said properties in the that the defendant's [herein ASIDE. The Omnibus Judgment of
event that they are public lands respondents'] entry into and the Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
and not owned by any private possession of the disputed Branch 1, Surigao City, dated
person. premises was illegal from the February 25, 2011,
beginning and remain to be so until is REINSTATED.
It is noted that while the the present. There is no question,
attached to their motion the sketch of a the court from granting the relief prayed
SO ORDERED. private land surveyor, Flordelito Aragon, for. Whereupon, the court dissolved the
131 Phil. 711 and his affidavit, both of which were preliminary injunction theretofore
intended to convey the alleged fact that issued, and dismissed the complaint.
the new house being constructed was
inside defendant Glicerio Bado's Lot 1. The procedural question presented
SANCHEZ, J.: asks of us a ruling as to whether
2894 (covered by his Torrent Title 9-
The relief prayed for but denied in an 275) being held by him. They averred, injunction is the proper remedy in the
order of the court below, now the subject too, that the house did not encroach premises.
of the present appeal, is that injunction upon the boundaries of plaintiff's Whether
issue to restrain defendants from adjoining property (Lot 1131). defendant Clicerio Bado's lot is registrab
continuing with the construction of a le or not, because, as plaintiff avers, that
house of light materials on a 48-square Obviously of the belief that procedural
niceties should not bar consideration of land registered in the name of
meter area on the northern border of defendant Glicerio Bado is a creek
plaintiff's land. the equities of the case,[2] the trial court,
on the face of the conflicting assertions - Salabao Creek - is beside the point
The suit started on December 12, 1963 of fact, called for a summary hearing. here. Unless and until plaintiff succeeds
with the complaint, as amended,[1] that in annulling the decree of registration in
on or about December 1, 1962, On February 27, 1964, the trial court defendant's favor which she has sought
defendants, confederating and helping came out with an order sustaining the in the cadastral proceedings, that title
one another, entered plaintiff's land and motion to dismiss. The court gave subsists.[3] It is to be presumed that the
commenced the construction of a house credence to the testimony of judicial proceedings leading to the
of light materials on the northern surveyor Flordelito Aragon (also a issuance of the decree are valid.
boundary of her Lot 1131 in Iligan City deputy public land surveyor) that the
house under construction was The pivotal facts that the record
bordering the bank of Salabao Creek, discloses may thus be summarized this
covered by her Torrens Title 0-267; that within Glicerio Bado's Lot 2894
(Torrens Title 0-275) and not on way: Plaintiff claims that the house
the continuance of such act against the being built is on her land; defendants,
will of plaintiff would cause great and plaintiff's Lot 1131 (Torrens Title 0-
267). The trial court took the position on the other hand, say that that house is
irreparable damage and injury and on the land of Glicerio Bado. Both hold
injustice to her; and that there is no that to stop defendants from building a
house within Clicerio Bado's lot "would Torrens titles. The lower
other plain, speedy and adequate court, prima facieat least, believes that
remedy in the ordinary course of be tantamount to depriving" the owner
of the enjoyment of his lawful dominical there is factual support for defendants'
law. Whereupon, she prayed for averment.
preliminary and final injunction and rights; that even on the assumption that
damages. Preliminary defendant Glicerio Bado's title to Lot The remedy of injunction has been the
injunction was issued ex-parte. 2894 was obtained through fraud, as subject of numerous judicial
plaintiff avers, nonetheless, said title pronouncements. The court cannot now
Plaintiff's said complaint was met by subsists until declared null and void by a afford to depart from the well-ingrained
defendants' motion to dismiss upon the competent court; and that these precept that injunctions are not
ground of lack of cause of action. They circumstances would tie up the hands of available to take property out of
possession or control of one party and Long divorced from doubt is the It is in line with the principle just
place it into that of another whose title doctrine that where legal title is disputed enunciated that in
has not clearly been and the possessor asserts ownership affirming Devesa vs. Arbes, supra, Palaf
established. Instructive in this respect is over the land in controversy, no ox vs. Madamba, 19 Phil. 444, 446,
the early 1909 decision injunction can issue to dispossess declared in no uncertain terms that
in Devesa vs. Arbes, 13 Phil. 273, where him.[6] Reason for this is that before the injunction is not the appropriate remedy
injunction was sought to recover issue of ownership is determined by where "there exists the ordinary remedy
possession of real property. Mr. Justice evidence, justice and equity demand that of action for property of possession,
Carson there pithily summed up[4] the the parties be maintained in which may be either plenary or
limited concept of injunction which may their status quo so that no advantage summary, according to the method by
not be availed of "'while the rights may be given to one to the prejudice of which she may have been deprived of
between the parties are undetermined, the other.[7] her alleged possession." A long line of
except in extraordinary cases where cases has since then stabilized the
material and irreparable injury will be Given the fact that there is the debatable principle.[11]
done', which cannot be compensated in question of where the house was being
damages." To hold otherwise, Mr. erected, we say that adherence to the Under the present state of the law, there
Justice Carson continued to say, "would precept just enunciated is a forbidding are three kinds of actions available to
be to render practically of no effect the obstacle to the grant of injunction. recover possession of real property: (a)
various provisions of the code (of civil the summary action for forcible entry
2. To be sure, there are recognized (where preliminary mandatory
procedure) touching many if not most of exceptions to the rule, as where
the ordinary actions, and the injunction may be sought within ten
defendant is clearly a mere days from the filing of the complaint
enforcement of judgment in such intruder,[8] or where the action seeks to
actions; for it may well be supposed that under Article 539 of the Civil Code) or
prevent a purchaser at an auction sale illegal detainer, which seeks the recovery
if a complainant could secure relief by from molesting the debtor's co-owners
injunction in every case where 'the of physical possession only and is
whose rights have not been affected by brought within one year in the
defendant is doing or threatens or is the sale.[9] But these, generally upon
about to do, or is procuring or suffering municipal court; (b)
hearing and not upon ex- the acción publiciana, which is for the
to be done, some act probably in parte application for injunction.[10]
violation of the plaintiff's rights' and recovery of the right to possess and is a
could enforce the judgment granting the 3. Upon well-entrenched jurisprudence, plenary action in an ordinary civil
injunction by the summary contempt plaintiff's principal suit for injunction proceeding in a Court of First Instance;
proceedings authorized in section 172 of cannot, at bottom, prosper because and (c) acción de reivindicación, which
the code to punish violations of there is an adequate remedy in law open seeks the recovery of ownership, which
injunctions, he would seldom elect to to her. It is elementary to the point of includes the jusutendi and the
enforce his rights in such cases by the triteness that the special remedy of "jus fruendi, also brought in the Court of
ordinary remedies, involving as they do injunction may not issue where there is First Instance.[12]
the difficult and ofttimes fruitless labor a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in Plaintiff Cirila Emilia claims ownership
of enforcing judgments obtained therein the ordinary course of law. of a 48-square meter portion of land,
by execution."[5] which she avers is covered by Torrens
title in her of Clicerio Bado's title in the cadastral occupied the said lot by building their house
name. Defendant Clicerio Bado, on the proceeding could yet prevent further in the same thereby depriving the former
other hand, also professes ownership controversy between the parties. rightful possession thereof.
over the same portion of land backed up, A formal demand to vacate the premises
too, by a Torrens title in his name. From Upon the view we take of this case, we
vote to affirm the order of February 27, was sent on July 12, 1994 but it was
these two directly opposing positions, a ignored.
legitimate issue of ownership 1964, dismissing the complaint.
Respondent spouses contend that the
emerges. This guides us to no other With costs against plaintiff-appellant. complaint failed to state that petitioner had
conclusion than that
plaintiff Cirila Emilia should have SO ORDERED. prior physical possession of the property in
brought suit for ownership dispute and in the alternative, claimed
(acción de reivindicación). Correctly did ownership over the land on the ground that
the trial judge dissolve the preliminary they possess the same for more than thirty
injunction wrongfully issued and refuse years.
the grant of a perpetual injunction The MTC rendered a decision in favor of the
sought by her. petitioners and ordered respondents to
4. In a situation like the present, it was vacate the property.
suggested in Devesa vs. Arbes, supra, On appeal, the RTC affirmed the decision of
that it would not be improper if the the MTC.
record were to be returned to the court On a petition for review, the Court of
of origin with instructions to further Appeals reverse and set aside the decision
amend the complaint,[13] such that the of the RTC on the ground that petitioners
question of ownership and possession failed to make a case for unlawful detainer
(acción reivindicatoria) may bring about Spouses Valdez vs Spouses Fabella, GR No. because they failed to show that they had
a head-on contest between plaintiff 132424, May 2, 2006 given the private respondents the right to
and Glicerio Bado in the same injunction occupy the premises or that they had
Posted by Pius Morados on November 30,
case. As we make an appraisal of the tolerated private respondents’ possession
record before us, however, we are 2011
(Civil Procedure – Jurisdiction, Real Action, of the same, which is a requirement in
constrained to say that confusion may
Unlawful Detainer) unlawful detainer cases. It added that the
arise because of the so many pleadings
Facts: Petitioner spouses filed a complaint allegations in the complaint lack
filed and court actuations taken before
this decision. With the voluminous for unlawful detainer against respondent jurisdictional elements of forcible entry
record, difficulty may arise in spouses before the MTC. which requires an allegation of prior
pinpointing the exact issue between the The complaint alleges that sometime in material possession. Hence, MTC has no
parties. Administration of justice could November 1992, by virtue of a sales jurisdiction over the case.
suffer thereby. And then, there is the contract, petitioner spouses acquired a Issue: WON the allegations of the complaint
continued pendency of this case which residential lot and respondent spouses , made out a case for unlawful detainer and
has been started since nearly five years without any color of title whatsoever MTC has jurisdiction over the case.
ago. A final decision on the validity
Held: No. recover ownership also brought in the remedy should either be an accion
The three kinds of actions available to proper regional trial court in an ordinary publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria in the
recover possession of real property are: civil proceeding. proper regional trial court.
First, Accion interdictal comprises forcible Doctrine: Jurisdictional facts establishing a Reason:
entry and unlawful detainer. In forcible case for ejectment must appear on the In the case at bar, the allegations in
entry, one is deprived of physical possession face of the complaint petitioner spouses complaint did not
of real property by means of force, To justify an action for unlawful detainer, it contain any averment of fact that would
intimidation, strategy, threats, or stealth is essential that the plaintiff’s supposed acts substantiate their claim that they permitted
whereas in unlawful detainer, one illegally of tolerance must have been present right or tolerated the occupation of the property
withholds possession after the expiration or from the start of the possession which is by respondents. The complaint contains
termination of his right to hold possession later sought to be recovered.Otherwise, if only bare allegations that “respondents
under any contract, express or implied.In the possession was unlawful from the start, without any color of title whatsoever
forcible entry, the possession of the an action for unlawful detainer would be an occupies the land in question by building
defendant is illegal from the beginning, and improper remedy. their house in the said land thereby
that the issue is which party has prior de It is the nature of defendant’s entry into the depriving petitioners the possession
facto possession while in unlawful detainer, land which determines the cause of action, thereof.” Nothing has been said on how
possession of the defendant is originally whether it is forcible entry or unlawful respondents’ entry was effected or how and
legal but became illegal due to the detainer. If the entry is illegal, then the when dispossession started.
expiration or termination of the right to action which may be filed against the The failure of petitioners to allege the key
possess. intruder is forcible entry. If, however, the jurisdictional facts constitutive of unlawful
The jurisdiction of these two actions, which entry is legal but the possession thereafter detainer is fatal. Since the complaint did not
are summary in nature, lies in the proper becomes illegal, the case is unlawful satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of a
MTC. Both actions must be brought within detainer. valid cause for unlawful detainer, the MTC
one year from the date of actual entry on To vest the court jurisdiction to effect the had no jurisdiction over the case.
the land, in case of forcible entry, and from ejectment of an occupant, it is necessary
the date of last demand, in case of unlawful that the complaint should embody such a
detainer.The issue in said cases is the right statement of facts as brings the party
to physical possession. clearly within the class of cases for which
Second, Accion publiciana is the plenary the statutes provide a remedy, as these
action to recover the right of possession proceedings are summary in nature.
which should be brought in the proper RTC The jurisdictional facts must appear on the
when dispossession has lasted for more face of the complaint. When the complaint
than one year. It is an ordinary civil fails to aver facts constitutive of forcible
proceeding to determine the better right of entry or unlawful detainer, as where it does
possession of realty independently of title. not state how entry was affected or how
Third, Accion reivindicatoria is an action to and when dispossession started, the
FACTS:
1. Calixto Gabud was the owner of a
parcel of land located in Barangay
Adlawon, Mabolo, Cebu City. Because
of the construction of a provincial road,
the property was divided into two
parcels of land covered (Lot Nos. 17150
and 13272)

February 14, 1948: Gabud executed a


Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of
Protacio Tabal and his wife, Leodegaria
Bontuyan.

January 5, 1959: Tabal executed a


Deed of Sale in favor of Simeon Noval
and his wife, Vivencia Bontuyan
(daughter of Gregorio Bontuyan) for
P800.

May 22, 1968: the spouses Noval


G.R. No. 156357 executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over
February 18, 2005 the two lots in favor of Lourdes V.
492 Phil 238-260 Leyson for P4,000. Lourdes Leyson took
possession of the property and had it
Petitioners: Engr. Gabriel V. Leyson, Dr. fenced. Lourdes Leyson paid for the
Josefina L. Poblete, Fe Leyson Qua, realty taxes over the property. However,
Caridad V. Leyson and Esperanza V. the tax declaration issued thereon
Leyson continued to be under the names of the
Respondents: Naciansino Bontuyan and spouses Noval.
Maurecia B. Bontuyan
December 4, 1968: Despite his
CASE: knowledge that the property had been
This is a petition for review on certiorari purchased by his son-in-law and
of the CA Decision as well as its daughter, the spouses Noval, Gregorio
Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 64471 Bontuyan, who was then 91 years old,
denying the motion for reconsideration filed an application with the Bureau of
of the said decision.
Lands for a free patent over Lot No. March 30, 1981: Spouses Bontuyan ownership over the two lots, Lots Nos.
17150. executed a Real Estate Mortgage over 17150 and 13272. Engr. Leyson ignored
Gregorio Bontuyan’s claims: Lot No. 17150 (OCT No. 0-1619) in the letter.
a. The property was public land and was favor of the DBP as security for a loan of
neither claimed nor occupied by any P11,200. Naciansino Bontuyan had Spouses Bontuyan, thereafter, filed a
person earlier executed an affidavit that the complaint against Engr. Leyson in the
b. that he first entered upon and began property was not tenanted. Shortly RTC of Cebu City for quieting of title and
cultivating the same in 1918. thereafter, the spouses Bontuyan left the damages. They alleged that they were
Philippines and resided in the United the lawful owners of the two lots and
November 19, 1971: Free Patent No. States. Meanwhile, Lourdes Leyson died when they discovered, upon their return
510463 was issued over Lot No. 17150 intestate. from the United States, that the property
in Gregorio Bontuyan’s favor. was occupied and cultivated by the
March 21, 1974: An Original Certificate 1988: Spouses Bontuyan returned to the tenants of Engr. Leyson, they demanded
of Title was issued to and under his Philippines to redeem the property from the production of documents evidencing
name (OCT No. 0-1619) DBP only to discover that there were the latter's ownership of the property,
tenants living on the property installed which was ignored. Spouses Bontuyan
Lot No. 13272 was also registered under by Engineer Gabriel Leyson, one of the prayed that, after due proceedings,
the name of Gregorio Bontuyan. He then late Lourdes Leyson's children. Despite judgment be rendered in their favor.
declared Lot No. 17150 for taxation being informed that the said spouses
purposes effective 1974. (OCT No. 0- owned the property, the tenants refused January 21, 1999: RTC rendered
1618) to vacate the same. The tenants also judgment in favor of the Leyson heirs
refused to deliver to the spouses the and against the spouses Bontuyan. RTC
February 20, 1976: Gregorio Bontuyan produce from the property. The spouses held that Simeon Noval had sold the lots
executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over Bontuyan redeemed the property from to Lourdes Leyson on May 22, 1968,
Lot No. 17150 in favor of his son, DBP on September 22, 1989. who thus acquired title over the
Naciansino Bontuyan. property.
February 12, 1993: Surviving heirs of
April 28, 1980: Gregorio Bontuyan, then Gregorio Bontuyan (Jose Bontuyan, Spouses Bontuyan appealed the
103 years old, executed another Deed Nieves Atilano, Pacifico Bontuyan, decision to the CA. AFFIRMED WITH
of Absolute Sale over Lot Nos. 13272 Vivencia Noval and Naciansino MODIFICATION RTC Decision. CA held
and 17150 in favor of Naciansino Bontuyan) executed an Extrajudicial that the Leyson heirs were the owners of
Bontuyan for P3,000. Settlement of the Gregorio's estate and Lot No. 13273, while the spouses
December 2, 1980: OCT No. 0-1619 adjudicated Lot No. 13272 in favor of Bontuyan were the owners of Lot No.
was cancelled by TCT No. 1392 in the Naciansino (1994). 17150. CA ruled that the answer of the
name of Naciansino Bontuyan. Leyson heirs to the complaint
June 24, 1993: Naciansino Bontuyan, constituted a collateral attack of OCT
April 12, 1981: Gregorio Bontuyan died through counsel, wrote Engr. Gabriel No. 0-1619 which was proscribed by
intestate. Leyson, demanding that he be furnished law.
