ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
February-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 90628 February 1, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. JOSE A. RAYRAY

  • G.R. No. 97949 February 1, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ARMANDO P. GIRENG

  • G.R. No. 99375 February 1, 1995 : GLICERIO MANGOMA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105776 February 1, 1995 : ROMEO G. JALOSJOS vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 105992 February 1, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ROLANDO CABRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106161 February 1, 1995 : ILOCOS SUR ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110088 February 1, 1995 : MERLE A. ALONZO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110116 February 1, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. NICK A. NICOLAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111187 February 1, 1995 : R. TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1183 February 6, 1995 : CONCERNED CITIZENS vs. ARMIE E. ELMA

  • G.R. No. 97969 February 6, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. GUILLERMO PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100133 February 6, 1995 : EDGARDO C. MORALES, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104891 February 6, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RONNIE MALLARI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113591 February 6, 1995 : AGUIDO LACSON, JR., ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114427 February 6, 1995 : ARMANDO GEAGONIA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99346 February 7, 1995 : CASA FILIPINA REALTY CORPORATION vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109832 February 7, 1995 : FERNANDO FAROLAN vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116206 February 7, 1995 : JOSE M. BULAONG vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112573 February 9, 1995 : NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113547 February 9, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ANITA L. BAUTISTA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-92-6-251 : February 13, 1995 : EMERITO M. AGCAOILI vs. JOSE O. RAMOS

  • Adm. Matter No. 94-12-111-MeTC February 13, 1995 : AUDIT REPORTS OF ATTY. GENER C. ENDONA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-92-684 February 13, 1995 : OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. MAMINTING A. MALLI

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1068 February 13, 1995 : VICTOR ELIPE vs. HONESTO FABRE

  • G.R. No. 100635 February 13, 1995 : SPS. RAMON AND ERLINDA TARNATE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100665 February 13, 1995 : ZANOTTE SHOES, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104994 February 13, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. WILFREDO MORALES

  • G.R. No. 105834 February 13, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. JEAN B. BALINGAN

  • G.R. No. 110836 February 13, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. NICASIO V. CASIL

  • G.R. No. 110854 February 13, 1995 : PIER 8 ARRASTRE & STEVEDORING SERVICES, INC. vs. MA. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112027 February 13, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. PABLO B. BALSACAO

  • G.R. No. L-112513 February 14, 1995 : EDGAR R. DEL CASTILLO vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-858 February 15, 1995

    OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. PEDRO ANTONIO

  • G.R. No. L-41968 February 15, 1995 : DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. vs. DELIA P. MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45835 February 15, 1995 : ALFREDO BITALAC vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 75257-58 February 15, 1995 : POTENCIANA CALAHAT, ET AL. vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98277 February 15, 1995 : COCOFED, ET AL. vs. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106783 February 15, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. MODESTO R. DE ROXAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110068 February 15, 1995 : PHILIPPINE DUPLICATORS, INC. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114145 February 15, 1995 : LEE ENG HONG, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 93-7-696-0 February 21, 1995

    IN RE JOAQUIN T. BORROMEO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-741 February 21, 1995 : TEOTIMO GIL vs. EUFRONIO SON

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-985 February 21, 1995 : APOLINARIO MUÑEZ vs. CIRIACO ARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 94374 February 21, 1995 : PLDT COMPANY vs. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 107590 February 21, 1995 : PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MAYNILA vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 109032 February 21, 1995 : DENNIS DEL ROSARIO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109662 February 21, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RIZALDY GUAMOS

  • G.R. No. 112099 February 21, 1995 : ACHILLES C. BERCES, SR. vs. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 112285 February 21, 1995 : LOIDA ACAB, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113890 February 22, 1995 : SPS. GIL AND ELMA DEL ROSARIO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114032 February 22, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. IGNACIO CAMAHALAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117078 February 22, 1995 : ALFREDO G. LAMEN, ET AL. vs. DIR., BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-922 February 23, 1995 : MIGUEL A. ARVISU vs. AUGUSTO O. SUMILANG

  • G.R. No. 82631 February 23, 1995 : SOUTHEAST ASIAN FISHERIES DEV'T. CENTER vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85667 February 23, 1995 : ILUMINADO ILUMIN vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92432 February 23, 1995 : ALDORA LARKINS vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94986 February 23, 1995 : HATIMA C. YASIN vs. SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT

  • G.R. No. 101683 February 23, 1995 : LBC AIR CARGO, INC., ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103975 February 23, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RICHARD ZERVOULAKOS

  • G.R. No. 105710 February 23, 1995 : JAG & HAGGAR JEANS AND SPORTSWEAR CORP. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 106108 February 23, 1995 : CABALAN PASTULAN NEGRITO LABOR ASSO., ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107303 February 23, 1995 : EMMANUEL C. OÑATE, ET AL. vs. ZEUS C. ABROGAR

  • G.R. No. 108164 February 23, 1995 : FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST CO. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 109095-109107 February 23, 1995 : ELPEDIO LASCO, ET AL. vs. UNITED NATIONS REVOLVING FUND FOR NATURAL RESOURCES EXPLORATION

  • G.R. No. 112243 February 23, 1995 : SECRETARY OF HEALTH, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113779-80 February 23, 1995 : ALVIN TUASON vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101794 February 24, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ELISEO MORIN

  • G.R. Nos. 110991-92 February 24, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. MELCHOR DELA IGLESIA

  • G.R. No. 90628 February 1, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE A. RAYRAY

  • G.R. No. 97949 February 1, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO P. GIRENG

  • G.R. No. 99375 February 1, 1995 - GLICERIO MANGOMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105776 February 1, 1995 - ROMEO G. JALOSJOS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 105992 February 1, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO CABRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106161 February 1, 1995 - ILOCOS SUR ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110088 February 1, 1995 - MERLE A. ALONZO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110116 February 1, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICK A. NICOLAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111187 February 1, 1995 - R. TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1183 February 6, 1995 - CONCERNED CITIZENS v. ARMIE E. ELMA

  • G.R. No. 97969 February 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100133 February 6, 1995 - EDGARDO C. MORALES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104891 February 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONNIE MALLARI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113591 February 6, 1995 - AGUIDO LACSON, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114427 February 6, 1995 - ARMANDO GEAGONIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99346 February 7, 1995 - CASA FILIPINA REALTY CORPORATION v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109832 February 7, 1995 - FERNANDO FAROLAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116206 February 7, 1995 - JOSE M. BULAONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112573 February 9, 1995 - NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113547 February 9, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANITA L. BAUTISTA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-92-6-251 February 13, 1995 - EMERITO M. AGCAOILI v. JOSE O. RAMOS

  • Adm. Matter No. 94-12-111-MeTC February 13, 1995 - AUDIT REPORTS OF ATTY. GENER C. ENDONA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-92-684 February 13, 1995 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MAMINTING A. MALLI

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1068 February 13, 1995 - VICTOR ELIPE v. HONESTO FABRE

  • G.R. No. 100635 February 13, 1995 - SPS. RAMON AND ERLINDA TARNATE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100665 February 13, 1995 - ZANOTTE SHOES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104994 February 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO MORALES

  • G.R. No. 105834 February 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JEAN B. BALINGAN

  • G.R. No. 110836 February 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICASIO V. CASIL

  • G.R. No. 110854 February 13, 1995 - PIER 8 ARRASTRE & STEVEDORING SERVICES, INC. v. MA. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112027 February 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO B. BALSACAO

  • G.R. No. L-112513 February 14, 1995 - EDGAR R. DEL CASTILLO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-858 February 15, 1995 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. PEDRO ANTONIO

  • G.R. No. L-41968 February 15, 1995 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. v. DELIA P. MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45835 February 15, 1995 - ALFREDO BITALAC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 75257-58 February 15, 1995 - POTENCIANA CALAHAT, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98277 February 15, 1995 - COCOFED, ET AL. v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106783 February 15, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MODESTO R. DE ROXAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110068 February 15, 1995 - PHILIPPINE DUPLICATORS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114145 February 15, 1995 - LEE ENG HONG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 93-7-696-0 February 21, 1995 - IN RE JOAQUIN T. BORROMEO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-741 February 21, 1995 - TEOTIMO GIL v. EUFRONIO SON

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-985 February 21, 1995 - APOLINARIO MUÑEZ v. CIRIACO ARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 94374 February 21, 1995 - PLDT COMPANY v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 107590 February 21, 1995 - PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MAYNILA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 109032 February 21, 1995 - DENNIS DEL ROSARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109662 February 21, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RIZALDY GUAMOS

  • G.R. No. 112099 February 21, 1995 - ACHILLES C. BERCES, SR. v. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 112285 February 21, 1995 - LOIDA ACAB, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113890 February 22, 1995 - SPS. GIL AND ELMA DEL ROSARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114032 February 22, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO CAMAHALAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117078 February 22, 1995 - ALFREDO G. LAMEN, ET AL. v. DIR., BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-922 February 23, 1995 - MIGUEL A. ARVISU v. AUGUSTO O. SUMILANG

  • G.R. No. 82631 February 23, 1995 - SOUTHEAST ASIAN FISHERIES DEV’T. CENTER v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85667 February 23, 1995 - ILUMINADO ILUMIN v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92432 February 23, 1995 - ALDORA LARKINS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94986 February 23, 1995 - HATIMA C. YASIN v. SHARI’A DISTRICT COURT

  • G.R. No. 101683 February 23, 1995 - LBC AIR CARGO, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103975 February 23, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICHARD ZERVOULAKOS

  • G.R. No. 105710 February 23, 1995 - JAG & HAGGAR JEANS AND SPORTSWEAR CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 106108 February 23, 1995 - CABALAN PASTULAN NEGRITO LABOR ASSO., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107303 February 23, 1995 - EMMANUEL C. OÑATE, ET AL. v. ZEUS C. ABROGAR

  • G.R. No. 108164 February 23, 1995 - FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 109095-109107 February 23, 1995 - ELPEDIO LASCO, ET AL. v. UNITED NATIONS REVOLVING FUND FOR NATURAL RESOURCES EXPLORATION

  • G.R. No. 112243 February 23, 1995 - SECRETARY OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113779-80 February 23, 1995 - ALVIN TUASON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101794 February 24, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELISEO MORIN

  • G.R. Nos. 110991-92 February 24, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR DELA IGLESIA

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 109032   February 21, 1995 : DENNIS DEL ROSARIO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     

    SECOND DIVISION


    [G.R. No. 109032. February 21, 1995.]


    DENNIS DEL ROSARIO, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and JOSE LUNA, Respondents.


    D E C I S I O N


    PUNO, J.:


    The case stems from a simple action for ejectment. The subject of this ejectment suit is a two (2) storey house and lot located at No. 42 Scout Chuatoco Street, Quezon City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 84801. On October 9, 1984, spouses Oseas 1 and Loreta del Rosario through their only child and attorney-in-fact petitioner Dennis del Rosario mortgaged in favor of private respondent Jose Luna the questioned property. The consideration was TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P250,000.00). 2 Spouses del Rosario could not pay the loan and petitioner as their attorney-in-fact sold to private respondent on May 26, 1987 the questioned property for FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P450,000.00). 3

    Private respondent gave the couple a chance to buy back the questioned property but the latter failed to do so. Transfer Certificate of Title No. 84801 was then cancelled and on June 7, 1988 Transfer Certificate of Title No. 384106 was issued in the name of private respondent. 4

    Petitioner was allowed to stay in the property to give him enough time to find another place. On January 3, 1989, he wrote a letter to private respondent asking for an extension of ninety (90) days or until March 31, 1989 to vacate the controverted premises. Then on March 31, 1989, he requested for another extension of forty (40) days which was granted by private respondent.

    After the lapse of seven (7) months or on November 15, 1989, private respondent wrote to petitioner demanding that he vacate the questioned property five (5) days from receipt of the letter. Petitioner did not heed the demand letter. After conciliation efforts at the barangay level failed, private respondent filed a complaint for ejectment 5 before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 39.

