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-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-00-1446 June 6, 2001 - PATERNO R. PLANTILLA v. RODRIGO G. BALIWAG

  • A.M. No. P-91-642 June 6, 2001 - SOLEDAD LAURO v. EFREN LAURO

  • G.R. No. 92328 June 6, 2001 - DAP MINING ASSO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100579 June 6, 2001 - LEANDRO P. GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113918 June 6, 2001 - MARCELINA G. TRINIDAD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121272 June 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYDERICK LAGO

  • G.R. No. 122353 June 6, 2001 - EVANGELINE DANAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129534 & 141169 June 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR MACANDOG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138949 June 6, 2001 - UNION BANK OF THE PHIL. v. SEC

  • G.R. No. 138971 June 6, 2001 - PEZA v. RUMOLDO R FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 139034 June 6, 2001 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139323 June 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLO ELLASOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140128 June 6, 2001 - ARNOLD P. MOLLANEDA v. LEONIDA C. UMACOB

  • G.R. No. 140277 June 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. GUILLERMO BALDAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141529 June 6, 2001 - FRANCISCO YAP, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142888 June 6, 2001 - EVELIO P. BARATA v. BENJAMIN ABALOS JR.

  • G.R. No. 143561 June 6, 2001 - JONATHAN D. CARIAGA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110335 June 18, 2001 - IGNACIO GONZALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1615 June 19, 2001 - WINNIE BAJET v. PEDRO M. AREOLA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1633 June 19, 2001 - ANTONIO and ELSA FORTUNA v. MA. NIMFA PENACO-SITACA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99433 June 19, 2001 - PROJECT BUILDERS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114944 June 19, 2001 - MANUEL C. ROXAS, ET AL. v. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120701 June 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JONATHAN CRISANTO

  • G.R. No. 123916 June 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LYNTON ASUNCION

  • G.R. No. 130605 June 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX UGANAP, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132160 June 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132223 June 19, 2001 - BONIFACIA P. VANCIL v. HELEN G. BELMES

  • G.R. No. 134895 June 19, 2001 - STA. LUCIA REALTY and DEV’T., ET AL. v. LETICIA CABRIGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137164 June 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERT NUBLA

  • G.R. No. 137752 June 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT AYUNGON

  • G.R. Nos. 138298 & 138982 June 19, 2001 - RAOUL B. DEL MAR v. PAGCOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139313 June 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORANTE LEAL

  • G.R. No. 140690 June 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAZAR U. CHAVEZ

  • G.R. No. 141441 June 19, 2001 - JOSE SUAN v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 00-10-230-MTCC June 20, 2001 - RE: JULIAN C. OCAMPO III AND RENATO C. SAN JUAN

  • A.M. No. 00-11-521-RTC June 20, 2001 - RE: AWOL OF MS. LILIAN B. BANTOG

  • A.M. No. P-99-1346 June 20, 2001 - RESTITUTO L. CASTRO v. CARLOS BAGUE

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1606 June 20, 2001 - PATRIA MAQUIRAN v. LILIA G. LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. 84831 June 20, 2001 - PACENCIO ABEJARON v. FELIX NABASA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109666 June 20, 2001 - ROGERIO R. OLAGUER, ET AL. v. EUFEMIO DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113564 June 20, 2001 - INOCENCIA YU DINO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115851 June 20, 2001 - LA JOLLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127129 June 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO CABAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128617 June 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR BACUS

  • G.R. Nos. 129292-93 June 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARLENGEN DEGALA

  • G.R. No. 130524 June 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUDY MADIA

  • G.R. No. 131036 June 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DONATO DEL ROSARIO

  • G.R. Nos. 135976-80 June 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLAUDIO GALENO

  • G.R. No. 138629 June 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON CAMACHO

  • G.R. No. 139430 June 20, 2001 - EDI STAFF BUILDERS INTERNATIONAL v. FERMINA D. MAGSINO

  • G.R. Nos. 139445-46 June 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO GONZALES

  • G.R. No. 142304 June 20, 2001 - CITY OF MANILA v. OSCAR SERRANO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1342 June 21, 2001 - BISHOP CRISOSTOMO A. YALUNG, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE M. PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 108558 June 21, 2001 - ANDREA TABUSO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109197 June 21, 2001 - JAYME C. UY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 111580 & 114802 June 21, 2001 - SHANGRI-LA INTERNATIONAL HOTEL MNGT. LTD. ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116200-02 June 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO TAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131131 June 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABELARDO SALONGA

  • G.R. No. 134138 June 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO BRIONES AYTALIN

  • G.R. Nos. 135552-53 June 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABEL ABACIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139542 June 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. INOCENCIO GONZALEZ

  • G.R. No. 140206 June 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO MATYAONG

  • G.R. No. 142023 June 21, 2001 - SANNY B. GINETE v. SUNRISE MANNING AGENCY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103068 June 22, 2001 - MEAT PACKING CORP. OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-96-1110 June 25, 2001 - MANUEL N. MAMBA, ET AL. v. DOMINADOR L. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 116710 June 25, 2001 - DANILO D. MENDOZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117857 June 25, 2001 - LUIS S. WONG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128126 June 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL M. CATAPANG

  • G.R. No. 132051 June 25, 2001 - TALA REALTY SERVICES CORP. v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK

  • G.R. No. 134068 June 25, 2001 - UNION BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136221 June 25, 2001 - EQUATORIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT v. MAYFAIR THEATER

  • G.R. No. 136382 June 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FIDEL ALBORIDA

  • G.R. Nos. 138439-41 June 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO PANGANIBAN

  • G.R. No. 141141 June 25, 2001 - PAGCOR v. CARLOS P. RILLORAZA

  • G.R. No. 141801 June 25, 2001 - SOLOMON ALVAREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 143428 June 25, 2001 - SANDOVAL SHIPYARDS, ET AL. v. PRISCO PEPITO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 99-11-423-RTC June 26, 2001 - RE: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1461 June 26, 2001 - RICARDO DELA CRUZ v. HERMINIA M. PASCUA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1486 June 26, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. ISMAEL SANCHEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 110547-50 & 114526-667 June 26, 2001 - JOSE SAYSON v. SANDIGANBAYAN ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120859 June 26, 2001 - METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. FRANCISCO Y. WONG

  • G.R. No. 123542 June 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO BULOS

  • G.R. Nos. 132848-49 June 26, 2001 - PHILROCK v. CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ARBITRATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133990 June 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HECTOR MARIANO

  • G.R. No. 134764 June 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. BENJAMIN FABIA

  • G.R. Nos. 139626-27 June 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 143204 June 26, 2001 - HYATT TAXI SERVICES INC. v. RUSTOM M. CATINOY

  • G.R. Nos. 147589 & 147613 June 26, 2001 - ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130661 June 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO I. TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135882 June 27, 2001 - LOURDES T. MARQUEZ v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140001 June 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO BUENAFLOR

  • A.C. No. 3910 June 28, 2001 - JOSE S. DUCAT v. ARSENIO C. VILLALON, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 4073 June 28, 2001 - ARACELI SIPIN-NABOR v. BENJAMIN BATERINA

  • A.M. No. P-01-1480 June 28, 2001.

    AMADO S. CAGUIOA v. CRISANTO FLORA

  • A.M. No. P-99-1343 June 28, 2001 - ORLANDO T. MENDOZA v. ROSBERT M. TUQUERO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1576 June 28, 2001 - SIMPLICIO ALIB v. EMMA C. LABAYEN

  • G.R. No. 105364 June 28, 2001 - PHIL. VETERANS BANK EMPLOYEES UNION-N.U.B.E., ET AL. v. BENJAMIN VEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110813 June 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO PARDUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110914 June 28, 2001 - ALFREDO CANUTO; JR., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112453-56 June 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERARDO LATUPAN

  • G.R. Nos. 112563 & 110647 June 28, 2001 - HEIRS OF KISHINCHAND HIRANAND DIALDAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120630 June 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO PALERMO

  • G.R. No. 131954 June 28, 2001 - ASELA B. MONTECILLO, ET AL v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. Nos. 132026-27 June 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO ABENDAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132362 June 28, 2001 - PIO BARRETTO REALTY DEV’T. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132837 June 28, 2001 - JO CINEMA CORP., ET AL. v. LOLITA C. ABELLANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133605 June 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN BARRIAS

  • G.R. No. 135846 June 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. NOEL ORTEGA

  • G.R. No. 138270 June 28, 2001 - SEA POWER SHIPPING ENTERPRISES INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142314 June 28, 2001 - MC ENGINEERING, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143723 June 28, 2001 - LITONJUA GROUP OF CO.’s., ET AL. v. TERESITA VIGAN

  • G.R. No. 144113 June 28, 2001 - EDWEL MAANDAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL

  • G.R. No. 144942 June 28, 2001 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LA SUERTE CIGAR.

  • G.R. No. 146062 June 28, 2001 - SANTIAGO ESLABAN v. CLARITA VDA. DE ONORIO

  • A.M. No. 00 4-166-RTC June 29, 2001 - Re: Report on the Judicial Audit

  • A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC June 29, 2001 - HERNANDO PEREZ, ET AL. v. JOSEPH E. ESTRADA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1380 June 29, 2001 - GLORIA O. DINO v. FRANCISCO DUMUKMAT

  • G.R. No. 110480 June 29, 2001 - BANGKO SILANGAN DEVELOPMENT BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111860 June 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS CLEDORO

  • G.R. No. 116092 June 29, 2001 - SUSANA VDA. DE COCHINGYAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118251 June 29, 2001 - METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. REGINO T. VERIDIANO II, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121597 June 29, 2001 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125944 June 29, 2001 - DANILO SOLANGON, ET AL. v. JOSE AVELINO SALAZAR

  • G.R. No. 126396 June 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. FELIXBERTO LAO-AS

  • G.R. No. 128705 June 29, 2001 - CONRADO AGUILAR v. COMMERCIAL SAVINGS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129782 June 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALWINDER SINGH, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131968 June 29, 2001 - ERNESTO PENGSON, ET AL v. MIGUEL OCAMPO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132059 June 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WENEFREDO DIMSON ASOY

  • G.R. No. 138598 June 29, 2001 - ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144542 June 29, 2001 - FRANCISCO DELA PEÑA, ET AL v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 131968   June 29, 2001 - ERNESTO PENGSON, ET AL v. MIGUEL OCAMPO, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 131968. June 29, 2001.]

    Spouses ERNESTO and JESUSA PENGSON, Petitioners, v. MIGUEL OCAMPO, JR., for himself and as Attorney-in-Fact of MELCHOR G. OCAMPO, FERNANDO G. OCAMPO and ROBLEDO G. OCAMPO, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N


    QUISUMBING, J.:


    This is a petition to review on certiorari the judgment dated December 18, 1997 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 44147 annulling the decisions of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 15 in Malolos, Bulacan and the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Miguel, Bulacan dated November 15, 1996 and January 16, 1996, respectively.cralaw : red

    The factual antecedents of this case are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    On October 20, 1995, respondents filed an ejectment case against petitioners before the MTC of San Miguel, Bulacan. In their complaint, respondents alleged: that they are the registered owners of a parcel of land situated in San Jose, San Miguel, Bulacan, and covered by TCT No. 275405 (RT-40973); that on a 60 to 80 square meter portion of said lot, they permitted petitioners to reside without rent; that since they already needed the same portion, they demanded that petitioners vacate the lot, but the latter refused; that the refusal prompted them to bring a complaint before the barangay authorities but no settlement was reached, hence a certification to file action was issued; that respondents again demanded from the petitioners to vacate the land but petitioners still ignored said demand; that respondents were therefore constrained to lodge an ejectment case before the MTC for which they sought damages in the form of rentals and attorney’s fees.

    Petitioners denied that their stay on the property was by mere tolerance. They averred that petitioner Jesusa Pengson is a co-owner of the land in question, being a compulsory heir of spouses Fabian Santos and Consorcia Ocampo, who died without issue; 1 that Consorcia Ocampo is the sister of Miguel Ocampo Sr., the father of private respondents; that Miguel Ocampo Sr. and Consorcia Ocampo’s parents (Clemente Ocampo and Remedios Maniquiz) died intestate, leaving behind several pieces of properties including the subject property; that when petitioners were married, they were persuaded by Consorcia Ocampo to remain in their residence as she is a co-owner of the lot where their house stands as evidenced by TCT No. 275408; that when TCT No. 275403 was reconstituted, the name of Consorcia Ocampo was fraudulently deleted, thus depriving Jesusa Pengson of her right as compulsory heir of Consorcia Ocampo who should participate in the settlement of the estate of Clemente and Remedios Ocampo by right of representation.

    In their reply, respondents denied their relationship to petitioner Jesusa Pengson. They pointed out that Consorcia Ocampo and Fabian Santos died without any issue, as admitted by petitioners, and that Jesusa Pengson was just raised by them in their household without the benefit of a legal adoption.

    On January 16, 1996, the MTC rendered judgment in favor of petitioners. It held that petitioner Jesusa Pengson is a legitimate daughter of Fabian Santos and Consorcia Ocampo who is a co-owner of the property in question. It ruled that by virtue of the right of ownership of Consorcia Ocampo, petitioner Jesusa Pengson should be considered co-owner of the subject property, hence, respondents have no cause of action against petitioners.

    On appeal, the RTC affirmed MTC’s judgment. A motion for reconsideration filed by respondents was denied.

    On review, the Court of Appeals nullified the judgments of both MTC and RTC. In lieu thereof, a new one was entered directing petitioners to vacate the property in question and deliver the possession thereof to respondents. It held that MTC’s judgment was void for having been rendered without jurisdiction when it declared that Jesusa Pengson is a legitimate child of Consorcia Ocampo and a co-owner of the property in question.

    Undaunted, petitioners filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, raising the following issues for resolution:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    [I]

    DID THE COURT A QUO ACT IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION AND/OR COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT THAT THE LATTER CAN PASS UPON THE ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE RIGHT OF POSSESSION ONLY IF THE HEREIN PETITIONERS INVOKED THE DEFENSE OF OWNERSHIP IN THEIR ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT?chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    [II]

    DID THE COURT A QUO ACT IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION AND/OR COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DECLARED NULL AND VOID THE DECISION OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT ADMITTING THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF PETITIONER JESUSA PENGSON AS PROOF OF HER FILIATION?

    [III]

    IS THE CONDITIONAL PRESENTATION OF A XEROX COPY OF TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE, RT-40973 WITHOUT HAVING PRODUCED THE ORIGINAL THEREOF AS ORDERED BY THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE TO PROVE OWNERSHIP OF THE LOT IN QUESTION BY THE RESPONDENTS?

    [IV]

    CAN A CO-HEIR (PETITIONER JESUSA PENGSON) OF PARCEL OF LAND BE LEGALLY EXCLUDED BY SOME OF THE CO-HEIRS (RESPONDENTS) FROM THE EXTRA-JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT AND HAVE THE PARCEL OF LAND TITLED AMONG THEMSELVES WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE, CONSENT AND PARTICIPATION OF THE OTHER CO-HEIR? 2

    In this recourse, petitioners impute grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals in rendering the assailed decision. They raise jurisdictional questions which are proper in a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Moreover, they raise factual issues which have not yet been resolved in the proper court. They urge this Court to re-evaluate the Court of Appeals’ appreciation of evidence which cannot be done by certiorari.

    It must be stressed that the jurisdiction of Supreme Court in cases brought before it from the Court of Appeals via Rule 45, as in this case, is limited to reviewing errors or questions of law. 3 It is the burden of the party seeking review of a decision of the Court of Appeals or other lower tribunals to distinctly set forth in his petition for review, not only the existence of questions of law fairly and logically arising therefrom, but also questions substantial enough to merit consideration, or show that there are special and important reasons warranting the review that he seeks. If these are not shown prima facie in his petition, this Court will be justified in summarily spurning the petition as lacking in merit. 4

    In our view, the fundamental question for resolution here is whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the judgment of the RTC which affirmed the ruling of the MTC. The pertinent point of inquiry is whether or not private respondents have valid ground to evict petitioners from the subject property.

    It is settled that a person who occupies a land of another at the latter’s tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing which, a summary action for ejectment is proper remedy against him. 5 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 by the defendant can outrightly deprive the court from taking due cognizance of the case. 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 especially if the former is inseparably linked with the latter. Thus, all that the trial 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. 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 the case between the same parties upon a different cause of action not involving possession. 6

    In this case, respondents’ cause of action for ejectment is grounded on their alleged ownership of land covered by TCT No. 275405. They insist that they merely tolerated petitioners’ stay. Respondents assert that petitioners were unlawfully holding the subject property after such possession had become illegal in view of their demands to vacate and petitioners’ refusal to do so. However, petitioners counter that they are co-owners of said property, thus, they have also the right to possess said property. Petitioners stress that their possession of the subject property is just a continuation of the possession of Consorcia Ocampo as co-owner. Now, since the issue of ownership was raised, it was necessary for the MTC to address such issue in the resolution of the question of possession. Therefore, the MTC correctly received evidence of ownership as the question of possession is intertwined with the question of ownership.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    However, a close scrutiny of the evidence reveals grounds for finding fairly that the MTC and RTC had erred in concluding that Jesusa Pengson co-owns the property which is the subject matter of the ejectment case. As the Court of Appeals observed, the ejectment complaint involved the lot covered by TCT No. 275405 which was subsequently reconstituted and became TCT No. RT-40973. The said lot is described in the complaint as Lot No. 587-C of the subdivision plan LRC Psd-308144 containing an area of 149 square meters. On the other hand, petitioners claim that Jesusa Pengson’s mother was a co-owner of the property covered by TCT No. 275408 which was allegedly reconstituted into TCT No. RT-40973. To support their claim, petitioners presented a photocopy of TCT No. 275408. We note though that what is referred in petitioners’ title (TCT No. 275408) is Lot No. 587-F which contains an area of 229 square meters. Obviously, this is a different lot from that claimed by respondents as the particulars between the two lots are at substantial variance from each other, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    TCT-275405 TCT-275408

    Lot 587-C 587-F

    Area 149 sq. m. 229 sq. m.

    Bounded by NE Lot 587-D Lot 588

    SE Lot 587-E Progreso Road

    SW Lot 587-B Lot 586

    NW Lot 623 Lot 587-B

    In the case at bar, the MTC declared Jesusa Pengson as co-owner of the subject property covered by TCT-275405 despite its obvious disparities from the lot described in TCT-275408 purportedly owned by petitioners. This declaration of co-ownership now appears to us precipitate and devoid of factual and legal basis. Except for her claim of being a co-owner of the subject property, Jesusa Pengson presented no other justification for her continued stay thereat. Consequently, it cannot be persuasively contended that petitioners have valid grounds to remain in the subject property. Accordingly, we are constrained to hold that the Court of Appeals did not err in declaring as null and void the judgments of the MTC dated January 16, 1996 and RTC dated November 15, 1996, and in ordering petitioners to vacate the subject property.

    Needless to stress, this ruling merely settles the issue of physical possession and not the question of ownership over the disputed property which may be ruled upon by the proper court at the proper time in a case where such issue of dominion is squarely raised. It could be in that forum where petitioners’ allegation of fraud in the settlement of the estate and forgery of the reconstituted title RT-40973 could be validly ventilated. 7 Similarly, the issue of Jesusa Pengson’s filiation could only be resolved in an action specifically brought for that purpose before a proper tribunal. Those substantive issues could hardly be made fit for settlement in an ejectment suit, without straining the fragile fabric of judicial competence below.

    WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Bellosillo, Mendoza, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. CA Rollo, p. 43.

    2. Rollo, pp. 53-54.

    3. Siguan v. Lim, 318 SCRA 725, 734 (1999).

    4. Chua Giok Ong v. Court of Appeals, 149 SCRA 115, 121 (1987).

    5. Lagrosa v. CA, 312 SCRA 298, 312 (1999).

    6. Diu v. Ibajan, 322 SCRA 452, 459-460 (2000).

    7. Rollo, p. 14.

    G.R. No. 131968   June 29, 2001 - ERNESTO PENGSON, ET AL v. MIGUEL OCAMPO, 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