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
 

   
June-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 87775 June 1, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. FEDERICO DADO

  • G.R. Nos. 97162-64 June 1, 1995 : ALFREDO L. OANIA, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101309 June 1, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. FELICIANO STA. AGATA

  • G.R. No. 106283 June 1, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RICHARD VALLENA

  • G.R. No. 107751 June 1, 1995 : LETICIA LIGON vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-894 MTJ June 2, 1995 : FELIXBERTO N. BOQUIREN vs. EMPERATRIZ DEL ROSARIO-CRUZ, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1057 June 2, 1995 : CRISPO B. BORJA, SR. vs. ROQUE ANGELES

  • G.R. No. 74240 June 2, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. DAVID B. SUNGA

  • G.R. No. 75723 June 2, 1995 : SIMEON FLORO vs. ORLANDO A. LLENADO

  • G.R. No. 100921 June 2, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ALBERTO B. SOMOOC

  • G.R. No. 102253 June 2, 1995 : SOUTH SEA SURETY AND INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107225 June 2, 1995 : ARCHILLES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, ET AL. vs. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111484 June 2, 1995 : MARIANO R. DE LUNA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112844 June 2, 1995 : PHILIPPINE MERCHANT MARINE SCHOOL, INC., ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113843 June 2, 1995 : LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO vs. ELI G.C. NATIVIDAD

  • G.R. No. 114787 June 2, 1995 : MAM REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1150 June 5, 1995 : JULIO V. CUI, ET AL. vs. JOB B. MADAYAG

  • G.R. No. 102522 June 5, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. JUDRITO B. ADAYA

  • G.R. No. 115829 June 5, 1995 : MARIANO T. NASSER vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117438 June 8, 1995 : RAUL SESBREÑO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91890 June 9, 1995 : PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1142 June 16, 1995 : OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. MANUEL B. GADON, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1217 June 16, 1995 : RODRIGO SANTOS vs. CARLOS C. OFILADA

  • G.R. Nos. 73257-58 June 16, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RICARDO CAYANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97285 June 16, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. CRESENTE PIJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102719 June 16, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RONNIE QUINONES

  • G.R. No. 104662 June 16, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. LEONARDO M. LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. 107362 June 16, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. BERNARD SIA

  • G.R. No. 112313 June 16, 1995 : BIENVENIDO S. EVANGELISTA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114138 June 16, 1995 : PONCIANO LAYUG vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 111810-11 June 16, 1995 : JAMES YU, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85723 June 19, 1995 : BIENVENIDO RODRIGUEZ vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96107 June 19, 1995 : CORAZON JALBUENA DE LEON vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98395 June 19, 1995 : GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99858 June 19, 1995 : PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORP. vs. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104687-88 June 19, 1995 : PONCIANO CORTEZ, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107979 June 19, 1995 : DANILO F. GATCHALIAN vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111342 June 19, 1995 : PORFIRIO BALLADARES, JR., ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1035 June 21, 1995 : EMETERIO GALLO vs. JOSE CORDERO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-93-799 June 21, 1995 : NELIA B. ESMERALDA-BAROY vs. JUVY N. COSCA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1119 June 21, 1995 : ROSALIND M. APAGA vs. PHOEBE P. PONCE

  • G.R. No. 57023 June 22, 1995 : RAYMUNDO DE LA PAZ, ET AL. vs. DOMINGO D. PANIS

  • G.R. No. 96754 June 22, 1995 : JAMES L. CHIONGBIAN, ET AL. vs. OSCAR M. ORBOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105135 June 22, 1995 : SUNLIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108490 June 22, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RENATO CANTURIA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-884 June 23, 1995 : JULIUS N. RABOCA vs. GREGORIO D. PANTANOSAS, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-89-384 June 23, 1995 : PEDRO SAN JOSE vs. BENJAMIN CENTENO

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1317 June 27, 1995 : DALMACIO CELINO vs. ZEUS C. ABROGAR

  • G.R. Nos. 101107-08 June 27, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ROMEO B. BARROS

  • G.R. No. 106082 June 27, 1995 : LORETO VDA. DE BALTAZAR, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108662 June 27, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. FERNANDO N. HALILI

  • G.R. No. 111105 June 27, 1995 : ROLANDO REVIDAD, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111190 June 27, 1995 : LORETO D. DE LA VICTORIA vs. JOSE BURGOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112850 June 27, 1995 : GREENHILLS AIRCON SERVICES, INC., ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113690 June 27, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. VICENTE VITOR

  • G.R. No. 115656 June 27, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. NILO B. RAMOS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1056 June 29, 1995 : ALFONSO L. VELASCO vs. MA. LOURDES C. PASCUAL

  • G.R. No. 87187 June 29, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. PAULINO O. RIVERA

  • G.R. Nos. 112070-71 June 29, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. SIXTO VIÑAS, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114091 June 29, 1995 : BACALTOS COAL MINES, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117186 June 29, 1995 : ALLAN M. LOYOLA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104234 June 30, 1995 : AIR FRANCE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107623 June 30, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ANGELITO P. MANALO

  • G.R. No. 110889 June 30, 1995 : JOY L. BOMBASE vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87775 June 1, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO DADO

  • G.R. Nos. 97162-64 June 1, 1995 - ALFREDO L. OANIA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101309 June 1, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIANO STA. AGATA

  • G.R. No. 106283 June 1, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICHARD VALLENA

  • G.R. No. 107751 June 1, 1995 - LETICIA LIGON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-894 MTJ June 2, 1995 - FELIXBERTO N. BOQUIREN v. EMPERATRIZ DEL ROSARIO-CRUZ, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1057 June 2, 1995 - CRISPO B. BORJA, SR. v. ROQUE ANGELES

  • G.R. No. 74240 June 2, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID B. SUNGA

  • G.R. No. 75723 June 2, 1995 - SIMEON FLORO v. ORLANDO A. LLENADO

  • G.R. No. 100921 June 2, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO B. SOMOOC

  • G.R. No. 102253 June 2, 1995 - SOUTH SEA SURETY AND INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107225 June 2, 1995 - ARCHILLES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111484 June 2, 1995 - MARIANO R. DE LUNA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112844 June 2, 1995 - PHILIPPINE MERCHANT MARINE SCHOOL, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113843 June 2, 1995 - LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO v. ELI G.C. NATIVIDAD

  • G.R. No. 114787 June 2, 1995 - MAM REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1150 June 5, 1995 - JULIO V. CUI, ET AL. v. JOB B. MADAYAG

  • G.R. No. 102522 June 5, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUDRITO B. ADAYA

  • G.R. No. 115829 June 5, 1995 - MARIANO T. NASSER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117438 June 8, 1995 - RAUL SESBREÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91890 June 9, 1995 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1142 June 16, 1995 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MANUEL B. GADON, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1217 June 16, 1995 - RODRIGO SANTOS v. CARLOS C. OFILADA

  • G.R. Nos. 73257-58 June 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO CAYANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97285 June 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENTE PIJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102719 June 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONNIE QUINONES

  • G.R. No. 104662 June 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO M. LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. 107362 June 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARD SIA

  • G.R. No. 112313 June 16, 1995 - BIENVENIDO S. EVANGELISTA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114138 June 16, 1995 - PONCIANO LAYUG v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 111810-11 June 16, 1995 - JAMES YU, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85723 June 19, 1995 - BIENVENIDO RODRIGUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96107 June 19, 1995 - CORAZON JALBUENA DE LEON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98395 June 19, 1995 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99858 June 19, 1995 - PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104687-88 June 19, 1995 - PONCIANO CORTEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107979 June 19, 1995 - DANILO F. GATCHALIAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111342 June 19, 1995 - PORFIRIO BALLADARES, JR., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1035 June 21, 1995 - EMETERIO GALLO v. JOSE CORDERO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-93-799 June 21, 1995 - NELIA B. ESMERALDA-BAROY v. JUVY N. COSCA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1119 June 21, 1995 - ROSALIND M. APAGA v. PHOEBE P. PONCE

  • G.R. No. 57023 June 22, 1995 - RAYMUNDO DE LA PAZ, ET AL. v. DOMINGO D. PANIS

  • G.R. No. 96754 June 22, 1995 - JAMES L. CHIONGBIAN, ET AL. v. OSCAR M. ORBOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105135 June 22, 1995 - SUNLIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108490 June 22, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO CANTURIA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-884 June 23, 1995 - JULIUS N. RABOCA v. GREGORIO D. PANTANOSAS, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-89-384 June 23, 1995 - PEDRO SAN JOSE v. BENJAMIN CENTENO

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1317 June 27, 1995 - DALMACIO CELINO v. ZEUS C. ABROGAR

  • G.R. Nos. 101107-08 June 27, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO B. BARROS

  • G.R. No. 106082 June 27, 1995 - LORETO VDA. DE BALTAZAR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108662 June 27, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO N. HALILI

  • G.R. No. 111105 June 27, 1995 - ROLANDO REVIDAD, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111190 June 27, 1995 - LORETO D. DE LA VICTORIA v. JOSE BURGOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112850 June 27, 1995 - GREENHILLS AIRCON SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113690 June 27, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE VITOR

  • G.R. No. 115656 June 27, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NILO B. RAMOS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1056 June 29, 1995 - ALFONSO L. VELASCO v. MA. LOURDES C. PASCUAL

  • G.R. No. 87187 June 29, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO O. RIVERA

  • G.R. Nos. 112070-71 June 29, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO VIÑAS, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114091 June 29, 1995 - BACALTOS COAL MINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117186 June 29, 1995 - ALLAN M. LOYOLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104234 June 30, 1995 - AIR FRANCE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107623 June 30, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGELITO P. MANALO

  • G.R. No. 110889 June 30, 1995 - JOY L. BOMBASE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 57023   June 22, 1995 - RAYMUNDO DE LA PAZ, ET AL. v. DOMINGO D. PANIS

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 57023. June 22, 1995.]

    RAYMUNDO DE LA PAZ, PLACIDO DE LA PAZ, JOSE DE LA PAZ JR., ILOINA DE LA PAZ, NORITA DE LA PAZ, LEONORA DE LA PAZ, and VICTORIA DE LA PAZ, Petitioners, v. HON. DOMINGO D. PANIS, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo City, Branch III, JOSE RAMIREZ, EUGENIO LAAO, GOMERCINDO BOLANTE, CARLOS BATUNGBAKAL, JACOBO ISIP, BAYANI RAMIREZ, ALFREDO QUILAQUIL, AGUSTIN DEL ROSARIO, ROMAN DE VERA JR., MIGUEL ALFONSO, GREGORIO FELLORIN, RODITO MARABE, ALFREDO PANUGAO, ALFREDO CORONEL JR., DOMINGO BARTOLO, ADRIANO VALDEZ JR., and ALBERTO DE DUZMAN, Respondent.

    Cardenas & Peralta Law Office, for Petitioners.

    Nicolas C. Adolfo for respondents Eugenio Laao, Jose Ramirez and Adriano Valdez.

    Gregorio Dolojan for respondents Miguel Alfonso & Co.


    SYLLABUS


    1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; EJECTMENT; ACTIONS FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER AND FORCIBLE ENTRY; DISTINGUISHED. — Ejectment may be effected only through an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer. Forcible entry is a summary action to recover material or physical possession of real property when the person who originally held it was deprived of possession by "force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth." An action for unlawful detainer, on the other hand, may be filed when possession by "a landlord, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied." Both actions may be filed with the municipal courts within one year after the unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession. Their main difference lies in the time when possession became unlawful — in forcible entry, it is from the time of entry, while in unlawful detainer, possession which is at first lawful later becomes illegal, as when the lease contract has expired and the lessee refuses to vacate the premises despite demand.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PROPER REMEDY IN CASE ELEMENTS THEREOF ARE NOT PRESENT. — We must rule out forcible entry; there is no allegation in the complaint that petitioners were denied possession of the land in question through any of the methods stated in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, although private respondents’ prior possession was clearly alleged. Neither is the action one for unlawful detainer; it was noted earlier that there is no lease contract between the parties, and the demand to vacate made upon the private respondents did not make them tenants of the petitioners. In order to gain possession of the land occupied by the private respondents, the proper remedy adopted by the petitioners was the plenary action of recovery of possession before the then Court of First Instance. Respondent judge, therefore, had jurisdiction over the case and should not have dismissed it on the ground of lack thereof.

    3. ID.; ID.; CERTIORARI; NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A LOST APPEAL; EXCEPTION. — The Revised Rules of Court, under Section 1 of Rule 65, states that the special civil action of certiorari will lie only when "there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." Hence, we reiterate here the rule that the civil action of certiorari) or mandamus, for that matter) cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment to the proper forum despite the availability of that remedy. In other words, certiorari may not be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. This procedural rule cannot, however, be strictly enforced when to do so would result in a miscarriage of justice, especially when, as in this case, the petition is really meritorious and the trial judge indeed committed a grave abuse of discretion.

    4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR, A CASE OF. — In the case at bar, respondent judge’s grave abuse of discretion was manifested in three ways: (a) by utterly disregarding the compromise agreement of the parties approved by this Court; (b) by holding himself without jurisdiction over the case when in fact he did; and (c) by ignoring the survey report of the geodetic engineer whom he himself had appointed. It must be understood that this petition for certiorari and mandamus seeks not a review of the lower court’s decision but its nullification for having been rendered in excess of jurisdiction. It is not concerned with the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision, but insists that jurisdiction is properly laid in the CFI (now RTC), and is asking said court to exercise it in this case. It must be noted that the complaint of petitioners was dismissed on the ground that it was the MTC which had jurisdiction over the case. To correct the situation, petitioner rightly filed the instant petition, a special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which may be filed within a reasonable period from the time the petitioners received notice of the denial of their motion for reconsideration. Inasmuch as a period of three (3) months is considered reasonable, the filing of the petition after 45 days from notice is definitely within the allowable period. The petition must perforce be given due course.

    5. ID.; CIVIL PROCEDURE; TRIAL; MUST BE LIMITED TO THE ISSUES DEFINED BY THE PARTIES DURING PRE-TRIAL; APPLICATION IN CASE AT BAR. — Respondent judge should have stuck to the issues defined by the parties during pre-trial, namely, the identity and extent of the land claimed by the petitioners; whether or not the area occupied by the private respondents is within the limits of the said land, and whether or not the parties are entitled to damages. Trial of the case should have been limited to these three issues. As we held in the early case of Permanent Concrete Products, Inc. v. Teodoro (L-29766, November 29, 1968, 26 SCRA 332): "One of the objectives of pre-trial procedure is to take trial of cases out of the realm of surprise and maneuvering. Pre-trial is primarily intended to make certain that all issues necessary to the disposition of a cause are properly raised. Thus, to obviate the element of surprise, parties are expected to disclose at a pre-trial conference all issues of law and fact which they intend to raise at the trial, except such as may involve privilege or impeaching matter." The determination of the first two issues were delegated to the geodetic engineer appointed by the court to conduct the relocation survey sought and accepted by the parties in their compromise agreement. Ignoring the result of the survey, Judge Panis instead concluded that petitioners’ action is actually one for ejectment. This conclusion is totally without basis, for the private respondents never alleged in their answers that the complaint should be dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, the action being cognizable by the municipal court. The only reference made in the separate answers regarding the jurisdiction — or the lack of it — of the respondent judge alleges that the lands occupied by the private respondents are portions of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, an allegation neither proved nor pursued at the trial.

    6. ID.; ID.; APPEAL; REGLEMENTARY PERIOD IN FILING THEREOF; RULE; APPLICATION IN CASE AT BAR. — Petitioners received a copy of the decision on January 30, 1981, and filed their motion for reconsideration on February 5, 1981. The running of the reglementary period to appeal was suspended upon such filing and resumed only when the petitioners received on April 10, 1981, the trial court’s resolution denying their motion. The old Rules of Court, allowing an appeal from an adverse judgment of the then Court of First Instance to the Court of Appeals to be taken within 30 days from notice, applies in this case considering that Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, which uniformly shortened the reglementary period to fifteen [15] days, took effect only on August 10, 1981. Under this set of facts, the petitioners had 24 more days from April 10, 1981, or until May 4, 1981, within which to appeal the adverse decision to the Court of Appeals.


    D E C I S I O N


    ROMERO, J.:


    This petition for certiorari and mandamus began in 1972 as a complaint for recovery of possession filed by the petitioners in the then Court of First Instance of Zambales, Branch III, Olongapo City. Docketed as Civil Case No. 1133-0, it involves a dispute over a 7,531-square meter parcel of land in Subic, Zambales, being claimed by the petitioners as communal owners on the strength of their Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-14807 of the Registry of Deeds of Zambales, and by the private respondents as actual possessors.

    The petitioners alleged in their complaint that sometime in 1970 or 1971 the private respondents illegally entered portions of the said property, established possession thereof, and introduced illegal improvements. In their answer, the private respondents admitted that they indeed entered into the said property, but averred that they did so in the honest belief that it was part of the public domain; that they introduced the improvements without objection from any party; and that they have been in peaceful, open, and uninterrupted material possession thereof fore more than ten years.

    During the pre-trial conference, some of the private respondents represented by Atty. Jose S. Sarte did not deny petitioners’ title to the subject property, in effect admitting such fact. The parties then limited the questions to be resolved during the trial to the following issues: (a) the identity and extent of the land claimed by the petitioners; (b) whether or not the area respectively occupied by defendants are within the limits of the said land; and (c) whether or not the parties are entitled to damages. 1

    Atty. Sarte was later substituted by Atty. Nicolas C. Adolfo who attempted during the trial to ask questions which delved into his predecessor’s pre-trial admission. When this line of questioning was blocked by the respondent judge, private respondents filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction with this Court, which was assigned G.R. No. L-38773.

    On November 15, 1974, the Court resolved the said petition by declaring that the only issue between the parties is whether or not the land occupied by the private respondents is included in TCT No. 14807 of the petitioners, and approved a compromise agreement dated October 18, 1974, whereby the parties agreed, among others, to have a relocation survey made upon the property in question, the result of which shall be respected by them.

    The Court also ordered "the parties, including the respondent judge or whomsoever is acting in his place," to comply with the said compromise agreement. In other words, the issue of petitioners’ title to the land was made to depend upon the results of the relocation survey.

    On June 3, 1977, the court-appointed geodetic engineer, Serafin J. Garcia, submitted his report which confirmed in part the allegation of the petitioners that the private respondents were occupying certain portions of their titled land.

    This report notwithstanding, a decision was reached in Civil Case No. 1133-0 on January 19, 1981 (received by the petitioners on January 30, 1981), disposing of the case in this wise:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the plaintiffs’ (petitioners herein) complainant against all the defendants (private respondents herein). The counterclaims of defendants (1) Jose Ramirez, (2) Eugenio Laao, (3) Gomercindo Bolante, (4) Carlos Batungbakal, (5) Jacobo Isip, (6) Bayani Ramirez, (7) Alfredo Quilaquil, (8) Agustin del Rosario, (9) Roman de Vera, Jr., (10) Miguel Alfonso, are hereby likewise dismissed.

    On the counterclaim of defendants (1) Gregorio Fellorin, (2) Rodito Marabe, (3) Alfredo Panugao, (4) Alfredo Coronel, Jr., (5) Domingo Bartolo, (6) Adriano Valdez, Jr., and (7) Alfredo de Guzman, judgment is hereby rendered ordering plaintiffs to jointly and severally pay each of the said defendants the sum of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) as and by way of attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation.

    SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Judge Panis observed that while the complaint was one for recovery of possession, it was "in reality one for ejectment or illegal detainer."cralaw virtua1aw library

    On February 5, 1981, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration maintaining that their action was for recovery of possession and was not an ejectment case.

    This was denied by the respondent judge in an order dated March 5, 1981, received by the petitioners on April 10, 1981.

    In this petition for certiorari, the petitioners pray for an order nullifying the decision dated January 19, 1981, and compelling the respondent judge to issue a writ of execution enforcing the compromise agreement approved by the Court in G.R. No. L-38773.

    Private respondents argue in their comment and memorandum that since the petitioners "had not yet entered the land in question (at the time of filling of the complaint), they had not lost any possession, and the civil case they filed for recovery of possession was wrong as no possession had been lost by them."cralaw virtua1aw library

    This argument is untenable. It amounts to a recognition by the private respondents of petitioners’ equal, if not greater, right to possess the land in question. It even confirms the absence of any past or present tenancy relationship between the parties, which in turn proves the property of the course of action taken by the petitioners.

    Private respondents further aver that G.R. No. L-38773 "cannot be enforced as all proceedings of Civil Case No. 1133-0 of the Court of First Instance of Zambales, Branch III, Olongapo City, were null and void as the hearing was done by a judge without jurisdiction to try it."cralaw virtua1aw library

    This contention is likewise unacceptable. Judge Panis dismissed the action on the assumption that it is one for ejectment cognizable by the municipal court. Such supposition is erroneous.

    Ejectment may be effected only through an action for forcible entry unlawful detainer. Forcible entry is a summary action to recover material or physical possession of real property when the person who originally held it was deprived of possession by "force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth." An action for unlawful detainer, on the other hand, may be filed when possession by "a landlord, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied." 2 Both actions may be filed with the municipal courts within one year after the unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession. Their main difference lies in the time when possession became unlawful — in forcible entry, it is from the time of entry, while in unlawful detainer, possession which is at first lawful later becomes illegal, as when the lease contract has expired and the lessee refuses to vacate the premises despite demand.

    We must rule out forcible entry; there is no allegation in the complaint that petitioners were denied possession of the land in question through any of the methods stated in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, although private respondents’ prior possession was clearly alleged. Neither is the action one for unlawful detainer; it was noted earlier that there is no lease contract between the parties, and the demand to vacate made upon the private respondents did not make them tenants of the petitioners.

    In order to gain possession of the land occupied by the private respondents, the proper remedy adopted by the petitioners was the plenary action of recovery of possession before the then Court of First Instance. Respondent judge, therefore, had jurisdiction over the case and should not have dismissed it on the ground of lack thereof.

    Respondent judge should have stuck to the issues defined by the parties during pre-trial, namely, the identity and extent of the land claimed by the petitioners; whether or not the area occupied by the private respondents is within the limits of the said land; and whether or not the parties are entitled to damages. Trial of the case should have been limited to these three issues. As we held in the early case of Permanent Concrete Products, Inc. v. Teodoro: 3

    "One of the objectives of pre-trial procedure is to take trial of cases out of the realm of surprise and maneuvering. Pre-trial is primarily intended to make certain that all issues necessary to the disposition of a cause are properly raised. Thus, to obviate the element of surprise, parties are expected to disclose at a pre-trial conference all issues of law and fact which they intend to raise at the trial, except such as may involve privilege or impeaching matter."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The determination of the first two issues were delegated to the geodetic engineer appointed by the court to conduct the relocation survey sought and accepted by the parties in their compromise agreement.

    Ignoring the result of the survey, Judge Panis instead concluded that petitioners’ action is actually one for ejectment. This conclusion is totally without basis, for the private respondents never alleged in their answers that the complaint should be dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, the action being cognizable by the municipal court. The only reference made in the separate answers regarding the jurisdiction — or the lack of it — of the respondent judge alleges that the lands occupied by the private respondents are portions of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain, an allegation neither proved nor pursued at the trial.

    Finally, the private respondents claim that the petition was filed out of time and that the lower court’s decision has gained finality.

    Petitioners received a copy of the decision on January 30, 1981, and filed their motion for reconsideration on February 5, 1981. The running of the reglementary period on appeal was suspended upon such filing and resumed only when the petitioners received on April 10, 1981, the trial court’s resolution denying their motion. The old Rules of Court, allowing an appeal from an adverse judgment of the then Court of First Instance to the Court of Appeals to be taken within 30 days from notice, applies in this case considering that Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, 4 which uniformly shortened the reglementary period to fifteen [15] days, took effect only on August 10, 1981. Under this set of facts, the petitioners had 24 more days from April 10, 1981, or until May 4, 1981, within which to appeal the adverse decision to the Court of Appeals.

    Instead of appealing, petitioners filed, on May 29, 1981, the instant petition for certiorari and mandamus.

    The Revised Rules of Court, under Section 1 of Rule 65, states that the special civil action of certiorari will lie only when "there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." Hence, we reiterate here the rule that the civil action of certiorari (or mandamus, for that matter) cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment to the proper forum despite the availability of that remedy. In other words, certiorari may not be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. 5

    This procedural rule cannot, however, be strictly enforced when to do so would result in a miscarriage of justice, especially when, as in this case, the petition is really meritorious and the trial judge indeed committed a grave abuse of discretion.

    In the case at bar, respondent judge’s grave abuse of discretion was manifested in three ways: (a) by utterly disregarding the compromise agreement of the parties approved by this Court; (b) by holding himself without jurisdiction over the case when in fact he did; and (c) by ignoring the survey report of the geodetic engineer whom h e himself had appointed.

    It must be understood that this petition for certiorari and mandamus seeks not a review of the lower court’s decision but its nullification for having been rendered in excess of jurisdiction. It is not concerned with the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision, but insists that jurisdiction is properly laid in the CFI (nor RTC), and is asking said court to exercise it in this case. It must be noted that the complaint of petitioners was dismissed on the ground that it was the MTC which had jurisdiction over the case.

    To correct the situation, petitioner rightly filed the instant petition, a special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which may be filed within a reasonable period from the time the petitioners received notice of the denial of their motion for reconsideration. Inasmuch as a period of three (3) months is considered reasonable, 6 the filing of the petition after 45 days from notice is definitely within the allowable period. The petition must perforce be given due course.

    The issue of damages was, however, correctly disposed of by respondent judge who found "no basis for the award of any form of damages" in favor of the private respondents who were actually occupying portions of the petitioners’ land, according to the relocation survey result. This, as well as the finding that the respondents who were found not to be occupying the said land should be entitled to attorney’s fees in the amount of P1,000.00 each, should not be disturbed.

    WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision dated January 19, 1981 in Civil Case No. 1133-0 is hereby nullified and set aside, except the portions dismissing the private respondents’ counterclaim and granting the aforementioned attorney’s fees, which are affirmed. Respondent judge, or whoever is acting in his stead or behalf, is hereby directed to issue the writ of execution prayed for by the petitioners in connection with the Court’s Resolution in G.R. No. L-38773 dated November 15, 1974, and in keeping with the relocation survey report submitted by Engineer Serafin J. Garcia on June 3, 1977.

    SO ORDERED.

    Feliciano, Vitug and Francisco, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    MELO, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The adjective norm that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal must have eluded the considered view of the majority in the case at bench. Instead of interposing a timely appeal from the judgment of dismissal, petitioners filed the petition before this Court after forty-five days from notice of the denial of their motion for reconsideration (p. 6, Decision), without the least explanation on the face of the revised ponencia of Justice Romero, why appeal was not seasonably pursued. To my mind, the remedial measure resorted to by petitioners constitutes an irreversible faux fax inasmuch as it involves a subtle experiment to resuscitate an appeal which had been previously extinguished by sheer lapse of the reglementary period thereof on account of petitioners’ indifference thereto (Aqualyn Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA 307; 312 [1992]). Judge Panis’ perception anent the dismissal that should have been rectified by appeal, and not by certiorari. To my mind, the majority opinion is even a reversal of established jurisprudence of the Court, which could be effected only by the Court En Banc.

    Endnotes:



    1. Pre-trial Order; Rollo, p. 64.

    2. Section 1, Rule 70, Rules of Court.

    3. L-29766, November 29, 1968, 26 SCRA 332.

    4. Otherwise known as the "Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980."cralaw virtua1aw library

    5. Felizardo v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 112050, June 15, 1994, 233 SCRA 220.

    6. Caramol v. National Labor Relations Commission, G. R. No. 102973, August 24, 1993, 225 SCRA 582, citing Philec Workers’ Union v. Young, G. R. No. 101734, January 22, 1992.

    G.R. No. 57023   June 22, 1995 - RAYMUNDO DE LA PAZ, ET AL. v. DOMINGO D. PANIS


    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