    Finding that the ejectment case falls under the Rules on Summary Procedure, the court issued a summon to petitioner. Petitioner contested the complaint. In his affirmative defense, he averred that private respondent's claim of ownership over the controverted property is based on fraudulent documents. He further argued that there is a pending action between the same parties for the same cause of action. Allegedly, his father, Oseas del Rosario, filed against private respondent an action for quieting of title 6 before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 100. Thus, he urged that since there is a question of ownership of the property involved, the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City had no jurisdiction over the case.

    After the parties submitted their respective affidavits and position papers, the court ruled for private respondent, viz:nadchanroblesvirtualawlibrary

    "IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby orders the defendant (petitioner) and all persons claiming rights in his behalf to vacate the premises, and to pay plaintiff the sum of P1,500.00 per month as reasonable compensation for the use of the property from the time of filing this complaint until defendant (petitioner) vacates the same.

    The prayer for attorney's fees and moral damages are denied for insufficiency of evidence.

    No pronouncement as to costs.

    SO ORDERED." 7

    Appeals to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 99 and respondent Court of Appeals made by petitioner were to no avail. The former affirmed in toto 8 the assailed decision while respondent court's Third Division dismissed the petition with costs against petitioner. 9 On February 16, 1993, the motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit.

    This petition for review with prayer for issuance of writ of preliminary injunction faults the respondent court for:nadchanroblesvirtualawlibrary

    I

    [N]OT CONDUCTING HEARING FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESOLVING THE FACTUAL ISSUE RAISED BY PETITIONER PURSUANT TO SECTION 9(3) PARAGRAPH 3 OF B.P. 129.

    II

    [N]OT HOLDING THAT THE LOWER COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE NATURE OF THE SUIT.

    The petition is devoid of merit.

    First. Respondent appellate court correctly ruled that the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 39 had exclusive original jurisdiction over private respondent's ejectment suit against petitioner. This ruling is in accord with section 33(2) of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129 which vests municipal courts with exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer (ejectment). 10 There is no doubt that petitioner's stay at the questioned property was by mere tolerance. After the demand letter dated November 15, 1989 of private respondent, the continuing possession of petitioner of the questioned property became unlawful. The action for ejection was thus private respondent's legitimate remedy.

    The fact that petitioner's father filed against private respondent an action for quieting of title before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City does not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over the ejectment case. It will be noted that petitioner was not even originally a party to the suit for quieting of title. His subsequent substitution on September 21, 1992 as party plaintiff in Civil Case No. Q-89-3742 due to the death of his father did not change the situation. 11 Trite to restate, the issue in an ejectment case is the right to physical possession of the premises or possession de facto. 12 The suit is intended to restore to the aggrieved party the possession of the premises which had been detained from him. It is independent of any claim of ownership or possession de jure that either party may set forth in his pleadings or in other cases. In Asset Privatization Trust vs. Court of Appeals, 13 the Court en banc held:nadchanroblesvirtualawlibrary

    "[T]he judgment rendered in an ejectment suit shall not bar an action between the same parties respecting title to the land or building nor shall it be held conclusive of the facts therein found in case between the same parties upon a different cause of action involving possession. Furthermore, in ejectment cases the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the allegations of the complaint not by the defense raised by defendant." (Citations omitted)

    It appears obvious that petitioner is but engaged in a maneuver to delay and block the ejectment case against him. Indeed, the record reveals that the certificate of title of the controverted property bears an annotation of his Special Power of Attorney to sell and mortgage the said property; 14 that he caused the transfer of title in favor of private respondent; 15 and he wrote two (2) letters to private respondent asking for extensions of time to vacate the questioned premises. 16

    Second. Under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure which took effect on November 15, 1991, all types of ejectment cases are now covered by the summary procedure regardless of whether the issue of ownership of the subject property is pleaded by a party. 17 The fact that the ejectment case was filed on February 7, 1990 prior to the date of effectivity on November 15, 1991 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure does not matter. Well-settled is the rule that procedural rules may be given retroactive application. There are no vested rights on rules of procedure. 18 A remedial statute may be made applicable to cases pending at the time of its enactment. 19

    Third. Petitioner's avowal that the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 39 should have conducted a hearing in addition to the affidavits and position papers they submitted, in order to determine the genuineness of the Deed of Sale and private respondent's extent of possession, has no legal leg to stand on. Again, under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure the adjudication of cases can be done on the basis of affidavits and position papers. 20 The court is no longer allowed to hold a hearing to receive testimonial evidence. Should the court find it necessary to clarify certain issues, it may require the parties to submit affidavits or other evidence. 21 The proceeding must be as summary as possible in order not to defeat the need to dispose ejectment cases in as fast a time as possible. The reason is because cases involving possession of properties usually pose a threat to the peace of society.