with all the documents evidencing his
Leyson heirs filed a motion for property was not claimed or occupied by
reconsideration insofar as Lot No. 17150 any person; and (b) that Lot No. 17150 Case law has it that an action for
was concerned, contending that their was located in Sirao, Cebu City, when, reconveyance prescribes in ten
counterclaim for the nullification of OCT in fact, the property was located in years, the point of reference being
No. 0-1619 contained in their answer Adlawon, Cebu City. Lourdes Leyson the date of registration of the deed or
constituted a direct attack on the said was not notified of the said application the date of issuance of the certificate
title. CA DENIED MOTION. and failed to file any opposition thereto. of title over the property. In an action
Gregorio Bontuyan was then able to for reconveyance, the decree of
The Leyson heirs then filed a petition for secure Free Patent No. 510463 on registration is highly regarded as
review with this Court November 19, 1971 and OCT No. 0- incontrovertible. What is sought instead
1619 on March 21, 1974. It appears in is the transfer of the property or its title,
ISSUE: the said title that the property's location which has been wrongfully or
WON Gregorio Bontuyan acted in bad was indicated as "Sirao, Cebu City." erroneously registered in another
faith when he applied for free patent for Indeed, the CA declared that Gregorio person's name, to its rightful or legal
the same parcels of land (YES) Bontuyan had acquired title to the owner, or to one who has a better right.
property through fraud.
WON the CA erred in holding that the However, in a series of cases, this Court
action of the petitioners to assail OCT Considering that Lourdes Leyson was in declared that an action for
No. 0-1619 and TCT No. 1392 and for actual possession of the property, the reconveyance based on fraud is
the reconveyance of the property respondents cannot, likewise, claim that imprescriptible where the plaintiff is in
covered by the said title had already they were in good faith when Gregorio possession of the property subject of the
prescribed when they filed their answer Bontuyan allegedly sold the property to acts. In Vda. de Cabrera v. Court of
to the complaint (NO) them on April 28, 1980. Appeals, 51 the Court held:

HELD: WON the CA erred in holding that the . . . [A]n action for reconveyance of a
WON Gregorio Bontuyan acted in bad action of the petitioners to assail OCT parcel of land based on implied or
faith when he applied for free patent for No. 0-1619 and TCT No. 1392 and for constructive trust prescribes in ten
the same parcels of land (YES) the reconveyance of the property years, the point of reference being the
covered by the said title had already date of registration of the deed or the
As copiously shown by the record, prescribed when they filed their answer date of the issuance of the certificate of
Gregorio Bontuyan filed his application to the complaint (NO) title over the property, but this rule
for a free patent with the Bureau of applies only when the plaintiff or the
Lands on December 4, 1968 in gross The CA, likewise, erred in holding that person enforcing the trust is not in
bad faith, thereby defrauding Lourdes the action of the petitioners to assail possession of the property, since if a
Leyson of the said property through OCT No. 0-1619 and TCT No. 1392 and person claiming to be the owner thereof
deceit. Gregorio Bontuyan falsely for the reconveyance of the property is in actual possession of the property,
declared in the said application: (a) that covered by the said title had already as the defendants are in the instant
he entered upon and cultivated the prescribed when they filed their answer case, the right to seek reconveyance,
property since 1918 and that the to the complaint. which in effect seeks to quiet title to the
property, does not prescribe. The whose . . . possession of the litigated a Torrens title for the land which they
reason for this is that one who is in property for no less than 30 years and and their predecessors never possessed
actual possession of a piece of land was suddenly confronted with a claim and which has been possessed by
claiming to be the owner thereof may that the land she had been occupying another in the concept of an owner.
wait until his possession is disturbed or and cultivating all these years, was titled
his title is attacked before taking steps to in the name of a third person. We hold Disposition: IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
vindicate his right, the reason for the that in such a situation the right to quiet FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED.
rule being, that his undisturbed title to the property, to seek its The Decision of the Court of Appeals
possession gives him a continuing right reconveyance and annul any certificate declaring the respondents the owners of
to seek the aid of a court of equity to of title covering it, accrued only from the Lot No. 17150 covered by OCT No. 0-
ascertain and determine the nature of time the one in possession was made 1619 and TCT No. 1392; and setting
the adverse claim of a third party and its aware of a claim adverse to his own, aside the award of attorney's fees in
effect on his own title, which right can be and it is only then that the statutory favor of the petitioners by the Regional
claimed only by one who is in period of prescription commences to run Trial Court are REVERSED AND SET
possession. against such possessor. ASIDE.

The paramount reason for this exception The Court hereby AFFIRMS the
is based on the theory that registration ownership of the petitioners of Lot No.
Similarly, in the case of David v. Malay, proceedings could not be used as a 17150. OCT No. 0-1619 and TCT No.
52 the same pronouncement was shield for fraud. Moreover, to hold 1392 covering the said lot are hereby
reiterated by the Court: otherwise would be to put premium on nullified. The Register of Deeds is
land-grabbing and transgressing the ORDERED to cancel TCT No. 1392 and
. . . There is settled jurisprudence that broader principle in human relations that to issue another title over the property in
one who is in actual possession of a no person shall unjustly enrich himself at favor of the petitioners as co-owners
piece of land claiming to be owner the expense of another. thereof. The trial court's award of
thereof may wait until his possession is P50,000.00 for attorney's fees to the
disturbed or his title is attacked before In the present case, Lourdes Leyson petitioners is AFFIRMED. No
taking steps to vindicate his right, the and, after her death, the petitioners, had pronouncement as to costs.
reason for the rule being, that his been in actual possession of the
undisturbed possession gives him a property. The petitioners were still in
continuing right to seek the aid of the possession of the property when they
court of equity to ascertain and filed their answers to the complaint
determine the nature of the adverse which contained their counterclaims for
claim of a third party and its effect on his the nullification of OCT No. 0-1619 and
own title, which right can be claimed TCT No. 1392, and for the consequent
only by one who is in possession. No reconveyance of the property to them.
better situation can be conceived at the The reconveyance is just and proper in
moment for Us to apply this rule on order to put a stop to the unendurable
equity than that of herein petitioners anomaly that the patentees should have
properties, the UCPB consolidated the
ownership over the properties, cancelling
the Nagtalon titles while issuing new TCTs in
UCPB’s name. UCPB then filed an ex parte
petition for the issuance of a writ of
possession from the RTC, but Nagtalon
opposed this petition by reason of a
pending civil case concerning the credit
agreement. The RTC agreed with Nagtalon,
but the UCPB brought this to the CA after its
motion for reconsideration was denied and
the CA reversed the RTC decision. Thus,
Nagtalon’s petitioned the SC to review the
CAs decision.
ISSUE AND ANSWER:
WHETHER OR NOT THE PENDENCY OF A
CIVIL CASE CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF
THE CREDIT AGREEMENT, THE
PROMISSORY NOTES, AND THE
MORTGAGE CAN BAR THE ISSUANCE OF A
Nagtalon vs. UCPB
 G.R. No. 172504
 31 WRIT OF POSSESSION AFTER THE
FORECLOSURE AND SALE OF THE
July 2013
 Ponente: J. Brion MORTGAGED PROPERTIES AND THE LAPSE
This is a petition for review on certiorari. OF THE ONE-YEAR REDEMPTION PERIOD.
Roman Nagtalon and petitioner, Donna No, it cannot be a bar.
Nagtalon, mortgaged some properties in a) THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF
order to secure a credit agreement they POSSESSION IS A MINISTERIAL FUNCTION
made with respondent United Coconut OF THE COURT. The rule is that once the
Planters Bank. The spouses failed to comply title to the property has been consolidated
with the terms of conditions thereof so the in the buyer’s name upon failure of the
properties were foreclosed and sold at mortgagor to redeem the property within
public auction. The UCPB was the sole and the one-year redemption period, the writ of
highest bidder. It was issued a certificate of possession becomes a matter of right
sale and caused the entry of the sale in the belonging to the buyer.
records of the Registry of Deeds. After the b) PENDENCY OF A CIVIL CASE
one-year redemption period had expired QUESTIONAING THE MORTGAGE AND
with Nagtalon having failed to redeem the
FORECLOSURE IS NOT A BAR TO THE
ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF EXECUTION. As a
ministerial function of court, the judge need
not look into the validity of the mortgage or
the manner of its foreclosure, as these are
questions that should properly be decided
by a court of competent jurisdiction in the
pending case filed before it.
c) EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE: 1) Gross
inadequacy of purchase price 2) Third party
claiming right adverse to debtor/mortgagor
3) Failure to pay the surplus proceeds of
sale to mortgagor. Nagtalon did not qualify
for any of these.
d) PETITIONER WAS ACCORDED DUE
PROCESS. Issuance of a writ of possession is
an ex parte petition, a non litigious
proceeding where the relief is granted
without requiring an opportunity to be
heard for the person from whom relief is
sought.

S-ar putea să vă placă și