Republic
of the
PhilippinesSUPREME
COURTBaguioFIRST
DIVISION
OFELIA C.
LAVIBO and BENJAMIN L. BARGAS,
Petitioners,
G. R. No. 123462
April 10, 1997
-versus-
HON.
COURT OF APPEALS and TRADAL VENTURES
AND MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,
Respondents.
D
E C I S I O N
VITUG, J.:
Petitioners
seek via a Petition for Review on
Certiorari,
the reversal of the Decision,[1]
dated 29 November 1995, of the Court of Appeals and its resolution of
09
January 1996 denying a reconsideration thereof.
The facts here
obtaining are not in dispute.cralaw:red
On 07 December
1993, Tradal Ventures and Management
Corporation ["Tradal"] entered into a contract with Ofelia
Lavibo
to sell a unit in the Shenandoah Twinhomes, South Green Park
Subdivision
Parañaque, Metro Manila, for P1,500,000.00. The
amount
was stipulated to be payable in the following manner, viz:
[a] Partial payment in the amount of
P100,000.00
upon execution of this agreement, receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged
by herein SELLER;
[b] Partial payment in the amount of
P120,000.00
on or before December 21, 1993;
[c] Full downpayment in the amount of
P280,000.00
on or before December 21, 1993;
[d] The balance of one million pesos
upon
release
of loan from BPI-Family Bank.[2]
It was agreed
that the buyer would "not occupy or
take possession of the aforementioned property until after the full
release
of buyer's loan from the BPI-Family Bank."[3]
This proviso of the contract notwithstanding, Tradal, on 11 January
1994,
allowed Lavibo to occupy the townhouse unit after the latter had issued
two [2] postdated checks for the total amount of P330,000.00. When
presented
for payment, however, the checks were dishonored apparently because the
covering account had by then been closed. On 19 September 1994, Tradal
made a demand on Lavibo to vacate the premises. She failed to vacate
the
unit or to redeem the dishonored checks.
On 19 October
1994, Tradal filed with the Metropolitan
Trial Court ["MeTC"] of Parañaque, a complaint for
ejectment
against Lavibo and one Atty. Benjamin Bargas. The defendants, instead
of
filing an answer, filed a manifestation that sought the dismissal of
the
action on the following grounds: That-
[a] it states no cause of action for a
valid
complaint for ejectment;
[b] it anchors its complaint on a
contract
to
sell a real :estate property, and not a contract of lease having been
violated
that, otherwise, would put it under the Summary Rules;
[c] it seeks recovery of at least five
hundred
thousand pesos in actual and moral damages, outside that, otherwise,
would
be covered by the Summary Rules; and
[d] very clearly, it is outside and
beyond
the
jurisdiction of the Honorable Court.[4]
The MeTC, on 27
February 1995, dismissed the complaint.
It held that:
While the complaint is captioned for
ejectment
it actually prays for rescission of the parties' contract to sell.
Further,
plaintiff in its letter addressed to defendants only demands that the
subject
premises be vacated, and that the checks issued to the plaintiff were
dishonored
for "Account Closed."
Be it noted that Ejectment may only be
availed
of and instituted by the plaintiff in the instant case only after its
Contract
to Sell with the defendants has been rescinded either by notarial act
or
by filing with the proper court an action for rescission under Articles
1380 and 1381 of the Civil Code.
Under the foregoing circumstances, it
appears
that the filing of an ejectment case is premature, the basis of which
being
a violation of the parties' Contract to Sell which has not been
rescinded
as yet; thus, this court not being invested with jurisdiction on
rescission
of contracts, it cannot take cognizance of the instant case, especially
so that at the moment the validity of the parties' Contract to Sell is
still presumed. In the alternative, the plaintiff can also avail itself
with the remedy of an action for specific performance.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, let
this
case
be DISMISSED for want of cause of action.
SO ORDERED.[5]
On appeal, the
Regional Trial Court ["RTC"][6]
affirmed in toto the decision of the court a quo.
Tradal forthwith filed a petition for
review
on certiorari with the Court of Appeals. On 29 November 1995, the
appellate
court, ruling in favor of Tradal, concluded:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby
GRANTED
and the decision appealed from REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The court orders
private respondents:
[1] and all persons claiming right
under them
to immediately vacate the premises, to peacefully restore possession
thereof
to petitioner; and
[2] to pay petitioner the unit's
fair
rental value
of P7,000.00 a month starting January 11, 1994, until the premises is
vacated,
the P100,000.00 initially paid by private respondent to petitioner to
be
applied to the total fair rental value; and to pay the petitioner the
balance
thereof. SO ORDERED.[7]
In a resolution
dated 09 January 1996, the appellate
court denied a motion to have the decision reconsidered. Hence, the
recourse
to this Court. The petition was initially dismissed for failing
to
comply with Revised Circular No. 28-91. Later, however, the Court
granted
petitioners' motion for reconsideration and reinstated the petition.
We rule for
petitioners.cralaw:red
The jurisdiction
of a court is determined by the
allegations of the complaint. The rule is no different in an action for
ejectment.[8]
The complaint filed by Tradal before the MeTC, in pertinent parts,
reads:
That on December 7, 1993, plaintiff
entered
into
a contract to sell to defendants Unit 3B Shenandoah Twin Homes in
Merville,
Parañaque, M.M., copy of which is hereto attached as Annex "A"
and
made part hereof;
Under par. 2[4] of said contract,
defendants
shall
not occupy or take possession of subject property until full payment of
the purchase price. However, upon assurance by the defendants that
their
post-dated checks would be honored, copy each of which are hereto
attached
as Annexes "B" and "C" and made parts hereof, plaintiff allowed them to
transfer to said unit sometime in January, 1994;
Upon encashment of said checks,
however,
they
were dishonored for reasons of "ACCOUNT CLOSED" and since then
defendants
refused to redeem those checks or vacate the premises despite demands
to
do so, much less paid for the unit;
Finally, plaintiff referred the matter
to
the
undersigned counsel who wrote defendants a demand letter, copy of which
is hereto attached as Annex "D" and made part hereof, which defendant
Bargas
personally received as shown therein;
That by virtue of the unwarranted acts
of
defendants,
plaintiff is entitled to rescission of the contract, Annex "A" and to
damages
amounting to P500T in form of unrealized profits, mental anguish and
embarrassment,
expenses for litigation and attorney's fees for which defendants should
be held liable including exemplary damages in the discretion of the
Court.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed
that
judgment
be rendered in favor of plaintiff against defendants, ejecting them or
their representatives from said unit and ordering defendants to pay
P500T
for actual and moral damages and such sum that the Court may grant in
its
discretion for exemplary damages and declaring the contract, Annex "A"
rescinded. Plaintiff further prays for such other reliefs just and
proper
under the circumstances.[9]
It thus appears
to be evident that the suit is, in
reality, one for on rescission [with the plaintiff claiming to be
"entitled
to rescission"], and as such, the complaint is cognizable not by the
MeTC
but by the RTC. Since the "Contract to Sell" between the parties still
subsists, at least until properly rescinded, the action for ejectment
filed
by Tradal is clearly premature. The dismissal of the complaint by the
MeTC
has been rightly sustained by the RTC.
It is most
unfortunate that time, not to mention
the efforts of both parties, has been uselessly spent on. the case but
when jurisdiction is correctly assailed, little, if at all, can be done
to discard the problem.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the
decision of the Court of Appeals
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the decision of the Regional Trial Court
is reinstated. No costs.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Padilla,
Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
Hermosisima, Jr., J., is on leave.cralaw:red
_________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Antonio P. Solano and concurred in by
Associate
Justices Emeterio C. Cui and Ricardo P. Galvez.
[2]
Rollo, p 30.
[3]
Ibid.
[4]
Rollo, pp. 30-31.
[5]
Rollo, pp. 31-32.
[6]
In a decision dated 28 June 1995.
[7]
Rollo, pp. 12-13.
[8]
Asset Privatization Trust vs. Court of Appeals, 229 SCRA 627.
[9]
Rollo, pp 41-42. |