Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1907 > October 1907 Decisions > G.R. No. L-3532 October 21, 1907 - TY LACO CIOCO v. ARISTON MURO

009 Phil 100:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-3532. October 21, 1907. ]

TY LACO CIOCO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARISTON MURO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Frank E. Green, for Appellant.

Amzi B. Kelly, for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. REALTY; RIGHT TO POSSESSION; OWNERSHIP. — In determining the questions to which the summary actions set out in section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure are limited, the right of possession arising from such right of ownership can have no bearing, because the plaintiff is entitled to "restitution of possession" if he can show that he has been deprived of possession by any of the methods set out in that section, without proof of the lawfulness of the possession of which he was deprived.

2. ID.; ID.; ACTIONS FOR FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER. — Evidence of ownership of the property in question, or of the right of possession thereto, is not admissible at the trial in summary actions of forcible entry and detainer.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; "RES ADJUDICATA." — A judgment in such an action is not a bar to the recovery of damages when it is made to appear in another action that the possession to which the plaintiff was restored, or in which the defendants was confirmed, was in fact an unlawful possession.


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J. :


This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Samar, in an action to recover the sum of P1,370, which came into the possession of the defendants by virtue of a judgment rendered in favor of Justo Mendoza, one of the said defendants, and against Ty Laco Cioco, the plaintiff in this action, for rent of a certain house in Guiuan, Samar, and damages for the unlawful detention thereof. The latter judgment was rendered in the court of the justice of the peace of Guiuan, but was set aside by the Court of First Instance of Samar in certiorari proceedings.

The defendants in this action admitted that they received the sum of P1,370 as alleged in the complaint; one of them, the said Justo Mendoza, by way of counterclaim, alleged that the plaintiff was lawfully indebted to him in the sum of P989.99, damages for the unlawful detention of the house in question during its occupancy by the plaintiff.

There was no dispute as the occupancy of the house in question by the plaintiff for the period of two years and twenty-three days, nor as to the just rental value thereof; nor it is alleged that payment of rent had been made to the defendant, Mendoza, except the payment made by virtue of the said judgment in the court of the justice of the peace, which was set aside in certiorari proceedings.

The principal question at the trial was the right of ownership of the defendant, Mendoza, in the said house, and his right arising therefrom to damages for its occupation by the plaintiff. The trial court was of opinion that the evidence of record established Mendoza’s right of ownership, and sustained his counterclaim for damages, which were fixed at an amount equal to the rental value of the property during its occupation by the plaintiff, together with interest thereon at a legal rate until paid. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of P319.34, that being the difference between the amount received by the defendants by virtue of the judgment of the justice of the peace which was set aside in certiorari proceedings and the amount of the rental value during the term of the occupancy of the house by the plaintiff, with interest.

We think the evidence of record fully sustains the finding of the trial court, that the defendant, Mendoza, was the owner of the house in question and entitled to recover from the plaintiff an amount equal to the rental value thereof during the term of its occupancy by him. No question having been raised by the appellant as to the action of the court in allowing interest upon the plaintiff, we have not found it necessary to review its action in these matters.

Counsel for the appellant contends that the right of the defendant, Mendoza, to recover the rental value of the property, and his right to the possession during the term of its occupancy by the plaintiff is res judicata, because in a certain action in the court of the justice of the peace of the town of Guiuan, brought by Mendoza against the plaintiff in this action, Ty Laco Cioco, for the recovery of the possession of the house in question and damages for its occupation and use, judgment was rendered in favor of Ty Laco Cioco and against Mendoza, which judgment became final, no appeal having been taken therefrom. It appears that this judgment was rendered prior to the above-mentioned judgment in the same court in favor of Mendoza and against Ty Laco Cioco, which was set aside in certiorari proceedings.

We think that the contention of res judicata relied upon by the appellant is completely disposed of by the provisions of section 87 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A judgment rendered in a suit of unlawful entry and detainer, either for the plaintiff or defendant, shall not bar an action in the Court of First Instance between the same parties respecting title to the land or building; nor shall any judgment given therein be held conclusive of the facts found in another action between the same parties."cralaw virtua1aw library

The reason for these provisions becomes obvious when we consider the nature of the summary remedies for forcible entry and wrongful detainer, and the limitations imposed by law upon the evidence which may be submitted in such actions.

The question to be determined in these summary actions is not whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession upon submission of proof of ownership and the lawful right to possession of the property. The true question submitted is, whether he is entitled to be restored to the bare physical natural possession which he had at the time when it is alleged the defendant deprived him thereof; and section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that judgment for restitution shall be rendered in favor of the plaintiff in these summary actions (without regard to the question whether he is or is not lawfully entitled to the possession of the property in question as owner, or otherwise) where it appears that, having been in possession, lawfully or otherwise, he has been deprived thereof by force, intimidation, fraud, strategy, or stealth, or where it appears that a tenant, vendor, vendee, or other person unlawfully withholds possession from him after the expiration of such person’s right thereto by virtue of a contract, express or implied.

In determining the questions to which summary actions for forcible entry or unlawful detainer are limited, the right of ownership and the right of possession arising from the right of ownership can have no bearing, as the plaintiff is entitled to "restitution of possession" if he can show that he has been deprived of the bare physical possession by any of the methods set out in that section and this even though it should afterwards develop that the defendant was the owner of the property, and as such clearly entitled to possession as against the plaintiff. Hence, evidence of ownership, and of the right of possession of the property in question, is not admissible at the trial of these summary actions (Evangelista v. Tabayuyong, 7 Phil. Rep., 607; Alonzo v. Municipality of Placer, 5 Phil Rep., 71; 8 Mont., 365); and it would be a manifest injustice that a judgment in such a summary action, wherein this proof is not admissible, should be held to be conclusive of the facts found in another action between the same parties, where such evidence may be introduced, or be a bar to the recovery of damages when it is made to appear in another action that the possession to which the party was restored, or in which he was confirmed, in the summary action, was, in fact, an unlawful possession.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the Appellant. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1907 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3543 October 1, 1907 - LA CAPELLANIA DEL CONVENTO DE TAMBOBONG v. GUILLERMO ANTONIO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-3587 October 2, 1907 - FRANCISCO ALDAMIS v. FAUSTINO LEUTERIO

    008 Phil 688

  • G.R. No. L-2827 October 3, 1907 - MARIA LOPEZ Y VILLANUEVA v. TAN TIOCO

    008 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. L-3409 October 3, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. REMIGIO BUSTAMANTE, ET AL.

    008 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. L-3515 October 3, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ANDERSON MACK

    008 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. L-3520 October 3, 1907 - HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA v. JOSE ROBLES, ET AL.

    008 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-3571 October 3, 1907 - VALENTIN LACUESTA, ET AL. v. PATERNO GUERRERO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 719

  • G.R. No. L-3957 October 3, 1907 - DOMINGO REYES, ET AL. v. SOR EFIGENIA ALVAREZ

    008 Phil 723

  • G.R. No. L-3716 October 4, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BIBIANO BORJA

    008 Phil 726

  • G.R. No. L-3729 October 4, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ZACARIAS VALENCIA

    008 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. L-3744 October 5, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CARLOS CASTAÑARES

    008 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. 3067 October 7, 1907 - RUBERT & GUAMIS v. LUENGO & MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    008 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-3642 October 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO XAVIER

    008 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. L-2558 October 8, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JULIAN MACALALAD

    009 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-4052 October 8, 1907 - ENRIQUE F. SOMES v. HON. A. S. CROSSFIELD, ET AL.

    008 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. L-3715 October 8, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BIBIANO BORJA

    009 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. L-3749 October 8, 1907 - ARTADY & CO. v. CLARO SANCHEZ

    009 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. L-3807 October 8, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO CABIGAO

    009 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-4052 October 8, 1907 - ENRIQUE F. SOMES v. HON. A. S. CROSSFIELD

    009 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. L-3752 October 9, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. FAUSTO BASILIO

    009 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-4057 October 9, 1907 - MARIANO MACATANGAY v. MUN. OF SAN JUAN DE BOCBOC

    009 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. L-3181 October 10, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. GUMERSINDO DE LA SANTA

    009 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. L-3438 October 12, 1907 - MANUEL LOPEZ Y VILLANUEVA v. EVARISTO ALVAREZ Y PEREZ

    009 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-3594 October 12, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ALLEN A. GARNER

    009 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. L-3609 October 12, 1907 - EULALIA ESPINO v. DANIEL ESPINO

    009 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. L-3660 October 12, 1907 - JOSE TAN SUNCO v. ALEJANDRO SANTOS

    009 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-3887 October 12, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO FLORES

    009 Phil 47

  • G.R. No. L-3961 October 12, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDORO BASE

    009 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. L-3224 October 17, 1907 - MUÑOZ & CO. v. STRUCKMANN & CO., ET AL.

    009 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-3796 October 17, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIA RAMIREZ

    009 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. L-3905 October 17, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. REMIGIO DONATO

    009 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 3810 October 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. DAMIAN ORERA

    011 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. L-2870 October 18, 1907 - CITY OF MANILA v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    009 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. L-3766 October 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. PONCIANO LIMCANGCO

    009 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-3808 October 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO VICTORIA

    009 Phil 81

  • G.R. No. L-3873 October 18, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JUSTO DACUYCUY

    009 Phil 84

  • G.R. No. L-3760 October 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. WALTER B. BROWN

    009 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. L-3819 October 19, 1907 - JESUS SANCHEZ MELLADO v. MUNICIPALITY OF TACLOBAN

    009 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-3853 October 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN VILLANUEVA

    009 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-3949 October 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. GABINO SORIANO

    009 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-3532 October 21, 1907 - TY LACO CIOCO v. ARISTON MURO

    009 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-3644 October 21, 1907 - VICENTE QUESADA v. ISABELO ARTACHO

    009 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-3694 October 21, 1907 - JULIANA BONCAN v. SMITH

    009 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. L-3649 October 24, 1907 - JOSE GUZMAN v. WILLIAM X

    009 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. L-3761 October 24, 1907 - SALUSTIANO LERMA Y MARTINEZ v. FELISA MAMARIL

    009 Phil 118

  • G.R. No. L-3560 October 26, 1907 - MAGDALENA LEDESMA v. ILDEFONSO DORONILA

    009 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-3619 October 26, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. APOLONIO CANAMAN

    009 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. L-3676 October 26, 1907 - PONS Y COMPANIA v. LA COMPANIA MARITIMA

    009 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-3695 October 16, 1907 - ALEJANDRA PALANCA v. SMITH

    009 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. L-3745 October 26, 1907 - JUAN AGUSTIN v. BARTOLOME INOCENCIO

    009 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-3756 October 28, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ILDEFONSO RODRIGUEZ

    009 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. L-3633 October 30, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. TEODORA BORJAL

    009 Phil 140