    And fourth. Petitioner's insistence that pursuant to section 9 paragraph 3 of B.P. 129 22 respondent appellate court should have conducted a trial of the case to determine whether or not private respondent's claim of ownership is genuine and the loan transaction is an equitable mortgage lacks merit. The affidavits and positions papers submitted by petitioner and private respondent contained all the material evidence necessary for the judicious disposition of the ejectment case. The law did not intend that respondent appellate court should conduct another trial of the ejectment case appealed to it. The power of the respondent appellate court to receive evidence is now a limited one. Under section 9 paragraph 3 of B.P. Blg. 129 as amended by section 5 of E.O. No. 33, the power is restricted, viz:nadchanroblesvirtualawlibrary

    "The Court of Appeals shall have the power to receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in . . . (b) cases falling within its appellate jurisdiction wherein a motion for new trial based only on the ground of newly discovered is granted by it."

    Regretfully, petitioner has overlooked this amendment.

    IN VIEW HEREOF, the appealed Decision of November 13, 1992 is AFFIRMED. Double costs against petitioner. nadchanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Narvasa, C.J., Bidin and Regalado, JJ., concur.

    Mendoza, J., took no part.

    Endnotes:




    1. Oseas del Rosario died on September 19, 1991. Annex "L," Rollo, p. 61.

    2. The consideration was originally P150,000.00. It was later increased by another P100,000.00. Rollo, p. 20.

    3. Annex "D."

    4. Court of Appeals Decision, p. 1; Rollo, p. 20.

    5. Docketed as Civil Case No. 2476.

    6. Civil Case No. Q-89-3742.

    7. Judge Lita S. Tolentino-Genilo, Presiding.

    8. Judge Felix M. De Guzman, Presiding.

    9. Justice Salome A. Montoya, Chairman; Justice Vicente V. Mendoza and Justice Jaime M. Lantin, Members.

    10. See Joven vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80739, August 20, 1992, 212, SCRA 700.

    11. Rollo, p. 81.

    12. See University Physicians Services, Inc., vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100424, June 13, 1994, 233 SCRA 86.

    13. G.R. No. 103277, February 3, 1994, 229 SCRA 627.

    14. Rollo, p. 89.

    15. Ibid.

    16. Annex "E" and Annex "F."

    17. See Notes and Cases on the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, Ernani C. Pano and Daniel T. Martinez, 1991 ed., p. 3.

    18. Supra., Asset Privatization Trust vs. Court of Appeals, p. 634.

    19. Supra., citing Aris (Phil) Inc., vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 90501, August 5, 1991, 200 SCRA 246.

    20. Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, Section 10. — Within thirty (30) days after receipt of the last affidavits and position papers, or the expiration of the period for filing the same, the court shall render judgment.

    However, should the court find it necessary to clarify certain material facts, it may, during the said period, issue an order specifying the matters to be clarified, and require the parties to submit affidavits or other evidence on the said matters within ten (10) days from receipt of said order. Judgment shall be rendered within fifteen (15) days after the receipt of the last clarificatory affidavits, or the expiration of the period for filing the same.

    The court shall not resort to the clarificatory procedure to gain time for the resolution of the judgment.

    21. Supra.

    22. B.P. Blg. 129. Section 9. Jurisdiction. — The Intermediate Appellate Court shall exercise:nadchanroblesvirtualawlibrary

    xxx xxx xxx


    The Intermediate Appellate Court shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials and further proceedings.


    G.R. No. 109032   February 21, 1995 : DENNIS DEL ROSARIO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED