CivProCases 2009

8/12/2019 CivProCases 2009

1/17

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW I

CASE DIGESTS

[G.R. No. 129680. September 1, 1999]

CARRARA MARBLEvs. COMMISIONER OF

CS!OMS

FAC!S" Collector of Customs conducted a public

auction sale of various articles dul declared

abandoned after appropriate proceedin!s" Includedin t#e sale $as Lot %& advertised as '%& tons more

or less( of marble processin! mac#ine and !rindin!

mac#ine( rust and in )un* condition"+ Lot %& $asa$arded to En!r" ,ran*lin G" -olicarpio as t#e

#i!#est bidder t#ereof" En!r" -olicarpio #ad ta*en

deliver of said lot( #e $rote t#e Collector ofCustoms informin! #im t#at t#e follo$in! items

supposed to be part of Lot %& $ere missin!" T#e

missin! mac#ineries $ere later found installed in

t#e compound of petitioner Carrara Marble

-#ilippines( Inc"( Lipa Cit( .atan!as( true to t#einformation furnis#ed b En!r" -olicarpio #imself"

Conse/uentl( t#e aforesaid mac#ineries $ere

sei0ed 1per Warrant of Sei0ure and Detention from

t#e compound of petitioner" Durin! t#e sei0ure andforfeiture proceedin!s( Carrara Marble -#ilippines(

Inc"( failed to present evidence of pament of duties

and ta2es on t#e sub)ect mac#ineries" In its defense(it claimed( t#at t#e mac#ineries $ere purc#ased

locall from a certain 3aina -ere0 as evidenced b

t$o notari0ed deeds of absolute sale" Mean$#ile(En!r" -olicarpio intervened in said proceedin!s(claimin! o$ners#ip over t#e sub)ect mac#ineries as

t#e successful bidder in t#e public auction sale

conducted b t#e .ureau of Customs $#erein saidmac#ineries $ere part of Lot %&"

Collector of Customs declared t#e mac#ineriesforfeited in favor of t#e !overnment" -etitioner

appealed from t#e Collector of Customs4 decision to

t#e Commissioner of Customs $#o affirmed said

decision"

CTA dismissed t#e petition for revie$ filed b

petitioner5 affirmed t#e aut#orit of t#e CustomsCommissioner to sei0e t#e mac#ineries5 and ordered

t#e Commissioner to deliver t#e articles to

-olicarpio as t#e #i!#est bidder in accordance $it#its decision in CTA Case 6o" &7&8" 9n appeal( t#e

Court of Appeals sustained t#e CTA" :ence t#is

petition"

RLING" Incidentall( t#e forfeiture of t#e sub)ect

mac#ineries rests on a different statutor basis from

-olicarpio4s ri!#t to receive t#e propert as $innin!

bidder in t#e auction sale" T#e forfeitureproceedin!s $ere based upon t#e !overnment4s

ri!#t to recover propert ille!all $it#dra$n from

its custod" 9n t#e ot#er #and( -olicarpio4s ri!#stems from t#e !overnment4s contractual obli!ation

to deliver t#e mac#ineries to -olicarpio as buer in

!ood fait# at t#e public auction sale"

[G.R. No. 109#$$. O%tober 29, 1999]

SERAFIN MO&INA '(. CA, E!. AL.

FAC!S" T#e parcels of land in /uestion are t#ose

under t#e name of private resp C:IA6G" :et#eori0ed t#at sub)ect properties $ere sold to #im b

#is $ife MERLI6DA( as evidenced b a Deed of

Absolute Sale( and $ere subse/uentl sold bC:IA6G to t#e petitioner M9DI6A( as s#o$n b

t#e Deeds of Sale"

M9DI6A brou!#t a Complaint for Recover of

-ossession $it# Dama!es a!ainst t#e private

respondents( Ernesto :ontarcie!o( -aul ,i!ueroaand Teodoro :ipalla before t#e RTC of Iloilo Cit"

;pon learnin! t#e institution of t#e said case

MERLI6DA presented a Complaint?@ in 'Intestate Estate of 6elson-lana+ $#ere s#e $as appointed as t#e

administrati2( bein! t#e $ido$ of t#e deceased( #er

Dan Anc#eta -a!e % of %8 %%?=77@


2/17


CASE DIGESTS

first #usband" An Aut#orit to Sell $as issued b

t#e said -robate Court for t#e sale of t#e same

properties"

After due #earin!( t#e Trial Court decided in favor

of MERLI6DA declarin! as void and ine2istent t#e

sale of Lots" CA affirmed t#e aforesaid decision intoto. -etitioner found #is $a to t#is Court via t#e

present -etition for Revie$ under Rule >& see*in!

to set aside t#e assailed decision of t#e Court ofAppeals"

Raised for resolution #ere areB 1% $#et#er t#e saleof sub)ect lots s#ould be nullified( 1= $#et#er

petitioner $as not a purc#aser in !ood fait#( 1

$#et#er t#e decision of t#e trial court $as tainted

$it# e2cess of )urisdiction 222"

RLING" Anent t#e first issue( petitioner t#eori0es

t#at t#e sale in /uestion is null and void for bein!violative of Article %>@7 of t#e 6e$ Civil Code

pro#ibitin! sales bet$een spouses" Conse/uentl(

$#at is applicable is Article %>%= supra on t#eprinciple of in pari delicto, $#ic# leaves bot# !uilt

parties $#ere t#e are( and *eeps undisturbed t#e

ri!#ts of t#ird persons to $#om t#e lots involved$ere sold5 petitioner stressed"

-etitioner anc#ors #is submission on t#e follo$in!statements of t#e Trial Court $#ic# t#e Court ofAppeals up#eld( to $itB

Furthermore, under Art. 1490, husband andwife are prohibited to sell properties to each

other. And where, as in this case, the sale is

inexistent for lack of consideration, theprinciple of in pari delicto non oritur actio does

not apply. !as"ue# $s %orta, 9& %hil 490'.

T#us( Art" %>@7 providesB

Art. 1490. (he husband and the wife cannot

sell property to each other, except)1' when a separation of property was a*reed

upon in the marria*e settlements+ or

' when there has been a -udicial separationof property under Art. 191.

T#e e2ception to t#e rule laid do$n in Art" %>@7 of

t#e 6e$ Civil Code not #avin! e2isted $it# respect

to t#e propert relations of Ramon C#ian! andMerlinda -lana C#ian!( t#e sale b t#e latter in

favor of t#e former of t#e properties in /uestion is

invalid for bein! pro#ibited b la$" 6ot bein! t#e

o$ner of sub)ect properties( Ramon C#ian! couldnot #ave validl sold t#e same to plaintiff Serafin

Modina" T#e sale b Ramon C#ian! in favor of

Serafin Modina is( li*e$ise( void and ine2istent"

T#e principle of in pari delicto non oritur actio

denies all recover to t#e !uilt parties inter se" Itapplies to cases $#ere t#e nullit arises from t#e

ille!alit of t#e consideration or t#e purpose of t#e

contract" W#en t$o persons are e/uall at fault( t#e

la$ does not relieve t#em" T#e e2ception to t#is

!eneral rule is $#en t#e principle is invo*ed $it#respect to ine2istent contracts"

In t#e petition under consideration( t#e Trial Court

found t#at sub)ect Deed of Sale $as a nullit for

lac* of an consideration" T#is findin! dulsupported b evidence $as affirmed b t#e Court of

Appeals" Well


3/17


CASE DIGESTS

T#ese issues are factual in nature and it is not for

t#is Court to appreciate and evaluate t#e pieces of

evidence introduced belo$" An appellate courtdefers to t#e factual findin!s of t#e Trial Court(

unless petitioner can s#o$ a !larin! mista*e in t#e

appreciation of relevant evidence"

Since one of t#e c#aracteristics of a void or

ine2istent contract is t#at it does not produce an

effect( MERLI6DA can recover t#e propert frompetitioner $#o never ac/uired title t#ereover"

As to t#e second issue( petitioner stresses t#at #istitle s#ould #ave been respected since #e is a

purc#aser in !ood fait# and for value" T#e Court of

Appeals( #o$ever( opined t#at #e 1petitioner is not

a purc#aser in !ood fait#" It found t#at t#ere $ere

circumstances *no$n to M9DI6A $#ic# renderedt#eir transaction fraudulent under t#e attendant

circumstances"

As a !eneral rule( in a sale under t#e Torrens

sstem( a void title cannot !ive rise to a valid title"T#e e2ception is $#en t#e sale of a person $it# a

void title is to a t#ird person $#o purc#ased it for

value and in !ood fait#"

A purc#aser in !ood fait# is one $#o bus t#e

propert of anot#er $it#out notice t#at some ot#erperson #as a ri!#t to or interest in suc# propert andpas a full and fair price at t#e time of t#e purc#ase

or before #e #as notice of t#e claim or interest of

some ot#er person in t#e propert"

In t#e case under scrutin( petitioner cannot claim

t#at #e $as a purc#aser in !ood fait#" T#ere arecircumstances $#ic# are indicia of bad fait# on #is

part( to $itB 1% :e as*ed #is nep#e$( -lacido

Matta( to investi!ate t#e ori!in of t#e propert and

t#e latter learned t#at t#e same formed part of t#eproperties of MERLI6DA4s first #usband5 1= t#at

t#e said sale $as bet$een t#e spouses5 1 t#at $#en

t#e propert $as inspected( M9DI6A met all t#elessees $#o informed t#at sub)ect lands belon! to

MERLI6DA and t#e #ad no *no$led!e t#at t#e

same lots $ere sold to t#e #usband"

It is a $ell


4/17


CASE DIGESTS

Maintainin! t#at a sale #ad been consummated( I6C

demanded t#at t#e correspondin! deed be e2ecuted

in its favor" -etitioners refused"

-rivate respondent filed a civil suit for sHpecific

pHerformance and dHama!es a!ainst petitioners

and Carissa :omes and Development -roperties"-endin! resolution of petitioners4 Motion to

Dismiss( private respondent ne!otiated $it# Carissa

:omes $#ic# culminated in t#e purc#ase of t#esub)ect properties of Carissa :omes b private

respondent" -rivate respondent filed an AHmended

CHomplaint( droppin! Carissa :omes as one of t#edefendants and c#an!in! t#e nature of t#e case to a

mere case for dama!es"

CA ruled t#at alt#ou!# private respondent could no

lon!er amend its ori!inal Complaint as a matter ofri!#t( it $as not precluded from doin! so $it# leave

of court" T#us( t#e CA concluded t#at t#e RTC #adnot acted $it# !rave abuse of discretion in

admittin! private respondent4s Amended

Complaint"

ISSE" &id t#e CA err in affirmin! t#e t$o 9rders

of t#e RTC $#ic# #ad allo$ed t#e AmendedComplaintJ

RLING" T#e petition is devoid of merit" Wesustain t#e Court of Appeals( but for reasonsdifferent from t#ose !iven in t#e assailed Decision"

-reliminar IssueB -ropriet of Certiorari

,or t#e $rit of certiorariunder Rule ?& to issue( t#e

petitioner must s#o$ not onl t#at t#e lo$er court

acted $it# !rave abuse of discretion( but also t#at't#ere is no appeal( or an ot#er plain( speed( and

ade/uate remed in t#e ordinar course of la$"+

Since t#e /uestioned CA Decision $as a disposition

on t#e merits( and since said Court #as no remainin!issue to resolve( t#e proper remed available to

petitioners $as a petition for revie$ under Rule >&(

not Rule ?&"

,urt#ermore( as a !eneral rule( certiorari under

Rule ?& cannot issue unless t#e lo$er court( t#rou!#a motion for reconsideration( #as been !iven an

opportunit to correct t#e imputed error" Alt#ou!#

t#ere are reco!ni0ed e2ceptions to t#is rule

petitioners do not claim t#at t#is case is one of

t#em" ,or t#is procedural lapse( t#e instant petitions#ould be dismissed outri!#t"

6onet#eless( inasmuc# as t#e -etition $as filed

$it#in t#e %&&and considerin! t#e importance of t#e issue raised

and t#e fact t#at private respondent did not /uestion

t#e propriet of t#e instant -etition( t#e Courttreated t#e action as a petition for revie$ 1no

certiorari under Rule >& in order to accord

substantial )ustice to t#e parties" We $ill t#usproceed to discuss t#e substantive issue"

Main IssueB Admission of Amended Complaint

It is clear t#at plaintiff 1#erein private respondent

can amend its complaint once( as a matter of ri!#tbefore a responsive pleadin! is filed" Contrar to

t#e petitioners4 contention( t#e fact t#at Carissa #adalread filed its Ans$er did not bar private

respondent from amendin! its ori!inal Complaint

once( as a matter of ri!#t( a*ainst hereinpetitioners" Indeed( $#ere some but not all t#e

defendants #ave ans$ered( plaintiffs ma amend

t#eir Complaint once( as a matter of ri!#t( in respectto claims asserted solel a!ainst t#e non


5/17


CASE DIGESTS

b surprise or t#e li*e( $#ic# mi!#t )ustif a refusal

of permission to amend"+

True( Carissa #ad alread filed its o$n Ans$er"

-etitioners( #o$ever( #ave not et filed an"

Moreover( t#e do not alle!e t#at t#eir defense is

similar to t#at of Carissa" 9n t#e contrar( privaterespondent4s claims a!ainst t#e latter and a!ainst

petitioners are different" A!ainst petitioners( $#ose

offer to sell t#e sub)ect parcels of land #ad alle!edlbeen accepted b private respondent( t#e latter is

suin! for specific performance and dama!es for

breac# of contract" Alt#ou!# private respondentcould no lon!er amend( as a matter of ri!#t( its

Complaint a!ainst Carissa( it could do so a!ainst

petitioners $#o( at t#e time( #ad not et filed an

ans$er"

T#e amendment did not pre)udice t#e petitioners or

dela t#e action" Au contraire, it simplifiedt#e case and tended to e2pedite its disposition"

T#e Amended Complaint became simpl an action

for dama!es( since t#e claims for specificperformance and declaration of nullit of t#e sale

#ave been deleted"

RTC :ad 3urisdiction

-etitioners also insist t#at t#e RTC of Kue0on Citdid not #ave )urisdiction over t#e ori!inalComplaint5 #ence( it did not #ave an aut#orit to

allo$ t#e amendment" T#e maintain t#at t#e

ori!inal action for specific performance involvin!parcels of land in Montalban( Ri0al s#ould #ave

been filed in t#e RTC of t#at area" T#us( t#e c#ide

t#e CA for alle!edl misunderstandin! t#edistinction bet$een territorial -urisdiction and

$enue( t#ereb erroneousl #oldin! t#at t#e RTC

#ad -urisdiction over t#e ori!inal Complaint(

alt#ou!# t#e $enue $as improperl laid"

We disa!ree" True( an amendment cannot be

allo$ed $#en t#e court #as no )urisdiction over t#eori!inal Complaint and t#e purpose of t#e

amendment is to confer )urisdiction on t#e court" In

t#e present case( #o$ever( t#e RTC #ad )urisdictionbecause t#e ori!inal Complaint involved specific

performance $it# dama!es" In a (onde/a

istillers $. %onferrada( t#is Court ruled t#at a

complaint for 'specific performance $it# dama!es+

is a personal action and ma be filed in t#e propercourt $#ere an of t#e parties reside( $i#"B

Finally, w2e are not also persuaded by

petitioner3s ar*ument that $enue should belod*ed in a*o 5ity where the lot is situated.

(he complaint is one for specific performance

with dama*es.6 %ri$ate respondents do notclaim ownership of the lot but in fact reco*ni#e

the2 title of defendants by annotatin* a notice of

lis pendens. 7n one case, a similar complaintfor specific performance with dama*es6

in$ol$in* real property, was held to be a

personal action, which may be filed in the

proper court where the party resides. 8ot bein*

an action in$ol$in* title to or ownership of realproperty, $enue, in this case, was not

improperly laid before the (5 of acolod5ity.6

[G.R. No. 11)92$. O%tober 12, 1999]

!ENSORE- IN&S!RIAL CORORA!ION

'(. CA

FAC!S" T#e present controvers arose as a

conse/uence of t#e e2ecution of )ud!ment in t#ecase of '(ensorex 7ndustrial 5orporation $s. Alicia:ala and ;eirs of


6/17


CASE DIGESTS

After #earin!( t#e RTC( dismissed t#e petition for

certiorari and lifted t#e $rit of preliminarin)unction it earlier issued" ,rom t#is dismissal(

private respondent filed its notice of intention to

appeal Civil Case 6o" @%F to t#e Court of

Appeals" RTC !ave due course to t#e appeal to t#eCA" CA dismissed private respondent4s appeal for

its failure to file Memorandum"

-rivate respondent filed a Motion for

Reconsideration premised on t#e !round t#at it did

not receive an notice to file memorandum and assuc# its period $it#in $#ic# to file t#e re/uired

memorandum #ad not et lapsed" CA denied t#e

Motion for Reconsideration" In t#e meantime( even

before private respondent could receive said order

of denial of t#e motion for reconsideration( it filed aSupplemental Motion for Reconsideration $it#

praer t#at its Comment filed on 3anuar 8( %@@>(be considered as its Memorandum"

-rivate respondent filed a Motion for Leave to ,ileSecond Motion for Reconsideration( t#e resolution

of $#ic# alon! $it# ot#er pendin! incidents of t#e

case $as deferred b t#e CA" CA promul!ated aResolution acceptin! private respondent4s

e2planation and proceeded to treat t#e Comment

filed b private respondent as its Memorandum" Italso ordered t#e petitioner to file its Memorandum$it#in %7 das from receipt of t#e Resolution after

$#ic# t#e appeal s#all be deemed submitted for

decision" Accordin! to t#e Court of AppealsB 'Itappears t#at t#e appellant4s counsel did not receive

t#e aforesaid notice to file Memorandum 222 $e

denied t#e motion in a Resolution on Ma =?( %@@>

o/ te m(t+e/ prem(e t#at t#e appellant #ad

received t#e notice to file memorandum( $#ic# $as

previousl ordered to be re


7/17


CASE DIGESTS

Wit# respect to t#e second assi!nment of error( it is

petitioner4s contention t#at t#e /uestionedResolution of t#e Court of Appeals is null and void

for it undul set aside its earlier resolution

dismissin! t#e appeal( as $ell as private

respondent4s motion for reconsideration" It is alsoar!ued t#at t#e filin! of t#e second motion for

reconsideration did not suspend t#e period for

perfectin! an appeal and t#erefore( t#e order ofdenial of t#e first motion for reconsideration( alon!

$it# t#e earlier resolution dismissin! t#e appeal #ad

alread become final and e2ecutor"

T#e ar!ument fails to persuade us" T#e Court of

Appeals in t#e /uestioned resolution ruled t#at it

denied private respondent4s motion for

reconsideration 'on t#e mista*en premise+ t#atprivate respondent received t#e notice to file

memorandum $#ic# $as previousl ordered to bere" Ever court #as

t#e po$er and indeed t#e dut to revie$ and amend

or reverse its findin!s and conclusions $#en itsattention is timel called to an error or defect

t#erein" To do ot#er$ise $ould be tantamount to an

abro!ation of its solemn dut to do )ustice to everman"

:ere $e find t#at t#e Court of Appeals( in issuin!

its /uestioned resolution( committed no !rave abuse

of discretion amountin! to lac* of )urisdiction"T#ere are factual bases and le!al )ustification for t#e

assailed order" T#e burden is upon t#e petitioner to

demonstrate t#at t#e /uestioned resolution

constitutes a $#imsical and capricious e2ercise of)ud!ment" T#is( petitioner #as not done" To

reiterate our establis#ed rule( certiorari $ill not be

issued to cure errors in proceedin!s or correcerroneous conclusions of la$ or fact" As lon! as a

court acts $it#in its )urisdiction( an alle!ed errors

committed in t#e e2ercise of its )urisdiction $ilamount to not#in! more t#an errors of )ud!ment

$#ic# are revie$able b timel appeal and not b

certiorari" Moreover( t#ere bein! no !rave abuse of

discretion committed b t#e respondent court( in t#e

e2ercise of its )urisdiction( t#e relief of pro#ibitionis also unavailable"

[G.R. No. 9$89). &e%ember 13, 1999]

4IBON4OAvs.CA

FAC!S" ,lorencia T" :uibon#oa entered into a

memorandum of a!reement $it# siblin!s RufinaGo)occo Lim( Severino Go)occo and Loreta

Go)occo C#ua stipulatin! t#at ,lorencia T

:uibon#oa $ould lease from t#em 1Go)occos commercial lots at .inondo( Manila"

T#e conse/uent #oardin! of construction materials

and increase in interest rates alle!edl affectedadversel t#e construction of t#e buildin! suc# t#at

:uibon#oa failed to complete t#e same $it#in t#e

stipulated ei!#t but s#e failed to

do so" Conse/uentl( t#e Go)occos made severaverbal demands upon :uibon#oa for t#e pament of

rental arreara!es and( for #er to vacate t#e leased

premises" 9n December %@( %@F>( lessors sentlessee a final letter of demand to pa t#e rental

arreara!es and to vacate t#e leased premises" T#e

Dan Anc#eta -a!e 8 of %8 %%?=77@


8/17


CASE DIGESTS

former also notified t#e latter of t#eir intention to

terminate t#e contract of lease"

:o$ever( on 3anuar ( %@F&( :uibon#oa brou!#t

an action for reformation of contract before .ranc#

%>F of t#e Re!ional Trial Court in Ma*ati"

Doc*eted as Civil Case 6o" @>7=" S#e 1lesseealle!ed t#at t#e Go)occos #ad erroneousl

considered t#e first accrual date of t#e rents to be

Marc# %@F> $#en t#eir true intention $as t#atdurin! t#e entire period of actual construction of t#e

buildin!( no rents $ould accrue" T#us( accordin! to

:uibon#oa( t#e first rent $ould #ave been due onlin 9ctober %@F>"

T#e Go)occos filed Civil Case 6o" %7?7@8 a!ainst

:uibon#oa for 'cancellation of lease( e)ectment and

collection+ $it# t#e Metropolitan Trial Court ofManila" T#e t#eori0ed t#at despite t#e e2piration

of t#e F( t#eir verbal demands t#erefor

not$it#standin!5 t#at( in t#eir letter of December%@( %@F>( t#e #ad notified :uibon#oa of t#eir

intention to 'terminate and cancel t#e lease for

violation of its terms+ and t#at t#e demanded from#er t#e 'restitution of t#e land in /uestion+ and t#e

pament of all rentals due t#ereunder"

Ma*ati RTC rendered a decision #oldin! t#at:uibon#oa #ad not presented clear and convincin!

evidence to )ustif t#e reformation of t#e lease

contract" 9n t#e ot#er #and( in Civil Case 6o"%7=?7>( t#e MTC of Manila ordered :uibon#oa to

vacate t#e lots o$ned Go)occo" RTC of Manila(

.ranc# &&( reversed t#e decision of t#eMetropolitan Trial Court and ordered t#e dismissal

of t#e complaint in Civil Case 6o" %7?7@8"

:ence( Civil Case 6os" @>7= and %7?7@8 1t#at $asdoc*eted before t#e RTC of Manila as Civil Case

6o" @7&&8 $ere bot# elevated to t#e Court of

Appeals" CA rendered a Decision affirmin! t#edecision of t#e Ma*ati RTC in Civil Case 6o" @>7=

and t#e decision of t#e RTC of Manila in Civil Case

6o" %7?7@8"

ISSE" W#et#er or not t#e Metropolitan Tria

Court #ad )urisdiction over t#e complaint for

'cancellation of lease( e)ectment and collection+ inCivil Case 6o" @7&&8"

RLING" Well


9/17


CASE DIGESTS

Court could not favorabl act on t#e praer for

cancellation of t#e contract $it# anot#er containin!

terms su!!ested b t#e plaintiffs as t#e alle!ationsand praer t#erefor are no more t#an superfluities

t#at do not affect t#e main cause of action averred

in t#e complaint" T#e court t#erefore !ranted onl

t#e main relief sou!#t b t#e plaintiffs?&>( affirmin! t#edecision of t#e Re!ional Trial Court of ori!in $#ic#

dismissed t#e e)ectment case instituted b t#e

petitioners a!ainst t#e private respondent is SE!

ASI&E5 t#e order of e)ectment issued b t#e

Metropolitan Trial Court a /uo on 3ul 7( %@F7 is

4EL&5 and t#e private respondent and al

persons claimin! aut#orit under #er are ordered to

vacate t#e land and portion of t#e buildin!

correspondin! to Lot 6o" =?&7 of petitioner Loreta C#ua"

[G.R. No. 12#0$0. +/*+r 20, 1999]SICO IN&S!RIAL

CORORA!ION vs. CA

FAC!S" -etitioner Suico Industrial Corporation

represented b Esmeraldo Suico( its -resident

secured a loan paable in & ears( from respondent

-DC- .an*" As securit t#ereof( petitioner spousesmort!a!ed t#eir = real estate properties situated at

Mandaue Cit( Cebu" ,or failure to pa t#e balance

of t#e loan respondent -DC- .an* caused t#ee2tra)udicial foreclosure of t#e real estate

mort!a!e" It $as ad)ud!e as t#e #i!#est bidder and

a Certificate of Sale $as dul issued b t#e S#eriffof Mandaue in its favor" -etitioner failed to redeem

t#e said properties" After e2piration of t#e %


10/17


CASE DIGESTS

RLING" T#e petition does not deserve merit"

Fr(t" RTC .ranc# &? acted $it# !rave abuse ofdiscretion for #avin! issued t#e $rit of in)unction

$#ic# prevented t#e implementation of t#e $rit of

possession issued b RTC .ranc# =F" T#e issuance

of t#e $rit of in)unction $as not proper in t#eabsence of an le!al ri!#t on t#e part of petitioners

to en)oin t#e enforcement of t#e $rit of possession

in favor of respondent -DC- .an*"

We espoused in Arce!a v" Court of Appealst#atB

For the issuance of the writ of preliminary

in-unction to be proper, it must be shown that

the in$asion of the ri*ht sou*ht to be protected

is material and substantial, that the ri*ht of

complainant is clear and unmistakable andthere is an ur*ent and paramount necessity for

the writ to pre$ent serious dama*e.6

=7n the absence of a clear le*al ri*ht, the

issuance of the in-uncti$e writ constitute *ra$eabuse of discretion.7n-unction is not desi*ned

to protect contin*ent or future ri*hts, >here

the complainants ri*ht or title is doubtful or

disputed, in-unction is not proper. (hepossibility of irreparable dama*e without proof

of actual existin* ri*ht is no *round for anin-unction.6

W#en petitioners failed to pa t#e balance of t#e

loan and t#ereafter failed to redeem t#e properties(title to t#e propert #ad alread been transferred to

respondent -DC- .an*" Respondent -DC- .an*4s

ri!#t to possess t#e propert is clear and is based onits ri!#t of o$ners#ip as a purc#aser of t#e

properties in t#e foreclosure sale to $#om title #as

been conveed"

Se%o/7" Indeed( it is t#e ministerial dut of t#e trial

court to !rant suc# $rit of possession" In Sulit v"

Court of Appeals, t#e rule $as applied in t#ismannerB

8o discretion appears to be left to the 5ourt.Any "uestion re*ardin* the re*ularity and

$alidity of the sale, as well as the conse"uent

cancellation of the writ is to be determined in a

subse"uent proceedin* as outlined in ?ection &,

and it cannot be raised as a -ustification for

opposin* the issuance of the writ of possessionsince, under the Act, the proceedin* for this is

ex parte. ?uch recourse is a$ailable of the

mort*a*ee, who effects the extra-udicialforeclosure of the mort*a*e, e$en before the

expiration of the period of redemption pro$ided

by law and the ules of 5ourt.6

T#is is stated also in A"G" Development

Corporation v" Court of Appeals)

A writ of possession is *enerally understood to

be an order whereby the sheriff is commanded

to place a person in possession of a real or

personal property, such as when a property isextra-udicially foreclosed. 7n this re*ard, the

issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaserin an extra-udicial foreclosure is merely a

ministerial function.As such, the 5ourt neitherexercises its official discretion nor -ud*ment.6

!r7" T#e statute boo*s are replete $it#

)urisprudence to t#e effect t#at trial courts #ave nopo$er to interfere b in)unction $it# t#e orders or

)ud!ments issued b anot#er court of concurrent or

coordinate )urisdiction" In t#is re!ard( RTC .ranc#&? t#erefore #as no po$er nor aut#orit to nullif or

en)oin t#e enforcement of t#e $rit of possession

issued b RTC .ranc# =F"

[G.R. No. 12$3)#. */e 29, 1999]

ESIRI! vs.CA, E!. AL.

FAC!S"9n ? 3anuar %@@> petitioner Constancio

Espiritu lod!ed a complaint a!ainst private

respondents Gideon 6atividad and 3ose Casip $it#t#e MTC .ulacan( for unla$ful detainer and

recover of reasonable rentals for t#e use of t#eland plus attorne4s fees and liti!ation e2penses"

-etitioner alle!ed in #is complaint t#at private

respondents Mr" 6atividad and Mr" Casip #ad beenille!all occupin!s/uattin! on #is land b

buildin! a c#apel t#ereon alt#ou!# no buildin!

Dan Anc#eta -a!e %7 of %8 %%?=77@


11/17


CASE DIGESTS

permit $as ever issued for its construction" :e also

claimed t#at notices and demands for t#e removal of

t#e c#apel $ere made but private respondents failedto compl t#ere$it#"

-rivate respondents( averred t#at petitioner #ad no

valid cause of action a!ainst t#em as t#e propert in/uestion $as donated to t#eir con!re!ation( t#e

C#urc# of C#rist( and t#us o$ned b t#eir c#urc#

and not b t#em" T#e furt#er claimed t#at t#eMunicipal Trial Court of .aliua!( did not ac/uire

)urisdiction over t#e case as it did not fall $it#in t#e

meanin! of 'an action+ under Rule 87 of t#eRules of Court" T#e maintained t#at since

petitioner failed to alle!e t#at #e #ad prior

possession of t#e propert( and t#at #e $as deprived

of possession t#ereof t#rou!# an of t#e means

specified in t#e Rules of Court 1Rule 87( petitioners#ould ventilate #is ri!#t of possession b $a of an

action ot#er t#an unla$ful detainer or forcible entr"

MTC rendered its decision in favor of petitioner"

T#e trial court declared t#at it #ad )urisdiction overt#e case because $#at determined $#ic# court #ad

)urisdiction over t#e case as $ell as t#e nature of t#e

action $ere t#e alle!ations in t#e complaint"Moreover( a court $as not deprived of its

)urisdiction over an action for e)ectment simpl

because defendants set up a claim different fromt#at alle!ed b plaintiff" It up#eld t#e ri!#t ofpetitioner to e)ect private respondents from t#e

sub)ect propert for failure of t#e latter to

substantiate t#eir claim t#at t#e propert #ad beendonated to t#eir c#urc# or t#at t#ere $as an e2istin!

contract of lease bet$een t#em" T#us( t#eir

possession of t#e sub)ect propert $as deemed to beone of mere tolerance $it# an implied

understandin! t#at t#e $ould vacate t#e premises

upon demand"

RTC dismissed t#e complaint $it#out pre)udice to

its refilin! $it# t#e proper court" T#e lo$er court

noted t#at TCT 6o" %F7F $as issued in t#e nameof t#e #eirs of A!ustin Espiritu and Apolonia dela

Rama onl on %? April %@@ $#ile t#e propert $as

in t#e possession of private respondents since %@&>or for more t#an fort 1>7 ears" It ruled t#at it

$as mandated b Sec" %( Rule 87( Rules of Court

t#at e)ectment cases 1forcible entr and unla$fu

detainer s#ould be filed $it#in one 1% ear from

t#e unla$ful deprivation or $it##oldin! opossession" Since private respondents #ad deprived

petitioner of possession of sub)ect propert for more

t#an one 1% ear( t#e filin! of t#e complaint before

t#e Municipal Trial Court $as inappropriate"

-etitioner elevated t#e case to t#e Court of Appeals

b $a of a petition for revie$" :e contendedt#erein t#at t#e RTC erred in #oldin! t#at t#e MTC

did not ac/uire )urisdiction over t#e complaint as i

failed to alle!e facts constitutive of unla$fudetainer or forcible entr"

CA declared t#e petition devoid of merit based

mainl on t#e !round t#at t#e Municipal Trial Court

did not ac/uire )urisdiction over t#e complaint"

T#e sole issue before t#is Court is $#et#er t#eappellate court erred in dismissin! t#e petition for

alle!ed )urisdictional infirmities" -etitioner

maintainin! t#at $#at determines t#e )urisdiction oft#e court as $ell as t#e nature of t#e action are t#e

alle!ations made b t#e plaintiff in #is complaint

ar!ues t#at t#e complaint $as clearl one forunla$ful detainer5 conse/uentl( alle!ation of prior

possession of t#e propert need not be made"

RLING" -etitioner4s contention is devoid omerit" W#ile petitioner is correct in statin! t#at t#e

nature of an action as $ell as t#e )urisdiction of a

court is determined b t#e alle!ations in t#ecomplaint( a careful scrutin of t#e complain

reveals t#at petitioner4s cause of action is neit#er for

unla$ful detainer nor for forcible entr but someot#er action involvin! recover of possession"

In forcible entr t#e deprivation of p#sica

possession of land or buildin! is effected t#rou!#force( intimidation( t#reat( strate! or stealt#" In

unla$ful detainer t#e unla$ful $it##oldin! of

possession is made after t#e e2piration ortermination of t#e ri!#t to #old possession under

an contract( e2press or implied" In forcible entr

t#e possession is ille!al from t#e be!innin! and t#eissue centers on $#o $as in prior possession de

facto" In unla$ful detainer t#e possession $as

Dan Anc#eta -a!e %% of %8 %%?=77@


12/17


CASE DIGESTS

ori!inall la$ful but became unla$ful upon t#e

e2piration or termination of t#e ri!#t to possess t#e

sub)ect propert"

Clearl( t#e complaint failed to aver facts

constitutive of eit#er forcible entr or unla$ful

detainer" ,orcible entr must be ruled out as t#ere$as no alle!ation t#at petitioner $as denied

possession of t#e land in /uestion t#rou!# an of

t#e means stated in Sec" %( Rule 87( Rules of Court"6eit#er $as t#e action one for unla$ful detainer as

t#ere $as no lease a!reement bet$een t#e parties(

and t#e demand to vacate b petitioner on privaterespondents did not ma*e t#e latter tenants of t#e

former" -etitioner s#ould t#erefore avail of ot#er

remedies provided for b la$ to recover possession

of sub)ect propert"

[G.R. No. 1116)6. M+r% 3, 1999]

&A. &E CR vs. CA

FAC!S"-etitioner Silvina Torres Vda" de Cru0 andprivate respondent -riscilla Cru0


13/17


CASE DIGESTS

and dama!es for detention"+ .ut after t#e

enactment of ."-" .l!" %=@ 13udiciar

Reor!ani0ation Act of %@F7( municipalmetropolitan trial courts #ave been !iven t#e po$er

to determine o$ners#ip /uestions( t#ou!#

provisionall( in cases $#ere t#e issue of o$ners#ip

is intert$ined $it# t#e /uestion of possession"

Wit# t#e enactment of .atas -ambansa .l!" %=@(

t#e inferior courts no$ retain )urisdiction over ane)ectment case even if t#e /uestion of possession

cannot be resolved $it#out passin! upon t#e issue

of o$ners#ip( $it# t#e e2press /ualification t#atsuc# issue of o$ners#ip s#all be resolved onl for

t#e purpose of determinin! t#e issue of possession"

In ot#er $ords( t#e fact t#at t#e issues of o$ners#ip

and possession de factoare intricatel inter$oven

$ill not cause t#e dismissal of t#e case for forcibleentr and unla$ful detainer on )urisdictional

!rounds"

T#e )urisdiction of inferior courts to resolve t#e

issue of o$ners#ip in e)ectment cases( $#ile notplenar( is certainl broader t#an merel for t#e

purpose of determinin! t#e e2tent of possession"

9ne of t#e !uidelines set fort# in t#e same case of

efu*ia indicates t#e scope of t#eir po$er( t#usB

>here the "uestion of who has prior possessionhin*es on the "uestion of who the real owner ofthe disputed portion is, the inferior court may

resol$e the issue of ownership and make a

declaration as to who amon* the contendin*parties is the real owner. 7n the same $ein,

where the resolution of the issue of possession

hin*es on a determination of the $alidity andinterpretation of the document of title or any

other contract on which the claim of possession

is premised, the inferior court may likewise pass

upon these issues. (his is because, and it mustbe so understood, that any such pronouncement

made affectin* ownership of the disputed

portion is to be re*arded merely as pro$isional,hence, does not bar nor pre-udice an action

between the same parties in$ol$in* title to the

land.

6or does t#e fact t#at t#e parties base t#eir

respective claims of possession on evidence of

o$ners#ip ma*e o$ners#ip t#e principal issue int#e case or /ualif t#e action as one for

reconveance instead of e)ectment" T#e )urisdiction

of a court over t#e sub)ect matter is determined b

t#e alle!ations of t#e complaint and cannot be madeto depend upon t#e defenses set up in t#e ans$er or

pleadin!s filed b t#e defendant" Since t#ere is no

dispute t#at t#e alle!ations of t#e complaint filed bprivate respondent sufficientl /ualif t#e case as

one for e)ectment( t#e inferior court ac/uired

)urisdiction over t#e sub)ect matter t#ereof"

[G.R. No. 1#))18. *: 2), 1999]

MALONO '(. AMORA

FAC!S" Durin! t#e incumbenc of t#en Macario A

Asistio( 3r"( t#e ?an**unian* %anlun*sod ofCaloocan Cit passed Or7/+/%e No. 0168, S

1993, aut#ori0in! t#e Cit Maor to initiate

proceedin!s for t#e e2propriation of Lot =? of t#eMasilo Estate re!istered in t#e name of CLT

Relat Development Corporation 1CLT"

It turned out( #o$ever( t#at t#e Masilo Estate

straddled t#e Cit of Caloocan and t#e Municipalit

of Malabon( promptin! CLT to file a special civilaction for Interpleader $it# -raer for t#e Issuanceof a Temporar Restrainin! 9rder andor Writ of

-reliminar In)unction before t#e Caloocan Cit

Re!ional Trial Court( branc# %=>"

'-endin! t#e final determination and resolution of

t#e court on t#e issue 1territorial )urisdiction raisedin Civil Case 6o" C of t#e

Re!ional Trial Court of Caloocan Cit( t#e

e2propriation of t#e sub)ect propert be cancelled

andor abandoned"+ In t#e meantime( 'since t#ee2propriation of CLT -ropert is discontinued( t#e

appropriation for e2propriation of ,I,T

MILLI96 -ES9S 1-&7M can be reverted for usein a supplemental bud!et+ statin! furt#er t#at #e

certifies '1,or its reversion since it is not et

obli!ated( and for its availabilit for re( S" %@@F( a certain Eduardo

Tibor( b #imself and as a ta2paer( filed on 3ul

%&( %@@F( an administrative complaint forDis#onest( Misconduct in 9ffice( and Abuse of

Aut#orit a!ainst petitioners before t#e 9ffice of

t#e -resident 19-"

9- #ereb ad)ud!ed !uilt of misconduct and eac#

is meted t#e penalt of S;S-E6SI96"

RLING" T#e petition is impressed $it# merit"

-reliminaril( $e find a need to resolve a couple of

procedural issues $#ic# #ave a bearin! on t#e

propriet of t#is Court4s action on t#e petition( to$itB 222 $#et#er t#e Supreme Court ma entertain

t#e instant petition despite t#e absence of a priormotion for reconsideration filed b petitioners $it#

t#e 9-"

-ursuant to said )udicial polic( $e resolve to ta*e

primar )urisdiction over t#e present petition in t#e

interest of speed )ustice and to avoid futureliti!ations 1sic so as to promptl put an end to t#e

present controvers $#ic#( as correctl observed b

petitioners( #as spar*ed national interest because oft#e ma!nitude of t#e problem created b t#eissuance of t#e assailed resolution" Moreover( as

$ill be discussed later( $e find t#e assailed

resolution $#oll void and re/uirin! t#e petitionersto file t#eir petition first $it# t#e Court of Appeals

$ould onl result in a $aste of time and mone"

T#at t#e Court #as t#e po$er to set aside its o$nrules in t#e #i!#er interests of )ustice is $ell

CivProCases 2009

Documents

Transcript of CivProCases 2009