ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 137161. March 1, 1999]

DELOS REYES, et al. vs. SACAPA�O

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 1, 1999.

G.R. No. 137161 (Aniceto delos Reyes, et al. vs. Teodoro L. Sacapa�o).

Petitioners, as defendants in the forcible entry case filed by respondent, were ordered by the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Branch 5 of Buruanga, Aklan, to vacate the land subject of the litigation, surrender possession of the same to respondent, and pay respondent the sum of P500.00 per month starting May 1996 as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the land. The trial court found that respondent and his predecessors-in-interest had been in peaceful, open and actual possession of the land for more than 50 years until petitioners unlawfully occupied the same through force, stealth and strategy sometime in April 1996. The decision of the MCTC was subsequently affirmed, first, by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Kalibo, Aklan, and, later, by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

After due consideration of the instant petition in this case, the Court finds no reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals and therefore, resolves to DENY the same. Petitioner may claim refund of the excess payment of docket fees in the amount of P80.00.

First. Petitioners contend that respondent allegedly misrepresented in his complaint that he is the owner of the land. As found by the Court of Appeals, however, respondent did not misrepresent himself to be Teodoro Sacapa�o, the declared owner of the land, who is his namesake. He stated in his affidavit and position paper that the said owner is his grandfather from whom he, together with the other coheirs, inherited the land. As coheir and, therefore, as co-owners, respondent is authorized under Art. 487 of the Civil Code to bring an action in ejectment.

Second. Petitioners also contend that the MCTC should not have taken into consideration the affidavits and position paper filed by the respondent beyond the ten-day reglementary period. This contention is without merit. Although the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure provide the period within which to file the affidavits and position papers, the same do not require that pleadings which are filed out of time should be disregarded and excluded. To the contrary, $10 of the Rules allows the trial court to require the parties to submit additional affidavits and other evidence before the rendition of judgment.

Third. Petitioners also raise the issue that respondent failed to comply with the requirement of R.A. No. 7160, the Local Government Code, on barangay conciliation before the filing of the ejectment case in the trial court. To the contrary, as found by the Court of Appeals, the barangay secretary of Balabag, Malay, Aklan, issued a certificate, dated December 16, 1996, attesting to the fact that the case was referred to the barangay authorities but the dispute was endorsed to the courts on April 8, 1996 because of the failure of the parties to reach any amicable settlement.

Anent the contention that respondent violated the rule against forum shopping by failing to disclose that the subject land had also been the subject of a case for the recovery of possession filed by the other heirs of Teodoro Sacapa�o against the mother of respondent, suffice it to state here that it is now too late for petitioners to raise this issue for the first time in this petition. Issues not raised below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal to this Court (Pangilinan v. Courtof Appeals, 279 SCRA 590 (1997); Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, 274 SCRA 527 (1997)). In any case, what the rule requires is for the plaintiff or the principal party to certify under oath that he has not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issue against he same defendant in any court, and to the best of his knowledge, no such action or claim is pending therein. It appearing that the case for the recovery of possession was filed against respondent's mother not by respondent but by the other heirs of Teodoro Sacapa�o who are not parties in the ejectment case subject of this petition, there is no need for respondent to disclose the existence of this other case by filing a certificate of non-forum shopping.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE