Sps Refugia

8/9/2019 Sps Refugia

1/14

Sps. Refugia vs. CAGRN 118284 July 5, 1996

REGALADO, J.

This is an appeal by certiorari from the decision of respondent Court of

Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 34647 promulated on !ecember "# $""4 %hichre&ersed and set aside the 'udment dated April ("# $""4 of the Reional Trial Court of )alen*uela# +ranch $7(# in Ci&il Case No. 4347-)-"4 a,rmin%ith some modications the decision rendered by the etropolitan TrialCourt of )alen*uela# +ranch /$# in Ci&il Case No. 60/" on arch 4# $""4.

The records en bloc of the aforesaid cases sho% that pri&ate respondent-spouses Arturo Refuia and Aurora Timban-Refuia are the reisteredo%ners of a parcel of land and a duple1 apartment buildin constructedthereon located at No. $6 eriales 2treet# arulas# )alen*uela# as e&idencedby Transfer Certicate of Title No. ($/"7". Apparently# said title %as issued

pursuant to a !eed of Absolute 2ale e1ecuted on 2eptember $$# $"7 infa&or of respondent Arturo Refuia# but the purchase price of (0#000.00 %asreportedly ad&anced by his father# herein petitioner amerto Refuia. Thereafter# respondent Arturo Refuia obtained a housin loan from the2ocial 2ecurity 2ystem# usin the land as collateral to secure paymentthereof. 5n $"76# after the construction of the duple1 apartment buildin#herein petitioners immediately bean to occupy one door %hile respondentsstayed in the other unit.

5t appears# ho%e&er# that thins did not turn out %ell bet%een petitionersand pri&ate respondents# especially bet%een petitioner eli*a Refuia and

her dauhter-in-la%# Aurora# such that in ebruary of $""3# petitioners %eretold by pri&ate respondents to &acate the unit that they %ere occupyinbecause# accordin to pri&ate respondents# the family of one of their children%ho is married needed a place of their o%n. etitioners refused to lea&e#claimin that they o%n the unit they are occupyin by reason of the fact thatit %as actually amerto Refuia %ho bouht the lot on %hich the duple1apartment stood. +ecause of this# the matter %as brouht before thebaranay court of conciliation. No amicable settlement ha&in been reachedbet%een the parties# pri&ate respondents instituted an action for e'ectmenton ctober (0# $""3 in the etropolitan Trial Court of )alen*uela# +ranch /$.

n arch 4# $""4# the court a 8uo rendered 'udment dismissin thecomplaint for e'ectment based on its ndin that herein petitioners are thela%ful occupants of the premises. Thus# it held that9

:;i


2/14

by plainti?s@ tolerance alone. rom the e&idence on hand the Court is moredisposed to belie&e the position of the defendants that it %as amerto %hobouht the lot %here the duple1 apartment %as constructed by plainti?Arturo Refuia. As stated earlier# the amount of (0#000.00 %as %ithdra%non 2eptember $$# $"7# the date the !eed of Absolute 2ale =1hibits and

-$> %as e1ecuted. The consideration of the sale is for (0#000#00. The factthat a t%o-door apartment %as indeed constructed li


3/14

Eence# this petition %herein petitioners a&er that respondent Court ofAppeals erred9 =a> in i&in due course to respondents@ appeal despite thefact that it %as led beyond the fteen =$> day relementary period toappeal# =b> in disreardin 'urisprudence that factual ndins of the trialcourt should not be disturbed on appealD =c> in holdin that petitioners@ claim

of co-o%nership of the sub'ect premises is a mere alleation unsupported byany concrete e&idenceD =d> in rulin that the issue of o%nership# as raised bypetitioners# is forein to the issue of possession in an e'ectment caseD and =e>in re&ersin the decisions of both lo%er courts and orderin petitioners@e&iction from the disputed premises.

Anent the rst issue# petitioners contend that pri&ate respondents recei&ed acopy of the decision of the Reional Trial Court on ay 4# $""4 and thus theyhad until ay $"# $""4 %ithin %hich to le a petition for re&ie% before theCourt of Appeals. Eo%e&er# pri&ate respondents led instead a otion forReconsideration %hich %as denied by the Reional Trial Court in its rder

dated une ($# $""4. etitioners arue that since the motion forreconsideration is a prohibited pleadin under the Rule on 2ummaryrocedure and that the lin thereof did not interrupt the runnin of theprescripti&e period# the petition for re&ie% %hich %as led by pri&aterespondents only on uly ($# $""4 %as already %ay beyond the $-dayrelementary period and should not ha&e been i&en due course byrespondent court.

5n the case of a


4/14

reconsideration has the e?ect of only suspendin the period to appeal. Thisrule has been claried in the case of ;acsamana# et al. &s. The Eonorable2econd 2pecial Cases !i&ision of the 5ntermediate Appellate Court# et al.# asfollo%s9

:3> AA;2 +F T5T5N R R)5 T TE CHRT AA;2

The nal 'udment or order of a reional trial court in an appeal from thenal 'udment or order of a metropolitan trial court# municipal trial court andmunicipal circuit trial court# may be appealed to the Court of Appeals throuha petition for re&ie% in accordance %ith 2ection (( of +.. No. $(" and2ection ((=b> of the 5nterim Rules# or to this Court throuh a petition forre&ie% on certiorari in accordance %ith Rule 4 of the Rules of Court and2ection ( of the 5nterim Rules. The reason for e1tendin the period for thelin of a record on appeal is also applicable to the lin of a petition forre&ie% %ith the Court of Appeals. The period for lin a petition for re&ie% is

fteen days. 5f a motion for reconsideration is led %ith and denied by areional trial court# the mo&ant has only the remainin period %ithin %hich tole a petition for re&ie%. Eence# it may be necessary to le a motion %ith theCourt of Appeals for e1tension of time to le such petition for re&ie%.:

5t is not disputed that pri&ate respondents recei&ed a copy of the decision ofthe Reional Trial Court of )alen*uela on ay 4# $""4# and that their motionfor reconsideration %as led %ith said court only on the fteenth day of therelementary period to appeal# that is# ay $"# $""4. 5n such a case# the ruleis that the arie&ed party has only one day from receipt of the orderdenyin the motion for reconsideration %ithin %hich to le a petition for

re&ie% before the Court of Appeals. 5n the case at bar# pri&ate respondentsrecei&ed a copy of the order denyin their motion for reconsideration on uly6# $""4# and# %ithout mo&in for e1tension of time# %ere able to le theirpetition for re&ie% only on uly ($$# $""4D hence their appeal %as notseasonably perfected. 2trictly spea


5/14

present petition for re&ie% on certiorari. The lac< or absence of appellate 'urisdiction %as ne&er 8uestioned by petitioners either in their Commentsubmitted %ith respondent court or in their otion to !ismiss Appeal %hich%as rounded solely on the fact that the petition for re&ie% led before saidcourt %as not &eried.

!espite se&eral opportunities to raise the issue of 'urisdiction in the Court ofAppeals# petitioners did not challene its appellate 'urisdiction and did soonly after an ad&erse decision %as rendered aainst them. To be moreprecise# they raised the issue of 'urisdiction# for the nullication of thedecision of the Court of Appeals# %hen the case %as already on appealbefore this Court. They are no% barred from doin so under the doctrine ofestoppel by laches. Additionally# ha&in participated acti&ely in theproceedins before the appellate court# petitioners can no loner 8uestion itsauthority.

The main issue in this case demands the determination of %hether theetropolitan Trial Court# as %ell as the Reional Trial Court in the e1ercise ofits appellate 'urisdiction# ha&e 'urisdiction to resol&e the issue of o%nershipin an action for unla%ful detainer %here the issue of possession cannot beresol&ed %ithout decidin the 8uestion of o%nership. 5n the a,rmati&e# itbecomes necessary to delineate the e1tent and leal e?ect of suchad'udication.

Hnder Republic Act No. ("6# or the udiciary Act of $"4/# as amended# the 'urisdiction of the then municipal and city courts o&er actions for forcibleentry and unla%ful detainer %as dened as follo%s9

:2ec. //. riinal 'urisdiction in ci&il cases. - 1 1 1 5n forcible entry anddetainer proceedins# the municipal 'ude or 'ude of the city court shallha&e oriinal 'urisdiction# but the said municipal 'ude or city 'ude mayrecei&e e&idence upon the 8uestion of title therein# %hate&er may be the&alue of the property# solely for the purpose of determinin the characterand e1tent of possession and damaes for detention. 5n forcible entryproceedins# he may rant preliminary in'unctions# in accordance %ith thepro&isions of the Rules of Court# to pre&ent the defendant from committinfurther acts of dispossession aainst the plainti?.: =As amended by RepublicActs Nos. (6$3 and 3"(/>.

The la% %as subse8uently amended by Republic Act No. "67 %hich &estedin the city courts special 'urisdiction to resol&e the issue of o%nership incon'unction %ith the issue of possession %hene&er the 8uestion of o%nershipis brouht in issue by the pleadins# thus9

:2ec. 3. +esides the ci&il cases o&er %hich the City Courts ha&e 'urisdictionunder 2ection eihty-eiht of Republic Act Numbered T%o hundred ninety-si1#


6/14

as amended# it shall li of said section reardin the resolution of theissue of o%nership @in con'unction %ith the issue of possession@ is todisreard the &ery lanuae of the main part of the section %hich denotesunmista


7/14

are to be resol&ed by the city courts. And the 'urisdiction is concurrent %iththe Courts of irst 5nstance precisely because usually 8uestions of title aresupposed to be resol&ed by superior courts. 5n other %ords# this rant ofspecial 'urisdiction to city courts is to be distinuished from the po%erordinarily accorded to municipal courts to recei&e e&idence of title only for

the purpose of determinin the e1tent of the possession in dispute.

:5t bein clear# therefore# that in the main e'ection case# 1 1 1# the issue ofo%nership is in&ol&ed as sho%n by the pleadins therein led by the parties#and that under 2ection 3 of Republic Act "67# said city court e1ercisedoriinal 'urisdiction o&er the same concurrently %ith the Court of irst5nstance of isamis riental# the appeal of respondents %as rihtly made bythem to the Court of Appeals.:

Eo%e&er# on Auust $4# $"/$# +atas ambansa +l. $("# or the udiciaryReorani*ation Act of $"/0# %as appro&ed and it redened the urisdiction of

the Court of Appeals# the Reional Trial Courts and the inferior courts.2pecically# the ne% la% modied the po%er of inferior courts to resol&e theissue of o%nership in forcible entry and unla%ful# detainer cases# sub'ect#ho%e&er# to the 8ualication that a resolution thereof shall only be for thepurpose of determinin the issue of possession# to %it9

:2ec. 33. urisdiction of etropolitan Trial Courts# unicipal Trial Courts andunicipal Circuit Trial Courts in Ci&il Cases. etropolitan Trial Courts#unicipal Trial Courts# and unicipal Circuit Trial Courts shall e1ercise9

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

=(> 1clusi&e oriinal 'urisdiction o&er cases of forcible entry and unla%fuldetainer9 ro&ided# That %hen in such cases# the defendant raises the8uestion of o%nership in his pleadins and the 8uestion of possession cannotbe resol&ed %ithout decidin the issue of o%nership# the issue of o%nershipshall be resol&ed only to determine the issue of possession.:

2ubse8uently# this Court promulated its 5nterim Rules and Guidelines in theimplementation of +atas ambansa +l. $("# 2ection $0 of %hich pro&ides9

:$0. urisdiction in e'ectment cases.- etropolitan trial courts# municipal trialcourts# and municipal circuit trial courts# %ithout distinction# may try cases of

forcible entry and detainer e&en if the 8uestion of o%nership is raised in thepleadins and the 8uestion of possession could not be resol&ed %ithoutdecidin the issue of o%nership# but the 8uestion of o%nership shall beresol&ed only to determine the issue of possession.:

These issuances chaned the former rule under Republic Act No. ("6 %hichmerely allo%ed inferior courts to recei&e e&idence upon the 8uestion of titlesolely for the purpose of determinin the e1tent and character of possession


8/14

and damaes for detention# %hich thereby resulted in pre&ious rulins of thisCourt to the e?ect that if it appears durin the trial that the principal issuerelates to the o%nership of the property in dispute and any 8uestion ofpossession %hich may be in&ol&ed necessarily depends upon the result ofthe in8uiry into the title# then the 'urisdiction of the municipal or city courts

is lost and the action should be dismissed. ith the enactment of +atasambansa +l. $("# the inferior courts no% retain 'urisdiction o&er ane'ectment case e&en if the 8uestion of possession cannot be resol&ed%ithout passin upon the issue of o%nership# %ith the e1press 8ualicationthat such issue of o%nership shall be resol&ed only for the purpose ofdeterminin the issue of possession. 5n other %ords# the fact that the issuesof o%nership and possession de facto are intricately inter%o&en %ill notcause the dismissal of the case for forcible entry and unla%ful detainer on 'urisdictional rounds.

The intendment of the la% %as reinforced by the re&ision of the former Rule

on 2ummary rocedure in&ol&in special cases before the inferior courts#%hich %as promulated pursuant to 2ection 36 of +atas ambansa +l. $(". The old Rule# %hich too< e?ect on Auust $# $"/3># stated that9

:2ection $. 2cope. - This Rule shall o&ern the procedure in the etropolitan Trial Courts# the unicipal Trial Courts# and the unicipal Circuit Trial Courtsin the follo%in cases9

A. Ci&il Cases

=$> Cases of forcible entry and unla%ful detainer# e1cept %here the 8uestion

of o%nership is in&ol&ed# or %here the damaes or unpaid rentals souht tobe reco&ered by the plainti? e1ceed t%enty thousand pesos =(0#000.00> atthe time of the lin of the complaint.:

This Rule %as re&ised pursuant to a resolution of the Court n +anc %hichtoo< e?ect on No&ember $# $""$# and the afore8uoted pro&ision no% readsas follo%s9

:2ection $. 2cope. - This rule shall o&ern the summary procedure in theetropolitan Trial Courts# the unicipal Trial Courts in Cities# the unicipal Trial Courts# and the unicipal Circuit Trial Courts in the follo%in cases

failin %ithin their 'urisdiction9

A. Ci&il Cases

=$> All cases of forcible entry and unla%ful detainer# irrespecti&e of theamount of damaes or unpaid rentals souht to be reco&ered. hereattorney@s fees are a%arded# the same shall not e1ceed t%enty thousandpesos =(0#000.00>.:


9/14

Hnder the oriinal Rule# e'ectment cases %ere co&ered by the summary rulesonly %here the unpaid rentals do not e1ceed (0#000.00 and no 8uestion ofo%nership is in&ol&ed. As presently formulated# ho%e&er# all e'ectment casesare no% un8ualiedly co&ered by the summary procedure# %hich necessarily

implies that e&en if there is a need to resol&e the issue of o%nership# suchfact %ill not depri&e the inferior courts of 'urisdiction o&er these cases.

2ubse8uently# Republic Act No. 76"$# entitled :An Act 1pandin the 'urisdiction of the etropolitan Trial Courts#unicipal Trial Courts# and unicipal Circuit Trial Courts# Amendin for theurpose +atas ambansa +i. $("# other%ise of +atas ambansa +i. $("# as amended by Republic ActNo. 76"$. 5t must not be o&erloo


10/14

lost the moment it became apparent that the issue of possession %asintricately inter%o&en %ith that of o%nership. The la%# as re&ised# no%pro&ides instead that %hen the 8uestion of possession cannot be resol&ed%ithout decidin the issue of o%nership# the issue of o%nership shall beresol&ed only to determine the issue of possession. n its face# the ne% Rule

on 2ummary rocedure %as e1tended to include %ithin the 'urisdiction of theinferior courts e'ectment cases %hich li


11/14

Apparently# it could ha&e been some imprecision in lanuae or amisperception of the statutory te1t %hich enerated the ostensible doctrinal&ariance.

After due deliberation# %e nd and so hold that by &irtue of the e1pressmandate set forth in 2ection 33=(> of +atas ambansa +l. $("# inferiorcourts ha&e 'urisdiction to resol&e the 8uestion of o%nership raised as anincident in an e'ectment case %here a determination thereof is necessary fora proper and complete ad'udication of the issue of possession. Certainuidelines# ho%e&er# must be obser&ed in the implementation of thisleislati&e prescription# &i*.9

$. The primal rule is that the principal issue must be that of possession# andthat o%nership is merely ancillary thereto# in %hich case the issue ofo%nership may be resol&ed but only for the purpose of determinin the issue

of possession. Thus# as earlier stated# the leal pro&ision under considerationapplies only %here the inferior court belie&es and the preponderance ofe&idence sho%s that a resolution of the issue of possession is dependentupon the resolution of the 8uestion of o%nership.

(. 5t must su,ciently appear from the alleations in the complaint that %hatthe plainti? really and primarily see# Rule $3$ of the Rules of Court#the tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of thecommencement of the relation of landlord and tenant bet%een them.

4. The rule in forcible entry cases# but not in those for unla%ful detainer# isthat a party %ho can pro&e prior possession can reco&er such possessione&en aainst the o%ner himself. Reardless of the actual condition of thetitle to the property and %hate&er may be the character of his priorpossession# if he has in his fa&or priority in time# he has the security thatentitles him to remain on the property until he is la%fully e'ected by a personha&in a better riht throuh an accion publiciana or accion rei&indicatoria.


12/14

Corollarily# if prior possession may be ascertained in some other %ay# thenthe inferior court cannot d%ell upon or intrude into the issue of o%nership.

. here the 8uestion of %ho has prior possession hines on the 8uestion of%ho the real o%ner of the disputed portion is# the inferior court may resol&e

the issue of o%nership and ma


13/14

5t is indeed ironic that a forcible entry or unla%ful detainer case %hich isintended to be disposed of in summary fashion has oftentimes pro&ed to bethe most cumbersome and di,cult to decide. 5t is thus about time that thissituation be remedied if only to contribute to the solution of the %orsenin

problem of court conestion# by refusin to edify these cases by i&in thema full-blo%n treatment in all the courts in the 'udicial structure# and therebysa&e the courts the e1penditure of precious time and enery %hich couldother%ise be de&oted to more sinicant and &ital litiations.

ith these considerations in mind# %e no% proceed to the merits of thepresent case. etitioners claim to be co-o%ners of the sub'ect premises onthe basis of an alleed &erbal areement bet%een the parties to subdi&idethe property# as %ell as the payment made by petitioner amerto Refuia forthe purchase of the lot in the amount of (0#000.00. n the other hand#pri&ate respondents@ property rihts are supported by su,cient documents

and muniments of o%nership# namely# the deed of absolute sale# transfercerticate of title# and buildin permit in their names# the reularity in theissuance of %hich %as ne&er contro&erted nor put in issue by petitioners.

The etropolitan Trial Court and the Reional Trial Court are not in accord on%hether to treat the (0#000.00 as a loan or as payment for petitioners@share in the sub'ect premises# %hile respondent Court of Appeals belie&esthat the same is actually a loan. 5t bears sinicant notice that petitionersne&er refuted nor denied# in any of their pleadins led in this case from thecourt of oriin and all the %ay up to this Court# the alleation that pri&aterespondents a&e #000.00 as partial payment for the loan. No

counter&ailin e1planation %as ad&anced by petitioners %hy such payment%as made to and accepted by them as such.

urthermore# the alleation of petitioners that there %as a &erbal areementto subdi&ide the property bet%een them and pri&ate respondents is self-ser&in and e&identiarily baseless at this stae. 5n addition# their theory of an:implied trust: %as not raised in issue in the trial court and cannot thereforebe raised for the rst time in the present petition. At most# it %as merelyalluded to in petitioners@ Re'oinder led %ith the Court of Appeals# butpetitioners ne&er bothered to e1pound on or substantiate the same.Conse8uently# it cannot no% be raised as an assinment of error in the

present petition.

5n sum# and as held by respondent court# the Reional Trial Court:o&erstepped its bounds: in rulin that petitioners and pri&ate respondentsare co-o%ners of the property# %hich issue should be nally determined inthe separate action for specic performance reportedly pendin bet%een theparties. At this 'uncture# ho%e&er# the e&idence conduces to a ndin thatpri&ate respondents are in possession of the premises in the concept of and


14/14

conse8uent to their bein o%ners thereof. &en on such prima facie sho%in#therefore# pri&ate respondents can maintain the e'ectment case in&ol&ed.

hile it may be arued that petitioners %ere able to pro&e prior possession#such# ho%e&er# is not the issue in&ol&ed in this action for unla%ful detainer.

An action for unla%ful detainer is di?erent from a forcible entry case in thatthe former in&ol&es an act of unla%fully %ithholdin the possession of theland or buildin aainst or from a landlord# &endor or &endee or other personafter the e1piration or termination of the detainer@s riht to hold possessionby &irtue of a contract# e1press or implied# and neither is prior physicalpossession of the property by the plainti? necessary# %hereas in the latter#the main issue is one of priority of possession.

5n the case at bar# petitioners failed to sho% that they %ere leally entitled tocontinue occupyin the unit in 8uestion. n the considerations hereinbeforedetailed# %e aree %ith the position of respondent Court of Appeals that

petitioners %ould in e?ect be occupyin the premises by mere tolerance. Aperson %ho occupies the land of another at the latter@s tolerance orpermission# %ithout any contract bet%een them# is necessarily bound by animplied promise that he %ill &acate the same upon demand# failin %hich asummary action for e'ectment is the proper remedy aainst him. The statusof petitioners is analoous to that of a lessee or tenant %hose term of leasehas e1pired but %hose occupancy continued by tolerance of the o%ner.

5t has further been held that such tolerance must be present riht from thestart of possession souht to be reco&ered# to cateori*e a cause of action asone of unla%ful detainer. Eere# it cannot be ainsaid that petitioners@

possession %as by mere tolerance of pri&ate respondents from the &erybeinnin. At any rate# it has li

Documents

Sps Refugia