March 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 181212 : March 03, 2010]

EDGARDO B. PERALTA AND EDMUNDO B. PERALTA V. ESTATE OF SPOUSES VALERIANO C. BUENO AND GENOVEVA I. BUENO, REPRESENTED BY VALERIANO I. BUENO, JR. AND SUSAN I. BUENO, AS PRIVATE RESPONDENTS, AND JUDGE CAROLINE RIVERA-COLASITO AS PUBLIC RESPONDENT IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT (METC) MANILA, BRANCH 8


Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 03 March 2010:

G.R. No. 181212 (EDGARDO B. PERALTA and EDMUNDO B. PERALTA v. ESTATE OF SPOUSES VALERIANO C. BUENO and GENOVEVA I. BUENO, represented by VALERIANO I. BUENO, Jr. and SUSAN I. BUENO, as private respondents, and JUDGE CAROLINE RIVERA-COLASITO as public respondent in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Manila, Branch 8) - Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 31, 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No. 89806 which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Manila, dated November 30, 2004, for Certiorari and Mandamus under Rule 65; and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated December 27, 2007, which denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration from the Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 89806.

Petitioners pray for the permanent dismissal of the action for ejectment filed against them. Petitioners posit the fact that since the complaint for unlawful detainer was dismissed without prejudice during the preliminary conference stage, it is a fundamental precept in adjective law that Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, and not Rule 17, should have governed the preliminary conference stage of the unlawflil detainer case. Petitioners contend that the dismissal of the unlawful detainer case should have been with prejudice, otherwise, the re-filing of the suit for the recovery of possession will transgress the one-year impediment for action interdictal. Petitioners reason that irrespective of who among the family members and siblings of petitioners is in actual possession of the realty, no action for ejectment can be filed against any of them due to the lapse of the one-year time frame from the letters of demand in 2001 and 2002. Petitioners also contend that since respondents impleaded petitioners as party-defendant in the ejectment suit, respondents could not, therefore, question petitioners' standing as a party and should be allowed to raise defenses which negate private respondents' right to the property in question.

In their Comment, private respondents prayed that the petition be denied contending that the subject property is registered under the name of the deceased Spouses Valeriano C. Bueno and Genoveva Ignacio, parents of herein private respondents. Petitioners' possession of the subject property was merely tolerated by private respondents' parents and by private respondents themselves. To dismiss the complaint with prejudice would actually foreclose the right of private respondents to go against the actual possessor of the subject property. Private respondents farther averred that petitioners have no legal personality to institute this petition not being a real party-in-interest. Petitioners judicially admitted that the property subject of this case is occupied, possessed, and adjudicated to Judge Eduardo Peralta, Jr. Petitioners, in their Answer, admitted that "the actual occupant of the property is Judge Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. Also, in Civil Case No. 96-76696 entitled "Estate of Eduardo M. Peralta, Sr. and Luz Peralta vs. Sps. Valeriano and the Heirs of Genoveva Bueno" pending before Branch 37, RTC, Manila, petitioner Edmundo Peralta admitted that the property subject of this case was already adjudicated to Judge Eduardo Peralta, Jr. and the latter is in possession of the property.

In their Reply, petitioners reasoned that although they admit the existence of the Certificate of Title covering the subject property, they do not recognize the probative value of the said TCT under the principle that a Certificate of Title does not establish ownership. Petitioners specifically denied that the subject property was still the property of the late Spouses Bueno at the time of their death. As early as 1960, the late Atty. Eduardo M. Peralta, Sr. and Luz B. Peralta were already the owners of the subject property. Possession of the present occupant, Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., was not tolerated and was a continuation of the possession of their deceased parents. Further, petitioners averred that they were impleaded as party- defendants in the ejectment suit by private respondents themselves. Thus, private respondents could not question their standing and should allow petitioners to raise defenses which would negate private respondents1 right to the property in question.

Indeed, Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court could not be properly applied. The mere fact that a preliminary conference was already had in this case is of little significance. The dismissal of the action for unlawful detainer filed against the petitioners in the MeTC was not due to the failure of either the petitioners or the respondents to appear during the preliminary conference. In the Order issued by the MeTC, it was clear that respondents, as plaintiffs, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint for unlawful detainer without prejudice, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court in the event that respondents' motion for reconsideration be denied . Thus, Section 2, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court was clearly in point, and petitioners have not shown that the said Order of the MeTC constituted a whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment by the said court.

It also settled that the subject property is registered under the name of the deceased parents of herein private respondents. Thus, the Court of Appeals is correct in declaring that under the Rules of Court, there is nothing to prevent private respondents from commencing another unlawful detainer action against petitioners after the dismissal of Civil Case No. 170694, even if with prejudice, should petitioners subsequently be in actual possession of the premises, provided the latter action is based on a different demand to vacate issued within a year before the filing. Private respondents could not also be barred from filing an unlawful detainer action against Judge Peralta, Jr., due to his being the actual possessor of the premises, provided they do so within a year from the demand to vacate duly made upon him.

Lastly, petitioners are not the real parties-in-interest under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Since petitioners are not the actual occupants and possessors of the subject property, they could not be prejudiced by the Order dismissing the petition for certiorari and mandamus. Under the Rules of Court, the remedy of certiorari and mandamus is expressly made available only to a party aggrieved.

In view of the foregoing, the Court resolves to the petition filed by petitioners there being no reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals in its Decision. Accordingly, the case is considered and TERMINATED.

SO ORDERED.

the Honorable Renato C. Corona, Chairperson, Hon. Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Hon. Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Hon. Diosdado M Peralta and Hon. Jose C. Mendoza, Members, Third Division, this 3rd day of March 2010.


Very truly yours,


(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main