ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 155246. July 28, 2004]

BELTRAN vs. MAV REALTY

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 28 2004.

G.R. No. 155246 (Felipe Beltran vs. MAV Realty and Development Corporation.)

RESOLUTION

This refers to the motion for reconsideration of the Resolution of December 11, 2002, which denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner for lack of sufficient showing that the Court of Appeals had committed any reversible error in the questioned judgment to warrant the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.

In his motion for reconsideration, petitioner reiterates his protest on the dismissal of his petition for review by the Court of Appeals on mere technicalities and invokes a liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure. He maintains that the Court of Appeals erred in not considering that the subject property was purchased on installments. He also contests the propriety of the remedy of unlawful detainer, arguing that there can be no unlawful detainer when the possessor of the disputed property is the buyer thereof, and that the complaint of respondent failed to indicate the period of unlawful deprivation. Petitioner contends that the question of who has a better right of possession in instances where there is a contract of sale cannot be determined by the Municipal Trial Court, and that the cause of action of respondent is properly action publiciana, which is cognizable by the Regional Trial Court. He likewise posits that since the respondent is the owner of a subdivision, it is the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board that has jurisdiction over the dispute.

Considering said motion for reconsideration, the comment thereon filed by respondent and the reply thereto of petitioner, the Court finds no substantial argument to warrant the reconsideration sought.

The arguments adduced by petitioner are mere rehash of those adduced in his petition, and which were duly passed upon by the Court when it denied the same in the Resolution of December 11, 2002. While petitioner claims that he has a right to possess the subject property by virtue of the sale between his father and respondent, petitioner has not substantiated the same. To support this claim, petitioner merely refers to the statement of account issued by V.P. Villanueva, Inc. in the name of Martin Beltran, the father of petitioner, indicating that as of June 30, 1982, the total amount due is P28,259.00, The Municipal Trial Court and Regional Trial Court correctly held that a mere statement of account is not sufficient to establish the alleged contract of sale between the father of petitioner and herein respondent. It should be noted, however, that since this case stemmed from an action for unlawful detainer, the issue involved is pure physical or de facto possession of the subject property. Any controversy with regard to ownership should be ventilated in a separate action.

ACCORDINGLY, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED WITH FINALITY.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE