ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 141515. March 29, 2000]

FELIMON MAGHANOY, et al. vs. PEDRO MANOS

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 29 2000.

G.R. No. 141515 (Felimon Maghanoy, et al. vs. Pedro Manos.)

On December 29, 1978, respondent Pedro Manos filed a complaint for forcible entry against the spouses Eulogia and Basilio Maghanoy and their son Filemon. (Eulogia and Basilio are substituted in this petition by their heirs.) Respondent alleged that he was the absolute owner of two parcels of land, his ownership being evidenced by Tax Declaration Nos. 008 and 010, when in April, 1978, petitioners through stealth, force, intimidation, and strategy entered the said parcels of land and cultivated it.

For their part, petitioners claimed that the two parcels of land formed part of a lot owned by the late Mateo Ocay, father of Eulogia Maghanoy, and that respondent purchased the same from the nephews and nieces of Mateo Ocay who had no authority to sell the two parcels of land in question.

On November 27, 1989, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Lazi, Siquijor rendered judgment in favor of respondent and ordered petitioners to restore possession of the properties to respondent and to pay him P640.00 for every year of actual dispossession of the use of the lands in question.

On appeal, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, Larena, Siquijor deleted the award for actual and compensatory damages for lack of basis.

Petitioners filed a petition for review in the Court of Appeals, but their petition was dismissed. Hence, this petition.

First. Petitioners contend that the MCTC had no jurisdiction over the ejectment case because the tax receipts in the names of petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest show that they had been in possession of the property long before 1978 (the year when the ejectment case was filed) so that respondent's remedy was to file an accion reinvindicatoria in the RTC.

The contention lacks merit. As the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out, petitioners themselves stipulated in the MCTC that they had entered the properties sometime in April, 1978. The filing of respondent's complaint on December 29, 1978 was, therefore, within the one-year period for filing complaints for forcible entry.

Second. Petitioners also contend that the proceedings before the MCTC and RTC were void because there was no proper substitution of parties after the spouses Basilio and Eulogia Maghanoy died. Basilio allegedly died while the case was pending in the MCTC, while Eulogia died when the case was on appeal to the RTC.

The contention likewise has no merit. An ejectment case is not abated by the death of a party. (Florendo, et al. v. Coloma, 129 SCRA 304 (1984)) The judgment in an ejectment case may be enforced not only against the defendants therein but also against the members of their family, their relatives, or privies who derived their right of possession from the defendants. (See Ariem v. De los Angeles, 49 SCRA 343 (1973))

In any case, as it does not appear that petitioner heirs ever raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction in the courts below, they are precluded from raising this issue for the first time in this appeal. (Salao v. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 493 (1998))

Third. Petitioners also contend that the Court of Appeals overlooked the testimony of respondents's own witness Leona Ocay Abing, from whom he allegedly bought the subject properties, that petitioners took possession of the same by virtue of an exchange between Leona's uncle and Eulogia Maghanoy's father.

The contention has no merit. First of all, petitioners' contention raises a factual issue which is outside the scope of review in this Court. (Sta. Maria v. Court of Appeals, 285 SCRA 355 (1998)) In any case, as pointed out by the Court of Appeals, Eulogia Maghanoy's own testimony confirms respondent's claim that he had been in prior possession of the land and that the Maghanoys forcibly took possession. Eulogia Maghanoy testified that she and her family entered the subject premises despite knowledge that the same had already been sold to respondent.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE