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
 

   
January-2000 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 123951 January 10, 2000 - ROMEO RANOLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1360 January 18, 2000 - ELISEO SOREÑO v. RHODERICK MAXINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114683 January 18, 2000 - JESUS C. OCAMPO v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118441-42 January 18, 2000 - ARMANDO JOSE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119594 January 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENZON ONG

  • G.R. No. 125994 January 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN ANDALES

  • G.R. No. 127135 January 18, 2000 - EASTERN ASSURANCE AND SURETY CORP. (EASCO) v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129846 January 18, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130944 January 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ALIB, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131675 January 18, 2000 - PEDRO C. LAMEYRA v. GEORGE S. PANGILINAN

  • G.R. No. 132378 January 18, 2000 - ROGELIO JUAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 132767 January 18, 2000 - PHIL. VETERANS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134854 January 18, 2000 - FELIZARDO S. OBANDO, ET AL. v. EDUARDO F. FIGUERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139465 January 18, 2000 - SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. RALPH C. LANTION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1245 January 19, 2000 - ANTONIO YU-ASENSI v. FRANCISCO D. VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-97-1129 January 19, 2000 - FLAVIANO B. CORTES v. FELINO BANGALAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1513 January 19, 2000 - ALFREDO B. ENOJAS v. EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT

  • G.R. No. 107320 January 19, 2000 - A’ PRIME SECURITY SERVICES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113666-68 January 19, 2000 - GOLDEN DONUTS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114761 January 19, 2000 - ALEMAR’S SIBAL & SONS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119217 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL S. LUCBAN

  • G.R. No. 122104 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEPITO ORBITA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 122297-98 January 19, 2000 - CRESCENTE Y. LLORENTE v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122739 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE M. PANTORILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123655 January 19, 2000 - ANGEL BAUTISTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123183 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN SISON

  • G.R. No. 126516 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SHIRLEY ALAO

  • G.R. No. 127572 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR VILLAR

  • G.R. No. 129072 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO ABUBU

  • G.R. No. 130957 January 19, 2000 - VH MANUFACTURING v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132152 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO ADRALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132248 January 19, 2000 - ERLINDA C. PEFIANCO v. MARIA LUISA C. MORAL

  • G.R. No. 132657 January 19, 2000 - WILLIAM DIU, ET AL. v. DOMINADOR IBAJAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 132779-82 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DONATO BERNALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 134003 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERT NAGUM

  • G.R. No. 134329 January 19, 2000 - VERONA PADA-KILARIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134535 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO MAGNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137560 January 19, 2000 - MARIA G. CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 4749 January 20, 2000 - SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR. v. FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-00-1241 January 20, 2000 - NAPOLEON S. VALENZUELA v. REYNALDO B. BELLOSILLO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1242 January 20, 2000 - DANIEL DUMO, ET AL. v. ROMEO V. PEREZ

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1522 January 20, 2000 - ROMULO SJ TOLENTINO v. POLICARPIO S. CAMANO

  • G.R. No. 76371 January 20, 2000 - MARIANO TURQUESA, ET AL. v. ROSARIO VALERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87134 January 20, 2000 - PHIL. REGISTERED ELECTRICAL PRACTITIONERS, ET AL. v. JULIO FRANCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 100718-19 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDDIE JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106282 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUINCIANO RENDOQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108067 January 20, 2000 - CYANAMID PHIL., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109376 January 20, 2000 - PANFILO O. DOMINGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110807 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALD T. NARVASA

  • G.R. No. 110929 January 20, 2000 - ABELARDO LOPEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119652 & A.M. No. P-00-1358 January 20, 2000 - VENTURA O. DUCAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123860 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN NAAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125451 January 20, 2000 - MARCIANA MUÑOZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126151 January 20, 2000 - MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. SERGIO D. MABUNAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128887 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. EDGARDO AQUINO

  • G.R. No. 130713 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GABRIEL FLORES

  • G.R. No. 130986 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR PAILANCO

  • G.R. No. 131512 January 20, 2000 - LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE [LTO] v. CITY OF BUTUAN

  • G.R. No. 132368 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACITO GARCES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 133775 January 20, 2000 - FIDEL DABUCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131894-98 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. JESUS DOCENA

  • G.R. No. 134167 January 20, 2000 - NASSER IMMAM v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125965 January 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATRICIO GOZANO

  • G.R. No. 133477 January 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN RAFALES

  • G.R. No. 135904 January 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALVIN TAN

  • G.R. Nos. 89591-96 January 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA

  • G.R. No. 100518 January 24, 2000 - ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS (ATU), ET AL. v. OSCAR N. ABELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101932 January 24, 2000 - FRANCISCO H. ESCAÑO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111285 January 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE VALLA

  • G.R. No. 116066 January 24, 2000 - NUEVA ECIJA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124715 January 24, 2000 - RUFINA LUY LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125031 January 24, 2000 - PERMEX INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129693 January 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUDY CORTES

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1525 January 25, 2000 - MARTIN D. PANTALEON v. TEOFILO L. GUADIZ, JR.

  • G.R. No. 80129 January 25, 2000 - GERARDO RUPA, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 102706 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON LUMILAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107427 January 25, 2000 - JAMES R. BRACEWELL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113518 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTEBAN ARLEE

  • G.R. No. 113684 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO GALLARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116332 January 25, 2000 - BAYNE ADJUSTERS AND SURVEYORS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119595 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOVITO BARONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120267 January 25, 2000 - CLARA ESPIRITU BORLONGAN, ET AL. v. CONSUELO MADRIDEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121439 January 25, 2000 - AKLAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INCORPORATED (AKELCO) v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129246 January 25, 2000 - GREENFIELD REALTY CORP., ET AL. v. LORETO CARDAMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131633-34 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENCIANO ENOLVA

  • G.R. No. 133132 January 25, 2000 - ALEXIS C. CANONIZADO, ET AL. v. ALEXANDER P. AGUIRRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135874 January 25, 2000 - SECURITY BANK CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 99-12-192-MTC January 26, 2000 - HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER ISSUED BY ACTING JUDGE ANICETO L. MADRONIO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1524 January 26, 2000 - LUCIA F. LAYOLA v. BASILIO R. GABO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 107395 January 26, 2000 - TOURIST DUTY FREE SHOPS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126115 January 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO BALGOS

  • G.R. No. 131374 January 26, 2000 - ABBOTT LABORATORIES PHIL. v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133842 January 26, 2000 - FEDERICO S. SANDOVAL v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133969 January 26, 2000 - NEMESIO GARCIA v. NICOLAS JOMOUAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 102961-62, 107625 & 108759 January 27, 2000 - JESUS P. LIAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117040 January 27, 2000 - RUBEN SERRANO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130843 January 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZOILO BORROMEO

  • Adm. Case No. 1474 January 28, 2000 - CRISTINO G. CALUB v. ABRAHAM SULLER

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1246 January 28, 2000 - HEIRS OF JUAN and NATIVIDAD GERMINANDA v. RICARDO SALVANERA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1211 January 28, 2000 - ZENAIDA S. BESO v. JUAN DAGUMAN

  • A.M. No. P-93-985 January 28, 2000 - MARTA BUCATCAT v. EDGAR BUCATCAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112177 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TITO ZUELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112329 January 28, 2000 - VIRGINIA A. PEREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115824 January 28, 2000 - RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, ET AL. v. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125279 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS TANAIL

  • G.R. No. 124129 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO BRIGILDO

  • G.R. Nos. 124384-86 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMENCIANO "OMENG" RICAFRANCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125671 January 28, 2000 - CONDO SUITE CLUB TRAVEL v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125865 January 28, 2000 - JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG) v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 126802 January 28, 2000 - ROBERTO G. ALARCON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127568 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO BACULE

  • G.R. Nos. 129756-58 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN DEEN ESCAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131520 January 28, 2000 - ESTELITA AGUIRRE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131778 January 28, 2000 - HERMAN TIU LAUREL v. PRESIDING JUDGE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132138 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ROMEO LLAMO

  • G.R. No. 133486 January 28, 2000 - ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP. v. COMELEC

  • G.R. No. 133987 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY BARTOLOME

  • G.R. No. 136805 January 28, 2000 - DIESEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC. v. JOLLIBEE FOODS CORP.

  • G.R. No. 137537 January 28, 2000 - SMI DEVT. CORP. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 137718 January 28, 2000 - REYNALDO O. MALONZO, ET AL. v. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139545 January 28, 2000 - MAIMONA H. N. M. S. DIANGKA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1226 January 31, 2000 - GLORIA LUCAS v. AMELIA A. FABROS

  • G.R. Nos. 88521-22 & 89366-67 January 31, 2000 - HEIRS OF EULALIO RAGUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105827 January 31, 2000 - J.L. BERNARDO CONSTRUCTION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112139 January 31, 2000 - LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL DEVT. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115045 January 31, 2000 - UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS SERVICES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116729 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARLON LERIO

  • G.R. No. 120706 January 31, 2000 - RODRIGO CONCEPCION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123094 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUISITO PAGLINAWAN

  • G.R. No. 125440 January 31, 2000 - GENERAL BANK AND TRUST CO., ET AL. v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127797 January 31, 2000 - ALEJANDRO MILLENA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128536 January 31, 2000 - ROQUE G. GALANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128607 January 31, 2000 - ALFREDO MALLARI SR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129071 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO MILLIAM, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 129505 & 133359 January 31, 2000 - OCTAVIO S. MALOLES II v. PACITA DE LOS REYES PHILLIPS

  • G.R. No. 130104 January 31, 2000 - ELIZABETH SUBLAY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130666 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASIMIRO JOSE

  • G.R. No. 134437 January 31, 2000 - NATIONAL STEEL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139758 January 31, 2000 - LUCIEN TRAN VAN NGHIA v. RUFUS B. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 132657   January 19, 2000 - WILLIAM DIU, ET AL. v. DOMINADOR IBAJAN, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 132657. January 19, 2000.]

    SPOUSES WILLIAM and JANE JEAN DIU, Petitioners, v. DOMINADOR IBAJAN, DEMETRIA IBAJAN, NELSON C. SY, VICENTE REALINO II and ROMEO R. ALVERO, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N


    VITUG, J.:


    Assailed in a petition for review on certiorari in this instance is an order, dated 17 December 1997, issued by Acting Executive Judge Briccio T. Aguilos, Jr., of the Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of Naval, Biliran, Branch 16, in Civil Case No. B-0984, dismissing a forcible entry case on appeal to it from the Municipal Trial Court upon the thesis that the latter court is bereft of jurisdiction since an issue of ownership has been raised in the ejectment suit.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

    On 12 July 1996, the spouses Carmelito Ibajan and Finna Josep-Ibajan, joined by Dominador and Demetria Ibajan, filed against William Diu and the Register of Deeds of Naval, Biliran, an action for the annulment of certain deeds of sale with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. The case, docketed Civil Case No. B-0952, was raffled to Branch 16 of the RTC of Naval, Biliran. Carmelito Ibajan and Finna Josep-Ibajan claimed to be the owners of the parcel of land covered by TCT No. 21540 while Dominador and Demetria Ibajan, upon the other hand, asserted to be the owners of the building, partly commercial and partly residential, erected thereon. The plaintiffs averred that defendant Diu had caused Carmelito Ibajan to sign a document, supposed to be a deed of real estate mortgage covering the aforesaid lot but which turned out to be a deed of absolute sale. Diu, it was also alleged, had caused the execution of a deed of absolute sale over the residential and commercial building by forging the signature of Dominador Ibajan.

    Shortly following the filing of Civil Case No. B-0952, William and Jean Jane Diu commenced, in a complaint dated 22 July 1996, an action for forcible entry with damages before the Municipal Trial Court of Naval, Biliran, docketed Civil Case No. 460, against Dominador Ibajan, Demetria Ibajan, Nelson C. Sy, Vicente Realino II and Romeo Alvero. The plaintiffs in the ejectment suit alleged that the spouses Ibajan, aided by the other defendants who falsely represented themselves to be agents of the National Bureau of Investigation, unlawfully entered his property (the parcel of land involved in Civil Case No. B-0952), took possession thereof and ejected their employees therefrom. In a decision, dated 08 January 1997, Judge Aniceto A. Lirios, to whom Civil Case No. 460 was assigned, held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds a preponderance of evidence in favor of plaintiffs and against the defendants and hereby orders said defendants:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "a) To vacate the premises in question and surrender the possession thereof to plaintiffs;

    "b) To pay plaintiffs, jointly and severally the following amounts:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. P5,000.00 — actual expenses for the repair and renovation of the damaged portion of the building;

    "2. P5,000.00 — reasonable rental value of the premises in question per month from the filing of the complaint until the subject property is returned to plaintiffs;

    "3. P10,000.00 — for attorneys fees and litigation expenses.

    "c) To pay the costs of the suit.

    "SO ORDERED." 1

    In an order, dated 06 February 1997, Judge Lirios then caused the elevation of the records of the case to the RTC of Naval, Biliran, Branch 16.

    In his "Order and Resolution," dated 31 October 1997, Judge Aguilos directed the consolidation of Civil Case No. B-0952 and Civil Case No. B-0984 (the new docket number of Civil Case No. 460 on appeal). He ruled:chanrobles.com : law library

    "WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court hereby ‘modifies’ the decision and judgment of the Municipal Trial Court of Naval, Biliran, Civil Case No. 984 (MTC CC No. 460) for ‘Forcible Entry with Damages,’ and presently on ‘Appeal’ with this Court, and hereby adjudges, declares and deems aforesaid Civil Case No. 984, for ‘Forcible Entry with Damages,’ appealed to this Court by Defendants Dominador Ibajan, Demetria Ibajan, Nelson C. Sy, Vicente Realino II, and Romeo R. Alvero versus Plaintiff-Spouses William Diu and Jane Jean Diu, thereby, and thereafter, lawfully joined, consolidated, intercalated, and declared, and adjudicated as one (1) sole, single civil action for purposes of its eventual decision, resolution, and disposal, after a full blown hearing with Plaintiff-Appellees and Defendants-Appellants presenting and offering their respective evidences for the Court’s final consideration, decision and/or resolution.

    "Similarly, this Court, hereby orders the approval of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, as formally filed and received by this Court on October 15, 1997, and thereby herein made, and included as part of the Records/Expediente in both cases, more particularly Civil Case No. B-0952, for ‘Annulment of Deeds of Sale with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction,’ for this Court’s eventual decision, resolution and disposal." 2

    Both parties in Civil Case No. B-0984 moved for the reconsideration of the "Order and Resolution." On 17 December 1997, Judge Aguilos issued another order dismissing Civil Case No. B-0984, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The Court finds merit in both motions for reconsideration. This Court acting as an appellate Court in the Forcible Entry Case No. B-0984 is precluded by law to try anew the appealed case. Section 22 of BP Blg. 129 provides.

    "‘Regional Trial Courts shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts and the Municipal Trial Courts and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions. Such cases shall be decided on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or briefs as may submitted by the parties or required by the Regional Trial Courts.’

    "This is the same provision under Section 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which took effect on July 1, 1997. The ruling in del Rosario v. Court of Appeals (241 SCRA 519) is to the same effect:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "‘The law did not intend that respondent appellate Court should conduct another trial of the ejectment case appealed to it.’

    "Of necessity this Court therefore had to meticulously peruse the entire record of this case. It noted that both plaintiffs and defendants in their verification and certification on forum shopping did allege that there is no pending similar action pending in any other court or agency of the government. This of course is not true in the case of the Spouses Diu for said spouses are the defendants in Civil Case No. B-0952 for Annulment of Deeds of Sale presided by the undersigned, and therefore, not only taken judicial notice of the matter. In fact it is clearly stated in its questioned order that this annulment case was filed much earlier, on June 11, 1996, while the Forcible Entry Case was filed much later, on February 10, 1997 in the Municipal Trial Court of Naval, Biliran. Both cases raise the issue of possession and ownership. It is of course fundamental that the issue of the possession in Forcible Entry is only de facto, unlike that in ownership cases which is de jure. Nonetheless the law allows the MTC to resolve the issue of ownership.chanrobles virtuallawlibrary

    "RA 7691 Section (2)

    "‘Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of Forcible Entry and unlawful detainer; Provided, that when in such cases, the defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession.’

    "In the present case, this is quite improbable, as the issues of ownership and possession are intertwined and inseparably linked. In that case of ‘De Luzuriaga Jr. v. Adila, the Supreme Court sustained the order of the Court of First Instance enjoining the Municipal Trial Court from continuing a Forcible Entry Case where there was another case for ‘Quieting of Title.’ Chief Justice Teehankee concurred and adhered to the view that the Court of First Instance had equal if not superior jurisdiction to resolve identical issues as to who was entitled to possession and to issue a preliminary mandatory injunction if a strong right is established.

    "‘Moreover the Regional Trial Courts have the exclusive jurisdiction to resolve with finality intertwined and overriding issues of ownership and the case should be dismissed unless there is no serious issue of ownership. Thus with the action to quiet title, there is no more reason for continued existence of the summary.’

    "Similarly in the present case, Civil Case No. B-0952 filed eight (8) months earlier that the Forcible Entry Case B-0984, is still pending. The parties should have brought this fact to the attention of the Municipal Trial Judge to obviate or preclude the possibility of making two (2) courts decide on the same issues. That is exactly the very situation that is obtaining now. This Court is saddled with two (2) cases involving ownership and possession. The same documents are relied upon by both parties in the two (2) cases; the same source of their alleged rights and interests.

    "The subject property in this case is Lot No. 84 of the Naval Cadastre covered by Tax Decl. 00581 and the house standing thereon covered by Tax Decl. 00583, Annex ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively, in the name of plaintiff William Diu. Defendant spouses Dominador Ibajan and Demetria Ibajan claimed to have bought the same Lot 84 of the Naval Cadastre which they caused to be registered in the name of their son Carmelito Ibajan and wife Finna G. Josep under TCT T-21540, Annex ‘A’. Thereafter they constructed a 2-storey building in the name of Dominador Ibajan under a property Field Appraisal, Annex ‘B’, and Tax Decl. No. 5365-annex ‘C’, both in the name of Dominador Ibajan and which they occupied and possessed since 1985.

    "A series of events and transactions transpired over the land and the building thereon involving millions. The undersigned as Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court Branch 16, recalls the petition for the issuance of a second owner’s copy of the transfer certificate of title to the land in question pursued by the plaintiff-appellee William Diu by virtue of a power of attorney from Carmelito Ibajan. All these transactions are now the subject of the annulment case pending before this Court which can decide the issue of possession only after the trial involving the issue of ownership. Until then this court is thus hard put to say who was or who is entitled to possession for which reason this Court correspondingly orders the DISMISSAL of this appealed Forcible Entry Case, leaving only the Annulment of Deeds of Sale Case, still pending for the final determination of the primary issues of possession and ownership."cralaw virtua1aw library

    "SO ORDERED." 3

    The Order, aforestated, led to the filing with this Court of a petition for review on certiorari by the spouses Diu, contending that —

    "I


    "THE DISMISSAL OF CIVIL CASE NO. B-0984 FOR FORCIBLE ENTRY ON APPEAL BY THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH BUT A DRASTIC DEVIATION FROM THE LAW AND WELL-KNOWN RULES AS WELL AS THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT.

    "II


    "THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IT’S APPLICATION OF THE RULE AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING." 4

    There is merit in the petition.

    It has repeatedly been held that in ejectment cases, the sole question for resolution is the physical or material possession (possession de facto) of the property in question and neither a claim of juridical possession (possession de jure) nor an averment of ownership 5 by the defendant can outrightly deprive the court from taking due cognizance of the case. Ejectment cases proceed independently of any claim of ownership, and the plaintiff merely needs to prove prior possession de facto and an undue deprivation thereof. 6 The pendency of an action questioning the ownership of property will not divest the city or municipal trial court of its jurisdiction over the ejectment case 7 and neither will it bar the execution of a judgment thereon. 8 In Dizon v. Court of Appeals 9 where the RTC acting as an appellate court in an ejectment case made a definite ruling on the issue of ownership, this Court elaborated:chanrobles.com.ph : red

    ". . . Well-settled is the rule that in an ejectment suit, the only issue is possession de facto or physical or material possession (Del Rosario v. CA, 311 Phil. 589; Mediran v. Villanueva, 37 Phil. 752; Somodio v. CA, 235 SCRA 307; De Luna v. CA, 212 SCRA 276.) and not possession de jure. (Oblea v. CA, 313 Phil. 804; Joven v. CA, 212 SCRA 700; Javier v. Veridiano II, 237 SCRA 565.) So that, even if the question of ownership is raised in the pleadings, as in this case, the court may pass upon such issue but only to determine the question of possession (Sec. 33(2), B.P. 129 as amended by RA 7691 provides that ‘Metropolitan Trial Courts shall exercise: Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Provided, That when in such cases, the defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession.’ Paragraph 10 of the Interim Rules likewise provides that ‘Metropolitan Trial Courts, . . . without distinction, may try cases of forcible entry and detainer even if the question of ownership is raised in the pleadings and the question of possession could not be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, but the question of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession.) especially if the former is inseparably linked with the latter. (Guzman v. CA, 177 SCRA 604; Munar v. CA, 238 SCRA 372; De Luna v. CA, supra.) It cannot dispose with finality the issue of ownership — such issue being inutile in an ejectment suit except to throw light on the question of possession. (Manuel v. CA, 199 SCRA 603.) This is why the issue of ownership or title is generally immaterial and foreign to an ejectment suit. (Fige v. CA, 233 SCRA 586; Manuel v. CA, supra; See also German Management and Services, Inc. v. CA, 177 SCRA 495.)

    "Detainer, being a mere quieting process, questions raised on real property are incidentally discussed. (Peñalosa v. Tuason, 22 Phil. 303.) In fact, any evidence of ownership is expressly banned by Sec. 4 of Rule 70 (Sec. 4, Rule 70 provides: ‘Evidence of title, when admissible. — Evidence of title to the land or building may be received solely for the purpose of determining the character and extent of possession and damages for detention.’) except to resolve the question of possession. (Tiu v. CA, 37 SCRA 99; Calupitan v. Aglahi, 65 Phil. 575; Pitargue v. Sorilla, 92 Phil. 5.) Thus, all that the court may do, is to make an initial determination of who is the owner of the property so that it can resolve who is entitled to its possession absent other evidence to resolve the latter. But such determination of ownership is not clothed with finality. Neither will it affect ownership of the property nor constitute a binding and conclusive adjudication on the merits with respect to the issue of ownership. (See Sec. 7, Rule 70 which states that ‘The Judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or detainer shall be effective with respect to the possession only and in no wise bind the title or affect the ownership of the land or building. Such judgment 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 a case between the same parties upon a different cause of action not involving possession.’ Sps. Medina and Bernal v. Valdellon, 63 SCRA 278; Manlapaz v. CA, 191 SCRA 795; Javier v. Veridiano II, supra.) It cannot bar a later action to settle ownership. (Asset Privatization Trust v. CA, 229 SCRA 627; Javier v. Veridiano, supra; Peñalosa v. Tuason, supra; Dela Cruz v. CA, 133 SCRA 520; Drilon v. Gaurana, 149 SCRA 342; Section 7, rule 70.) Consequently, although it was proper for the RTC, on appeal in this ejectment suit, to delve on the issue of ownership and received evidence on possession de jure, (Pitargue v. Sorilla, supra; Consing v. Jamandre, 64 SCRA 1; Dela Santa v. CA, 140 SCRA 44.) it cannot adjudicate with semblance of." 10

    Verily, the RTC erred in dismissing the forcible entry case on appeal on the ground that it can only decide the issue of possession after the issue of ownership would have been resolved elsewhere.chanrobles virtuallawlibrary

    The Court likewise agrees with petitioners that the RTC erred in its appreciation of forum shopping. The Court has said that there is forum-shopping "when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another" 11 or when he repetitively avails himself of "several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely by, some other court." 12 In the case at bar, the two cases, one for the annulment of deeds of sale and the other for ejectment although concerning the same property, are distinct litigations, neither involving exactly the same parties nor identical issues.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the Order, dated 17 December 1997, dismissing Civil Case No. B-0984 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The RTC of Naval, Biliran, Branch 16, is directed to proceed with the determination of the appeal on its merits. No special pronouncement on costs.

    SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Melo, Panganiban, Purisima and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, pp. 116-117.

    2. Rollo, p. 133.

    3. Rollo, pp. 139-141.

    4. Rollo, p. 18.

    5. Cagayan de Oro City Landless Residents Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 254 SCRA 220.

    6. Gachon v. Devera, Jr., 274 SCRA 540.

    7. Oblea v. Court of Appeals, 244 SCRA 101.

    8. San Pedro v. Court of Appeals, 235 SCRA 145.

    9. 264 SCRA 391.

    10. At pp. 394-396.

    11. Villanueva v. Adre, 172 SCRA 876.

    12. Gatmaytan v. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 487, p. 500.

    G.R. No. 132657   January 19, 2000 - WILLIAM DIU, ET AL. v. DOMINADOR IBAJAN, 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