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
 

   
October-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 137841 October 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO CHUA

  • G.R. No. 117512 October 2, 2001 - REBECCA ALA-MARTIN v. HON. JUSTO M. SULTAN

  • G.R. No. 120098 October 2, 2001 - RUBY L. TSAI v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS EVER TEXTILE MILLS

  • G.R. No. 124037 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REYNALDO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 126592 October 2, 2001 - ROMEO G. DAVID v. JUDGE TIRSO D.C. VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129900 October 2, 2001 - JANE CARAS y SOLITARIO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 133000 October 2, 2001 - PATRICIA NATCHER petitioner v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE HEIRS OF GRACIANO DEL ROSARIO-LETICIA DEL ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. 133895 October 2, 2001 - ZENAIDA M. SANTOS v. CALIXTO SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135522-23 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMORSOLO G. TORRES

  • G.R. No. 137777 October 2, 2001 - THE PRESIDENTIAL AD-HOC FACT FINDING COMMITTEE, ET AL. v. THE HON. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138322 October 2, 2001 - GRACE J. GARCIA v. REDERICK A. RECIO

  • G.R. No. 138929 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO DEL MUNDO

  • G.R. No. 139050 October 2, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS and AGFHA

  • G.R. No. 142877 October 2, 2001 - JINKIE CHRISTIE A. DE JESUS and JACQUELINE A. DE JESUS v. THE ESTATE OF DECEDENT JUAN GAMBOA DIZON

  • G.R. No. 125081 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REMEDIOS PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 128195 October 3, 2001 - ELIZABETH LEE and PACITA YULEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. Nos. 128514 & 143856-61 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NILO LEONES

  • G.R. Nos. 142602-05 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BONIFACIO ARIOLA

  • A.M. No. 01-6-192-MCTC October 5, 2001 - Request To Designate Another Judge To Try And Decide Criminal Case No. 3713

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1610 October 5, 2001 - ATTY. EDGAR H. TALINGDAN v. JUDGE HENEDINO P. EDUARTE

  • G.R. No. 124498 October 5, 2001 - EDDIE B. SABANDAL v. HON. FELIPE S. TONGCO Presiding Judge

  • G.R. No. 127441 October 5, 2001 - DOROTEO TOBES @ DOTING v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 130499 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PAMFILO QUIMSON @ "NOEL QUIMSON

  • G.R. No. 130962 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE REAPOR y SAN JUAN

  • G.R. No. 131040 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL FRAMIO SABAGALA

  • G.R. No. 132044 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO @ Tony EVANGELISTA Y BINAY

  • G.R. No. 132718 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE CASTILLON III and JOHN DOE

  • G.R. Nos. 135452-53 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO M. ALCOREZA

  • G.R. No. 139760 October 5, 2001 - FELIZARDO S. OBANDO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 144189 October 5, 2001 - R & M GENERAL MERCHANDISE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121948 October 8, 2001 - PERPETUAL HELP CREDIT COOPERATIVE v. BENEDICTO FABURADA

  • G.R. No. 123075 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO L. NUELAN

  • G.R. No. 129926 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLE M. ZATE

  • G.R. No. 137599 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GILBERT BAULITE and LIBERATO BAULITE

  • G.R. No. 138941 October 8, 2001 - AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY v. TANTUCO ENTERPRISES

  • G.R. No. 141297 October 8, 2001 - DOMINGO R. MANALO v. COURT OF APPEALS (Special Twelfth Division) and PAIC SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK

  • A.M. No. 01-9-246-MCTC October 9, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE ALIPIO M. ARAGON

  • G.R. No. 138886 October 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SP01 WILFREDO LEAÑO SP01 FERDINAND MARZAN SPO1 RUBEN B. AGUSTIN SP02 RODEL T. MADERAL * SP02 ALEXANDER S. MICU and SP04 EMILIO M. RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. 141182 October 9, 2001 - HEIRS OF PEDRO CUETO Represented by ASUNCION CUETO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER FIRST DIVISION) and CONSOLACION COMPUESTO

  • A.M. No. 99-12-03-SC October 10, 2001 - RE: INITIAL REPORTS ON THE GRENADE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED AT ABOUT 6:40 A.M. ON DECEMBER 6, 1999

  • G.R. No. 129313 October 10, 2001 - SPOUSES MA. CRISTINA D. TIRONA and OSCAR TIRONA v. HON. FLORO P. ALEJO as Presiding Judge

  • G.R. Nos. 135679 & 137375 October 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GODOFREDO RUIZ

  • G.R. No. 136258 October 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS FELICIANO

  • A.M. No. 2001-9-SC October 11, 2001 - DOROTEO IGOY v. GILBERT SORIANO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1485 October 11, 2001 - TEOFILO C. SANTOS v. JUDGE FELICIANO V. BUENAVENTURA

  • G.R. No. 80796 & 132885 October 11, 2001 - PROVINCE OF CAMARINES NORTE v. PROVINCE OF QUEZON

  • G.R. No. 118387 October 11, 2001 - MARCELO LEE v. COURT OF APPEALS and HON. LORENZO B. VENERACION and HON. JAIME T. HAMOY

  • G.R. Nos. 123913-14 October 11,2001

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO CALLOS

  • G.R. No. 130415 October 11, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALVIN YRAT y BUGAHOD and RAUL JIMENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130562 October 11, 2001 - Brigida Conculada v. Hon. Court Of Appeals

  • G.R. No. 112526 October 12, 2001 - STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 122710 October 12, 2001 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS and REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION

  • G.R. Nos. 134769-71 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO BATION

  • G.R. No. 137843 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO S. AÑONUEVO

  • G.R. No. 139904 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 136470 October 16, 2001 - VENANCIO R. NAVA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 140794 October 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO T. AGLIDAY

  • A.M. No. P-00-7-323-RTJ October 17, 2001 - RE: RELEASE BY JUDGE MANUEL T. MURO, RTC, BRANCH 54 MANILA, OF AN ACCUSED IN A NON-BAILABLE OFFENSE

  • A.M. No. P-00-1419 October 17, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MAGDALENA G. MAGNO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-97-1390 & AM RTJ-98-1411 October 17, 2001 - ATTY. CESAR B. MERIS v. JUDGE CARLOS C. OFILADA

  • G.R. No. 123137 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PO2 ALBERT ABRIOL

  • G.R. No. 124513 October 17, 2001 - ROBERTO ERQUIAGA v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 127540 October 17, 2001 - EUGENIO DOMINGO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 127830 October 17, 2001 - MANOLET LAVIDES v. ERNESTO B. PRE

  • G.R. No. 129069 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO R. RECTO

  • G.R. No. 129236 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO G. DIZON

  • G.R. No. 129389 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TEODORICO UBALDO

  • G.R. Nos. 132673-75 October 17, 200

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR C. GOMEZ

  • G.R. No. 136291 October 17, 2001 - LETICIA M. MAGSINO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 136869 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DENNIS MAZO

  • G.R. No. 141673 October 17, 2001 - MANUEL L. QUEZON UNIVERSITY/AUGUSTO B. SUNICO v. NLRC (Third Division), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142726 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 143190 October 17, 2001 - ANTONIO P. BELICENA v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE

  • G.R. No. 143990 October 17, 2001 - MARIA L. ANIDO v. FILOMENO NEGADO and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 121039-45 October 18, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAYOR ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 132869 October 18, 2001 - GREGORIO DE VERA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 143486 October 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIO DUMAGAY TUADA

  • G.R. No. 144735 October 18, 2001 - YU BUN GUAN v. ELVIRA ONG

  • G.R. No. 116285 October 19, 2001 - ANTONIO TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS and the .C.C.P

  • G.R. Nos. 121201-02 October 19, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES plaintiff-appellee v. GIO CONCORCIO @ JUN

  • G.R. No. 129995 October 19, 2001 - THE PROVINCE OF BATAAN v. HON. PEDRO VILLAFUERTE

  • G.R. No. 130730 October 19, 2001 - HERNANDO GENER v. GREGORIO DE LEON and ZENAIDA FAUSTINO

  • G.R. No. 133002 October 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. INTOY GALLO @ PALALAM

  • G.R. No. 137904 October 19, 2001 - PURIFICACION M. VDA. DE URBANO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS)

  • A.M. No. 99-12-497-RTC October 23, 2001 - REQUEST OF JUDGE FRANCISCO L. CALINGIN

  • G.R. No. 121267 October 23, 2001 - SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LABORATORIES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124036 October 23, 2001 - FIDELINO GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124295 October 23, 2001 - JUDGE RENATO A. FUENTES v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO

  • G.R. No. 125193 October 23, 2001 - MANUEL BARTOCILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 130846 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROGELIO PAMILAR y REVOLIO

  • G.R. No. 131841 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RUBEN VILLARMOSA

  • G.R. No. 132373 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TIRSO ARCAY @ "TISOY" and TEODORO CLEMEN @ "BOY

  • G.R. No. 134740 October 23, 2001 - IRENE V. CRUZ v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 135481 October 23, 2001 - LIGAYA S. SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136105 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO PAREDES y SAUQUILLO

  • G.R. No. 136337 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NELSON CABUNTOG

  • G.R. No. 139114 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMAN LACAP Y CAILLES

  • G.R. No. 139274 October 23, 2001 - QUEZON PROVINCE v. HON. ABELIO M. MARTE

  • G.R. No. 139329 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ERLINDO MAKILANG

  • G.R. Nos. 140934-35 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CONDE RAPISORA y ESTRADA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1634 October 25, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. SILVERIO Q. CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. 102367 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ABUNDIO ALBARIDO and BENEDICTO IGDOY

  • G.R. No. 126359 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. CARLITO OLIVA

  • G.R. No. 127465 October 25, 2001 - SPOUSES NICETAS DELOS SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 133102 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DINDO AMOGIS y CRINCIA

  • G.R. Nos. 134449-50 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PEDRO HERNANDEZ y PALMA

  • G.R. No. 135813 October 25, 2001 - FERNANDO SANTOS v. Spouses ARSENIO and NIEVES REYES

  • G.R. No. 135822 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PIO DACARA y NACIONAL

  • G.R. Nos. 137494-95 October 25, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SOTERO REYES alias "TURING"

  • G.R. Nos. 142741-43 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMEO MANAYAN

  • A.M. No. P-01-1474 October 26, 2001 - ANTONIO C. REYES v. JOSEFINA F. DELIM

  • G.R. No. 120548 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSELITO ESCARDA

  • G.R. Nos. 121492 & 124325 October 26, 2001 - BAN HUA UY FLORES v. JOHNNY K.H. UY

  • G.R. No. 132169 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SANICO NUEVO @ "SANY

  • G.R. No. 133741-42 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LINO VILLARUEL

  • G.R. No. 134802 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENATO Z. DIZON

  • G.R. No. 135920 October 26, 2001 - ENCARNACION ET AL. v. SEVERINA REALTY CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 140719 October 26, 2001 - NICOLAS UY DE BARON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 140912 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODRIGO DIAZ Y SEVILLETA

  • G.R. No. 141540 October 26, 2001 - EDUARDO TAN v. FLORITA MUECO and ROLANDO MUECO

  • G.R. No. 143231 October 26, 2001 - ALBERTO LIM v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 144237 October 26, 2001 - WINSTON C. RACOMA v. MA. ANTONIA B. F. BOMA

  • G.R. Nos. 146319 & 146342 October 26, 2001 - BENJAMIN E. CAWALING v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 146593 October 26, 2001 - UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. ROBERTO V. ONGPIN

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 129313   October 10, 2001 - SPOUSES MA. CRISTINA D. TIRONA and OSCAR TIRONA v. HON. FLORO P. ALEJO as Presiding Judge

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 129313. October 10, 2001.]

    SPOUSES MA. CRISTINA D. TIRONA and OSCAR TIRONA, SPOUSES MA. PAZ D. BAUTISTA and CESAR BAUTISTA, SPOUSES MA. ARANZAZU D. ORETA and CANUTO ORETA, SPOUSES MA. CORAZON D. BAUTISTA and PABLO S. BAUTISTA, JR., and DEO S. DIONISIO, Petitioners, v. HON. FLORO P. ALEJO as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch 172, JUANITO IGNACIO and LUIS NUÑEZ, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N


    QUISUMBING, J.:


    The petition for review assails the joint decision 1 dated April 10, 1997, of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Branch 172, in Civil Cases Nos. 5169-V-97 and 5093-V-97.

    The factual background of this petition are culled from the records of the cases.

    A. Civil Case No. 5093-V-97:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    On March 25, 1996, herein petitioners sued private respondent Luis Nuñez before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Valenzuela, Branch 81. The suit was docketed as Civil Case No. 6633 for ejectment. Petitioners claimed to be owners of various fishpond lots located at Coloong, Valenzuela. 2 They alleged, among others that: (1) on January 20, 1996, private respondent Nuñez, "by means of force, stealth, or strategy, unlawfully entered the said fishpond lots and occupied the same" against their will, thereby depriving them of possession of said fishponds; (2) Nuñez illegally occupied a house owned by and built on the lot of petitioner Deo Dionisio; and (3) Nuñez unlawfully operated and used petitioners’ fishponds, despite their demands to vacate the same. Petitioners prayed that the court order Nuñez to vacate Dionisio’s house; surrender possession of the fishponds to them; remove all milkfish fingerlings at his expense; and pay a monthly compensation of P29,000.00 from January 20, 1996 to the time he surrenders possession, with interest at twelve percent (12%) yearly until fully paid.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Nuñez admitted in his answer that petitioners owned the fishponds, but denied the other allegations. He raised the following affirmative defenses: (1) the MeTC had no jurisdiction over the case, for petitioners’ failure to allege prior physical possession in their complaint; (2) petitioners’ action was premature in view of the pendency of a complaint he filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), docketed as Case No. IV-MM-0099-95R, where the issue of possession in the concept of tenancy is the same as that raised by petitioners in Civil Case No. 6633; and (3) petitioners are guilty of forum-shopping since they were fully aware of the said DARAB case. He moved that the ejectment suit be dismissed.

    On October 1, 1996, the MeTC of Valenzuela, Branch 81, decided Civil Case No. 6633 as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant and all persons claiming rights under him:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. To peacefully vacate and surrender the subject premises to the plaintiffs;

    2. To peacefully vacate and surrender the house belonging to plaintiff Deo S. Dionisio;

    3. To pay the amount of P27,000.00 a month as reasonable compensation from January 20, 1996 up to the time he finally vacates the subject premises;

    4. To pay the amount of P10,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees; and

    5. To pay the costs of suit.

    SO ORDERED. 3

    On November 15, 1996, Nuñez appealed said decision to the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, which docketed the appeal as Civil Case No. 5093-V-97.

    B. Civil Case No. 5169-V-97

    On March 25, 1996, petitioners also instituted Civil Case No. 6632 for ejectment against private respondent Juanito Ignacio with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Valenzuela, Branch 82. The allegations were essentially the same as those against private respondent Nuñez, except it is alleged that Ignacio "also illegally occupied the house constructed on the lot of, and belonging to the plaintiff Spouses Ma. Paz D. Bautista and Cesar Bautista." Petitioners sought the same relief prayed for in Civil Case No. 6633.

    Ignacio raised similar defenses as those offered by Nuñez in Civil Case No. 6633. Like Nuñez, he also moved for dismissal of the ejectment suit against him.

    On February 11, 1997, the MeTC of Valenzuela, Branch 82 issued an order dismissing Civil Case No. 6632 against Ignacio, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, defendant’s motion to cite plaintiffs in contempt of court is denied, and his other motion to dismiss the case is hereby GRANTED.

    Accordingly, the above-entitled case is DISMISSED without pronouncement as to costs.

    SO ORDERED. 4

    In granting Ignacio’s Motion to Dismiss, the MeTC said:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    It is now clear to the mind of the Court that the issue of recovery of possession pursued by plaintiffs in this case is pending also for adjudication among other issues in DARAB Case No. IV-MM-0099-95. There is no dispute that both this case and the DARAB case involve the same real property or at least, adjoining lots covered by titles in the names of some of the plaintiffs, which lots are also involved in this case.

    x       x       x


    Clearly, said DARAB case is a prejudicial question to the case at bar, and or vice versa (stress in the original). The possibility that this Court and the DARAB may come up with two contradicting decisions on issue of possession shall always be there, and since the DARAB case was filed first, there appears compelling necessity to halt proceedings in this case. 5

    On February 27, 1997, petitioners appealed the foregoing Order to the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, which docketed their appeal as Civil Case No. 5169-V-97.

    Since Civil Cases Nos. 5093-V-97 and 5169-V-97 involved essentially the same parties, the same subject matter, and the same issues, the cases were jointly heard before Branch 172 of the RTC of Valenzuela.

    On April 10, 1997, Civil Cases Nos. 5093-V-97 and 5169-V-97 were jointly decided.

    WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. Affirming the appealed Order of the trial court dated February 11, 1997 dismissing Civil Case No. 6632, with the modification that the plaintiffs be made liable to pay the costs of suit; and

    2. Reversing the appealed decision of the trial court dated October 1, 1996 in Civil Case No. 6633 and dismissing the above-entitled case for the reasons stated above. The plaintiffs are ordered to pay the costs of suit.

    SO ORDERED. 6

    In ruling against herein petitioners, the RTC found:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (1) As correctly pointed out by the counsel for the defendants in his memorandum on appeal, it is now settled that a complaint for forcible entry to fall within the jurisdiction of the inferior court must allege plaintiffs’ prior physical possession of the property by any of the means provided in Section 1 of Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court. Bare allegation in the complaint that the plaintiff was deprived of the possession of the property is insufficient to make the action one for forcible entry (Citation omitted)

    In the instant case, while the complainants allege that the defendants (Ignacio in Civil Case No. 6632 and Nunez in Civil Case No. 6633) by means of force, stealth or strategy "unlawfully entered the said fishpond lots and occupied the same against the will of the plaintiffs," there is no allegation that the plaintiffs had prior physical possession of the property in dispute. The complaint(s) in the above-entitled cases therefore did not fall within the jurisdiction of the trial courts.

    (2) The DARAB case (Case No. IV-MM-0099-95R) between the herein parties and covering the same subject matter was filed way ahead of the instant cases. The allegation in the DARAB complaint that the complainants are agricultural or share tenants is opposed to the claim of the respondents in their answer that the complainants are their industrial partners. The DARAB case thus presented a dispute that is clearly agrarian in nature. Under existing laws . . . the Department of Agrarian Reform, thru the DARAB, is vested with exclusive jurisdiction over all agrarian reform matters or agrarian disputes.

    The principal issue in the instant cases for forcible entry — whether or not to eject the defendants from the fishponds — is necessarily connected with the agrarian dispute now pending resolution before the DARAB. It is therefore beyond the competence of the inferior court to resolve.

    x       x       x


    (3) The plaintiffs were less than honest in certifying under oath that they have no knowledge of any case pending before any tribunal or agency involving the same issues raised in the instant cases. At the time of their certification, there was pending before the DARAB of a case between the same parties with the same subject matter and where the issue of possession as raised in the instant cases is necessarily included in the larger issue of agricultural tenancy. The plaintiffs therefore violated Administrative Order No. 04-94 of the Supreme Court, which is a ground for dismissal. 7

    On May 6, 1997, petitioners filed with the RTC a joint Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Civil Cases Nos. 6632 and 6633 and a Motion for Reconsideration, together with the proposed Amended Complaints. On May 20, 1997, the RTC denied the aforementioned motions.

    Hence, the instant petition. Petitioners assign the following as errors committed by the RTC:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING PRIME IMPORTANCE TO THE FAILURE OF PLAINTIFFS TO AVER IN THEIR COMPLAINT(S) THAT THEY WERE IN POSSESSION AT THE TIME OF THE FORCIBLE ENTRY MADE BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS.

    2. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO MAKE A FINDING THAT PLAINTIFFS WERE IN POSSESSION OF THEIR PROPERTIES AT THE TIME OF FORCIBLE ENTRY THEREUNTO BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS, FOR WHICH RELIEFS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO HEREIN PETITIONERS.

    3. THE PENDENCY OF THE SUIT FILED BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM DID NOT PROSCRIBE THE INSTITUTION OF THE EJECTMENT CASE(S).

    4. THERE HAD BEEN NO INFRACTION ON THE AFFIDAVIT OF NON FORUM SHOPPING REQUIREMENTS.

    The main issue for our resolution involves the jurisdiction of the metropolitan trial courts: was petitioners’ failure to allege prior physical possession in a case for forcible entry fatal to the jurisdiction of the inferior courts? Ancillary thereto, we also must inquire (a) whether the pendency of the Case No. IV-MM-0099-95R before the DARAB barred the filing of Civil Cases Nos. 6632 and 6633 for forcible entry; and (b) whether petitioners violated Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94 proscribing forum shopping.

    On the main issue, petitioners contend that the averment of the identities of the persons in possession of the disputed properties at the time of the forcible entry thereunto is not jurisdictional in character. Petitioners argue that the deficiency, if any, could have been remedied by amended or supplemental pleadings or by the submission of admissible evidence. They point out that the MeTC, Branch 81 in Civil Case No. 6633 had received evidence of petitioners’ actual possession, resulting in a finding of fact of actual possession in its Decision of October 1, 1996. It was, therefore, an error for the RTC to have disregarded said finding of fact on the ground that the requisites for the MeTC to acquire jurisdiction over the forcible entry cases had not been complied with. It was likewise error for the RTC to have denied the admission of petitioners’ Amended Complaints.

    Private respondents argue that a closer scrutiny of the allegations in the complaints in Civil Cases Nos. 6632 and 6633 filed with the court of origin will clearly show that there is no allegation whatsoever of prior physical possession on petitioners’ part. All that is averred is unlawful deprivation by private respondents. They submit that this glaring defect is fatal enough to deprive the inferior court of jurisdiction over the forcible entry cases. With respect to the denial of admission of petitioners’ Amended Complaints, private respondents point out that amendments for the purpose of making the complaint confer jurisdiction upon the court are not allowed.

    The jurisdiction of a court is determined by the allegations of the complaint, and the rule is no different in actions for ejectment. 8 Thus, in ascertaining whether or not the action is one for forcible entry falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the inferior courts, the averments of the complaint and the character of the relief sought are to be examined. Petitioners’ complaints in Civil Cases Nos. 6632 and 6633 are virtually identical, save as to the names of the defendants and the owners of the houses allegedly occupied by private respondents. The pertinent allegations in Civil Case No. 6633 read:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    3) That plaintiffs in their individual rights, are respective owners in fee simple of fishpond lots located at Barangay Coloong, Municipality of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, with areas, lot numbers, and titles, xerox copies of which are Annexed hereto . . .

    x       x       x


    4) That on or about January 20, 1996, said defendant Luis Nuñez by means of force, stealth or strategy, unlawfully entered the said fishpond lots and occupied the same against the will of the plaintiffs thereby depriving said owners of the possession of the same;

    5) That defendant Luis Nuñez also illegally occupied the house constructed on the lot of, and belonging to, plaintiff Deo S. Dionisio;

    6) That said defendant also planted bangus fingerlings in the said fishponds and despite demands for them to remove the same and vacate the fishponds . . . still continue to unlawfully, illegally, and wantonly occupy said house and operate said fishponds to the great damage and prejudice of the plaintiffs. 9

    Petitioners submit that the phrase "thereby depriving said owners of the possession of the same" in paragraph 4 is tantamount to an averment of prior physical possession since private respondents could not have deprived them of possession unless the latter had been previously in possession of the subject properties.

    We are not persuaded. It cannot be inferred from the aforecited phrase that the possession that petitioners were supposedly deprived of is a prior physical possession. The question arises, what sort of prior physical possession is to be averred? The word "possession" as used in forcible entry and unlawful detainer, means nothing more than physical possession, (stress supplied) not legal possession in the sense contemplated in civil law. 10 The allegation must likewise show priority in time. Both requisites are wanting in the phrase relied upon by petitioners.

    A reading of the allegations in the complaints leads us to conclude that petitioners’ action was one for forcible entry, not unlawful detainer. The distinctions between the two actions are: (1) In an action for forcible entry, the plaintiff must allege and prove that he was in prior physical possession of the premises until deprived thereof, while in illegal detainer, the plaintiff need not have been in prior physical possession; and (2) in forcible entry, the possession by the defendant is unlawful ab initio because he acquires possession by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, while in unlawful detainer, possession is originally lawful but becomes illegal by reason of the termination of his right of possession under his contract with the plaintiff. In pleadings filed in courts of special jurisdiction, the special facts giving the court jurisdiction must be specially alleged and set out. Otherwise, the complaint is demurrable. 11 Hence, in actions for forcible entry, two allegations are mandatory for the municipal court to acquire jurisdiction: First, the plaintiff must allege his prior physical possession of the property. Second, he must also allege that he was deprived of his possession by any of the means provided for in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, namely: force, intimidation, threats, strategy, and stealth. 12 Recall that the complaints in Civil Cases Nos. 6632 and 6633 failed to allege prior physical possession of the property on the part of petitioners. All that is alleged is unlawful deprivation of their possession by private respondents. The deficiency is fatal to petitioners’ actions before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Valenzuela. Such bare allegation is insufficient for the MeTC to acquire jurisdiction. No reversible error was, therefore, committed by the RTC when it held that the Metropolitan Trial Court acquired no jurisdiction over Civil Cases Nos. 6632 and 6633 for failure of the complaints to aver prior physical possession by petitioners.

    But was the deficiency remedied, however, when petitioners submitted their Amended Complaints?

    The policy in this jurisdiction is that amendments to pleadings are favored and liberally allowed in the interests of substantial justice. Thus, amendments of the complaint may be allowed even if an order for its dismissal has been issued so long as the motion to amend is filed before the order of dismissal acquired finality. 13 Note, however, that it is not a hard and fast rule. An amendment is not allowed where the court has no jurisdiction over the original complaint and the purpose of the amendment is to confer jurisdiction upon the court, 14 or where the action originally pleaded in the complaint was outside the jurisdiction of the court. 15 We have carefully perused petitioners’ proposed amendments and found them to include the allegation that petitioners were in prior physical possession of the disputed fishponds before said possession was allegedly disturbed. Clearly, the purpose is to sidestep the RTC ruling that MeTC had no jurisdiction over their complaints and allow the inferior court to acquire jurisdiction. This we cannot allow. Where the court of origin had no jurisdiction over the original complaint in the first place, amendments may not be had. It is axiomatic that before an amendment can be permitted, the trial court must have acquired jurisdiction over the case in the first instance. 16

    Regarding the second issue, petitioners contend that the DARAB had no jurisdiction over Case No. IV-MM-0099-95R. They submit that with the passage of Republic Act No. 7881 17 on February 20, 1995, private lands directly and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds are exempt from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or Republic Act No. 6657. No agrarian relation thus subsisted between the parties for the DARAB to take cognizance of. Thus, litis pendentia did not bar the filing of Civil Cases Nos. 6632 and 6633. Stated differently, the pendency of Case No. IV-MM-0099-95R did not divest the MeTC of its jurisdiction to hear and try the forcible entry cases.

    Private respondents contend that a comparison between DARAB Case No. IV-MM-0099-95R and Civil Cases Nos. 6632 and 6633 would show the same parties, the same subject matter of controversy, and the same issues. In other words, litis pendentia lies and may be availed of to dismiss the cases for forcible entry filed with the MeTC.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    At the outset, we must point out that petitioners’ reliance upon Republic Act No. 7881 is off tangent. It is not disputed that at the time of the filing of Civil Cases Nos. 6632 and 6633, an agrarian relations dispute was pending before the DARAB. The records show that private respondents as the complainants in Case No. IV-MM-0099-95R, were asserting tenancy rights, including the right to possession of the disputed fishponds or parts thereof, under Republic Act Nos. 3844 18 and 1199. 19 Private respondents were thus claiming vested substantive rights, dating back to 1975 in the case of respondent Ignacio and 1979 in the case of respondent Nuñez, under substantive laws. A substantive law is a law, which creates, defines, or regulates rights concerning life, liberty, or property, or the powers of agencies or instrumentalities for the administration of public affairs. 20 Republic Act No. 7881, in exempting prawn farms and fishponds from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, is a substantive law. By its very nature and essence, substantive law operates prospectively 21 and may not be construed retroactively without affecting previous or past rights. Hence, in view of the absence of a contrary intent in its provisions, Republic Act No. 7881 should be given a prospective operation and may not affect rights claimed under previous agrarian legislation.

    Under Rule 16, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, litis pendentia or pendency of another action is a ground for the dismissal of the second action. Recall that in the motions to dismiss filed by private respondents in Civil Case Nos. 6632 and 6633, the pendency of the DARAB case was one of the grounds relied upon in seeking the dismissal of both actions. For litis pendentia to lie, the following requisites must be satisfied:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. Identity of parties or representation in both cases;

    2. Identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for;

    3. The relief must be founded on the same facts and the same basis; and

    4. Identity of the two preceding particulars should be such that any judgment, which may be rendered in the other action, will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata on the action under consideration. 22

    These requisites, in our view, are present in this case. For one, the parties in the DARAB case and in the forcible entry cases filed with the MeTC are the same. Also, there is identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for. The action in Case No. IV-MM-0099-95R is for "declaration of tenancy, accounting, recovery of possession, specific performance, recovery of sum of money, plus damages" against petitioners. Note that the properties that private respondents seek to recover possession of in the DARAB case form part of the properties from which petitioners seek the ejectment of private respondents. The evident and logical conclusion then is that any decision that may be rendered in the DARAB case regarding the question of possession will also resolve the question of possession in the forcible entry cases. Undergirding the principle of litis pendentia is the theory that a party is not allowed to vex another more than once regarding the same subject matter and for the same cause of action. This theory is founded on the public policy that the same matter should not be subject of controversy in court more than once in order that possible conflicting judgments may be avoided, for the sake of the stability in the rights and status of persons. The MeTC of Valenzuela, Branch 82, recognized this doctrine when it dismissed Civil Case No. 6632 to avoid the possibility of two contradictory decisions on the question of possession emanating from the DARAB and the trial court. In turn, the RTC was correct in finding that the issue of possession was inextricably intertwined with the agrarian dispute, an issue which was beyond the jurisdiction and competence of the inferior court to settle. In so doing, the RTC deferred to the primary jurisdiction and administrative expertise of the DARAB to settle agrarian cases. Thus, we are constrained to conclude that under the concept of litis pendentia, the pendency of DARAB Case No. IV-MM-0099-95R served as a bar to the filing of Civil Cases Nos. 6632 and 6633.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    On the third issue, petitioners maintain that the petitioner-affiant who subscribed the requisite Affidavit of Non-forum Shopping understood that the issues pending resolution before the DARAB had no relation to petitioners’ actions for forcible entry, and hence had seen no need to report anymore the pendency of the DARAB case. Moreover, private respondents claim that in their pleadings they early enough disclosed the pendency of the DARAB case to the courts hearing the ejectment cases. Hence, they aver that there was no violation whatsoever of the non-forum shopping requirements.

    Private respondents argue that petitioners’ explanations on the matter amount to a mea culpa on account of wild speculation and assumption of the facts of the case. They ask us to affirm the findings below that petitioners violated the Court’s Circular proscribing forum shopping.

    Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94, imposing additional requisites in civil complaints, petitions, and other initiatory pleadings filed in all courts and agencies to prevent forum shopping, provides in part:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. The plaintiff, Petitioner, applicant or principal party seeking relief in the complaint, petition, application or other initiatory pleading shall certify under oath in such original pleading, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith to the truth of the following facts and undertakings: (a) he has not theretofore commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; (b) to the best of his knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; (c) if there is any such action or proceeding which is either pending or may have been terminated, he must state the status thereof; and (d) if should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court or agency wherein the original pleading and sworn certificate contemplated herein have been filed.

    x       x       x


    2. Any violation of this Circular shall be a cause for the dismissal of the complaint, petition, application or other initiatory pleading, upon motion and after hearing...

    That there was a DARAB case pending involving the same parties with the same subject matter at the time petitioners filed Civil Cases Nos. 6632 and 6633 is not contested. Petitioners admit that they assumed that the issues in the agrarian case and the forcible entry cases were different and hence saw no need to report the pendency of the former to the trial court in their certification of non-forum shopping. We fail to see the basis for this assumption. The records disclose that the issue of possession as raised in the forcible entry cases is necessarily included in the question of agricultural tenancy raised in the DARAB case. Note that petitioners actively participated in the latter case and thus, could not have been unaware that the possession of the subject fishponds or parts thereof was in issue before the Board. Petitioners’ failure to see that paragraph 1(b), 1(c), or 1(d) of Administrative Circular No. 04-94 applied to them is simply incomprehensible. We agree with the RTC in certifying under oath that they have no knowledge of any case pending before any other tribunal or agency involving the same issue raised in their forcible entry cases, petitioners were less than candid.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the test applied is whether the elements of litis pendentia are present or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. 23 Recall that as earlier discussed, the requisites of litis pendentia barred the filing of Civil Cases Nos. 6632 and 6633 given the pendency of DARAB Case No. IV-MM-0099-95R. Based thereon, the Regional Trial Court correctly dismissed the forcible entry cases on the additional ground of forum shopping.

    WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED, and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Branch 172, in Civil Cases Nos. 5093-V-97 and 5169-V-97 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.

    SO ORDERED.

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

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, pp. 243-247.

    2. Specifically, these properties are Lot 1 of the cons. - subd. Plan (LRC) Pcs-20114, with an area of 40, 810 square meters more or less, covered by TCT No. T-228752 in the names of the spouses Maria Aranzazu D. Oreta and Canuto Oreta; Lot 2 of the cons.-subd. Plan (LRC) Pcs-20114, with an area of 41,319 square meters more or less, covered by TCT No. T-228753 in the names of the spouses Maria Corazon D. Bautista and Pablo S. Bautista, Jr.; Lot 3 of the cons.-subd. Plan (LRC) Pcs-20114, with a total area of 43,406 square meters more or less, with TCT No. T-228754 in the names of the spouses Maria Cristina D. Tirona and Oscar Tirona; Lot 4 of the cons.-subd. Plan (LRC) Pcs-20114, consisting of 41,349 square meters more or less, with TCT No. T-228755 in the name of Deo S. Dionisio; and Lot 5 of the cons.-subd. Plan (LRC) Pcs-20114, totaling 41,349 square meters more or less, covered by TCT No. T-228756 in the name of the spouses Maria Paz D. Bautista and Cesar Bautista. See Annexes "A" to "F", Complaint, Rollo, pp. 69-74.

    3. Records, Civil Case No. 5093-V-97, p. 111.

    4. Records, Civil Case No. 5169-V-97, p. 250.

    5. Id. at 249-250.

    6. Rollo, p. 210.

    7. Id., at 209-210.

    8. Lavibo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123462, 271 SCRA 143, 146 (1997) citing Asset Privatization Trust v. Court of Appeals, 229 SCRA 627 (1994).

    9. Records, Civil Case No. 5093-V-97, pp. 1-2.

    10. Mediran v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 12838, 37 Phil. 752, 761 (1918).

    11. Gumiran v. Gumiran, G.R. No. 6364, 21 Phil. 174, 179 (1912).

    12. Pasagui v. Villablancas, G.R. No. L-21998, 68 SCRA 18, 21 (1975).

    13. Constantino, el al. v. Hon. Reyes, Et Al., G.R. No. L-16853, 118 Phil. 385, 388-389, citing Arranz v. Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc., 108 Phil. 747 (1960).

    14. Rosario and Untalan v. Carangdang Et. Al., G.R. No. L-7076, 96 Phil. 845, 850 (1955)

    15. Versoza v. Versoza, G.R. No. L-25609, 135 Phil. 84, 93 (1968), citing Tamayo v. San Miguel Brewery, Inc., 119 Phil. 368 (1964) Campos Rueda Corp. v. Bautista, G.R. No. L-18453, September 29, 1962, and Rosario v. Carangdang supra.

    16. Gaspar v. Dorado, Et Al., G.R. No. L-17884, 122 Phil 728, 731 (1965).

    17. Entitled "An Act Amending Certain Provisions Of Republic Act No. 6657, Entitled ‘An Act Instituting A Comprehensive Agrarian Reforrn Program To Promote Social Justice and Industrialization, Providing The Mechanism For Its Implementation, And For Other Purposes."cralaw virtua1aw library

    18. More popularly known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code of 1963. It abolished share tenancy (Sec. 4), by establishing agricultural leasehold relations (Sec. 5). However, fishponds were among those agricultural lands exempted from leasehold (Sec. 35), with the tenancy system prevailing in fishponds to be governed by Republic Act No. 1199. Section 35 of Republic Act No. 3844 was specifically repealed by Section 76 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.

    19. Also known as the Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines.

    20. Primicias v. Ocampo, Et Al., G.R. No. L-6120, 93 Phil. 446, 452 (1953).

    21. Tolentino, Et. Al. v. Alzate, Et Al., G.R. No. L-9267, 98 Phil. 781, 793-794 (1956).

    22. Tourist Duty Free Shops, Inc. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 107395, 323 SCRA 358, 367 (2000).

    23. Solid Homes, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108451, 337 Phil. 605, 615 (1997), citing First Philippines International Bank v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 259 (1996).

    G.R. No. 129313   October 10, 2001 - SPOUSES MA. CRISTINA D. TIRONA and OSCAR TIRONA v. HON. FLORO P. ALEJO as Presiding Judge


    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