Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > February 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. L-56803 February 28, 1989 - LUCAS M. CAPARROS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-56803. February 28, 1989.]

LUCAS M. CAPARROS, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. EMILIO SALAS, Judge, Branch I, CFI-Rizal, JEZZER P. BOTE, Deputy Sheriff of Pasig, CFI-Rizal, and RAMON ZOLETA, Respondents.

Jose Edward L. Navarro for Petitioner.

Epifanio P. Arias for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; JURISDICTION; DETERMINED BY THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT; ISSUE OF POSSESSION DE FACTO IN FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES, COGNIZABLE BY THE MUNICIPAL COURT. — It is an elementary rule of procedural law that jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint irrespective of whether or not the plaintiffs entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. As a necessary consequence, the jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss, for otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely upon the defendant. (Ganadin v. Ramos, 99 SCRA 621.) In forcible entry and unlawfully detainer cases, the main issue is possession de facto, independently of any claim of ownership or possession de jure that either party may set forth in his pleading (Alvir v. Vera, 130 SCRA 357). Consequently, the municipal court correctly assumed jurisdiction over the case below as the complaint filed before it sufficiently avers that private respondent seeks to recover possession of the premises from an overstaying lessee.

2. CIVIL LAW; UNLAWFUL OBTAINER; PRES. DECREE NO. 1517 APPLIES WHERE OWNER INTENDS TO SELL PROPERTY TO A THIRD PARTY; TENANT IN CASE AT BAR CAN NOT INVOKE PROTECTION UNDER THE DECREE. — The petitioner cannot avail himself of the protection of P.D. No. 1517 since this law applies to a case where the owner of the property intends to sell it to a third party. Should this be the intent, the legitimate tenant may not be ejected should he decide to himself purchase the property. (Bermudez v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 143 SCRA 351) Section 6 of PD No. 1517 provides: "Section 6. Land Tenancy in Urban Reform Areas. — Within the Urban Zones legitimate tenants who have resided on the land for ten years or more who have built their homed on the land and residents who have already occupied the lands by contracts, continuously for the last ten years shall not be dispossessed of the land and shall be allowed the right of first refusal to purchase the same within a reasonable time and at reasonable prices, under terms and conditions to be determined by the Urban Zone Expropriation and Land Management Committee created by Section 8 of this Decree." In the instant case, the property is not being offered for sale. Thus, the right referred to hereinabove does not apply. Petitioner has no right to continue his occupancy of the premises. Private respondent is entitled to the use and possession of his property.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the resolution of the Court of Appeals ** in CA G.R. No. SP10691-R which affirmed the orders of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, Branch I (Pasig) authorizing the immediate execution of the judgment rendered by the municipal court of Mandaluyong, Rizal in Civil Case No. 5860 for unlawful detainer.

The facts of the case are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On August 14, 1975, private respondent filed a complaint for unlawful detainer docketed as Civil Case No. 5860 against the petitioner before the municipal court, alleging —

"2. That plaintiff is the owner of a residential house located at 217 Int. 1 A. Luna St., Mandaluyong, Rizal;

"3. That on January 1975 the contract of lease of defendant with plaintiff expired which contract was never extended but defendant was allowed to stay at the premises subject to the payment of a monthly rental of P65.00. Consequently, the current lease is, if any, on a month to month basis;

"4. That on February 24, 1975 plaintiff gave notice to defendant that he will use the premises being occupied by the defendant for his son who got married and has given defendant 60 days within which to vacate the premises;

"5. That despite said notice and subsequent demand made dated May 12, 1975 giving defendant 15 days from receipt thereof within which to vacate the premises, defendant has failed and refused and continues to fail and refuse to vacate the premises to the prejudice and damage of the plaintiff;

"6. That in view of the said acts of the defendant in illegally detaining the said premises, plaintiff has been forced to retain the services of legal counsel to institute the present action and has agreed to pay his counsel the amount of P500.00 as Attorney’s fees.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant;

"1. Ordering the defendant and all others under him who are occupying the said premises to vacate the same and to peacefully surrender said premises to the plaintiff;

"2. Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the amount of P500.00 by way of attorney’s fees;

"3. Ordering defendant to pay costs of this suit.

"Plaintiff further prays for such other relief which may be just and equitable in the premises." (Annex . "A" pp. 63-64, Rollo)

To said complaint, the petitioner filed his answer contesting the validity of private respondent’s title over the property in view of the decision of the CFI of Rizal, Branch 11 dated June 21, 1971 in Civil Case No. 8320 (now on appeal before the Supreme Court) which declared all titles derived from CLR Decree No. 1425 (including the title of the private respondent over the subject property) null and void ab initio.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The municipal court rendered judgment against the petitioner, ordering him to vacate and surrender the possession of the premises to the private respondent, to pay the accumulated rentals for the use and occupation of the said premises from August, 1975 up to the time he actually vacates and surrenders the premises, and to pay attorney’s fees and costs. (pp. 9-10, Rollo)

The petitioner appealed to the CFI. Pending appeal, however, private respondent filed a motion for execution of judgment due to the petitioner’s failure to post a supersedeas bond and to pay the amount of rent due from time to time.

The petitioner filed an opposition based on the following grounds: (a) that the municipal court had no jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case because ownership of the property is in dispute; (b) that immediate execution of judgment cannot be availed of because the question of title is involved (Laurel v. Abalos, 30 SCRA 289); and (c) that the petitioner cannot be dispossessed of the property pursuant to Section 6 of PD No. 1517, otherwise known as the Urban Land Reform Decree.

The respondent judge of the CFI granted the motion for execution and issued the corresponding writ in accordance therewith.

Said orders were affirmed by the Court of Appeals on appeal.

Hence, the present recourse.

The petition is devoid of merit.

It is an elementary rule of procedural law that jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint irrespective of whether or not the plaintiffs entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. As a necessary consequence, the jurisdiction of the court cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to dismiss, for otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely upon the defendant. (Ganadin v. Ramos, 99 SCRA 621.)chanrobles.com : virtual law library

In forcible entry and unlawfully detainer cases, the main issue is possession de facto, independently of any claim of ownership or possession de jure that either party may set forth in his pleading (Alvir v. Vera, 130 SCRA 357). Consequently, the municipal court correctly assumed jurisdiction over the case below as the complaint filed before it sufficiently avers that private respondent seeks to recover possession of the premises from an overstaying lessee.

Respondent judge of the CFI correctly granted private respondent’s motion for immediate execution of judgment. The pertinent portion of Section 8, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 8. Immediate execution of judgment. How to stay same. — If judgment is rendered against the defendant, execution shall issue immediately, unless an appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay execution files a sufficient bond, approved by the municipal or city court and executed to the plaintiff to enter the action in the Court of First Instance 1 and to pay the rents, damages, and costs accruing down to the time of the judgment appealed from, and unless, during the pendency of the appeal, he deposits with the appellate court the amount of rent due from time to time under the contract, if any, as found by the judgment of municipal or city court to exist . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Records disclose that the petitioner failed to file a sufficient supersedeas bond. The petitioner also failed to deposit or pay the rents as they fell due. Private respondent no doubt is entitled to the immediate execution of the municipal court’s judgment, without prejudice to the appeal taking its course. (Laurel v. Abalos, Ibid.)

The petitioner cannot avail himself of the protection of P.D. No. 1517 since this law applies to a case where the owner of the property intends to sell it to a third party. Should this be the intent, the legitimate tenant may not be ejected should he decide to himself purchase the property. (Bermudez v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 143 SCRA 351)

Section 6 of PD No. 1517 provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Section 6. Land Tenancy in Urban Reform Areas. — Within the Urban Zones legitimate tenants who have resided on the land for ten years or more who have built their homed on the land and residents who have already occupied the lands by contracts, continuously for the last ten years shall not be dispossessed of the land and shall be allowed the right of first refusal to purchase the same within a reasonable time and at reasonable prices, under terms and conditions to be determined by the Urban Zone Expropriation and Land Management Committee created by Section 8 of this Decree."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the instant case, the property is not being offered for sale. Thus, the right referred to hereinabove does not apply. Petitioner has no right to continue his occupancy of the premises. Private respondent is entitled to the use and possession of his property.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



** Penned by Justice Rodolfo A. Nocon and concurred in by Justices Mama D. Busran and Juan A. Sison of the Fifth Division.

1. Now known as the Regional Trial Court.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 79690-707 February 1, 1989 - ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 50422 February 8, 1989 - NICOLAS ARRADAZA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 50954 February 8, 1989 - EDUARDO SIERRA v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. 53515 February 8, 1989 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY SALES UNION v. OPLE

  • G.R. No. 55665 February 8, 1989 - DELTA MOTOR CORPORATION v. EDUARDA SAMSON GENUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57664 February 8, 1989 - ANGELITO ORTEGA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 58910 February 8, 1989 - ROBERT DOLLAR CO. v. JUAN C. TUVERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77828 February 8, 1989 - EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC. v. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79752 February 8, 1989 - SOLID HOMES INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80587 February 8, 1989 - WENPHIL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82819 February 8, 1989 - LUZ LUMANTA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84141 February 8, 1989 - TOP RATE INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 1616 February 9, 1989 - RODORA D. CAMUS v. DANILO T. DIAZ

  • Adm. Case No. 2361 February 9, 1989 - LEONILA J. LICUANAN v. MANUEL L. MELO

  • G.R. No. 38969-70 February 9, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FELICIANO MUÑOZ

  • G.R. No. 48705 February 9, 1989 - EDUARDO V. REYES v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64362 February 9, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL M. DECLARO

  • G.R. No. 67662 February 9, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCOS T. MANALANG

  • G.R. No. 73022 February 9, 1989 - GEORGIA ADLAWAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77930-31 February 9, 1989 - JEREMIAS EBAJAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 78239 February 9, 1989 - SALVACION A. MONSANTO v. FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 83320 February 9, 1989 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • B.M. No. 44 February 10, 1989 - EUFROSINA YAP TAN v. NICOLAS EL. SABANDAL

  • G.R. No. 34710 February 10, 1989 - ARMANDO LOCSIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51450 February 10, 1989 - VALENTIN SOLIVEL, ET AL. v. MARCELINO M. FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76018 February 10, 1989 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. BENIGNO M. PUNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79596 February 10, 1989 - C.W. TAN MFG., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72424 February 13, 1989 - INTESTATE ESTATE OF CARMEN DE LUNA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74930 February 13, 1989 - RICARDO VALMONTE, ET AL. v. FELICIANO BELMONTE, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 79937-38 February 13, 1989 - SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD., ET AL. v. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80058 February 13, 1989 - ERNESTO R. ANG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72476 February 14, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO A. MACABENTA

  • G.R. Nos. 75440-43 February 14, 1989 - ALEJANDRO G. MACADANGDANG v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55322 February 16, 1989 - MOISES JOCSON v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-30859 February 20, 1989 - MARIA MAYUGA VDA. DE CAILLES, ET AL. v. DOMINADOR MAYUGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 35825 February 20, 1989 - CORA LEGADOS, ET AL. v. DOROTEO DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 39451 February 20, 1989 - ISIDRO M. JAVIER v. PURIFICACION C. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-44642 February 20, 1989 - AURIA LIMPOT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 45323 February 20, 1989 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. FRANCISCO L. ESTRELLA

  • G.R. No. L-63561 February 20, 1989 - MARCELINA LOAY DINGAL, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68021 February 20, 1989 - HEIRS OF FAUSTA DIMACULANGAN v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81031 February 20, 1989 - ARTURO L. ALEJANDRO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84076 February 20, 1989 - ANTONIO Q. ROMERO, ET AL. v. CHIEF OF STAFF, AFP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 28661 February 21, 1989 - RAYMUNDO SERIÑA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47275 February 21, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CEFERINO SOMERA

  • G.R. No. L-47917 February 21, 1989 - RUFINO MENDIVEL, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48122 February 21, 1989 - VISIA REYES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 53969 February 21, 1989 - PURIFICACION SAMALA, ET AL. v. LUIS L. VICTOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64571 February 21, 1989 - TEODORO N. FLORENDO v. LUIS R. RUIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76427 February 21, 1989 - JOHNSON AND JOHNSON LABOR UNION-FFW, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81385 February 21, 1989 - EDUARDO B. OLAGUER, ET AL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, NCJR, BRANCH 48, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81389 February 21, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO C. DACUDAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81520 February 21, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEIL TEJADA

  • G.R. No. 83699 February 21, 1989 - PHILAMLIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. EDNA BONTO-PEREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 84673-74 February 21, 1989 - FLORENCIO SALVACION v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35578 February 23, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRITO DETALLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40824 February 23, 1989 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 41423 February 23, 1989 - LUIS JOSEPH v. CRISPIN V. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 49344 February 23, 1989 - ARISTOTELES REYNOSO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53569 February 23, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE ROBLES

  • G.R. No. 75866 February 23, 1989 - NEW OWNERS/MANAGEMENT OF TML GARMENTS, INC., v. ANTONIO V. ZARAGOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82998 February 23, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO BALUYOT

  • G.R. No. L-40628 February 24, 1989 - TROPICAL HOMES, INC. v. ONOFRE VILLALUZ

  • G.R. No. L-55090 February 24, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO CANIZAR GOHOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85497 February 24, 1989 - EASTERN PAPER MILLS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32266 February 27, 1989 - DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY v. RUPERTO A. VILLAREAL

  • G.R. No. L-34807 February 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FABIO TACHADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46955 February 27, 1989 - CONSORCIA AGUSTINO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 48129 February 27, 1989 - TERESITA M. ESQUIVEL v. JOAQUIN O. ILUSTRE

  • G.R. No. 62968-69 February 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTO GIMONGALA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66634 February 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO MOLATO

  • G.R. No. 74065 February 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NERIO C. GADDI

  • G.R. No. 74657 February 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO SERRANO

  • G.R. No. 74871 February 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELSO I. JANDAYAN

  • G.R. No. 74964 February 27, 1989 - DILSON ENTERPRISES, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76893 February 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO T. PACO

  • G.R. No. 77980 February 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE ABAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78269 February 27, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO G. BACHAR

  • G.R. No. 78517 February 27, 1989 - GABINO ALITA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80001 February 27, 1989 - CARLOS LEOBRERA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83558 February 27, 1989 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. ABRAHAM P. VERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44237 February 28, 1989 - VICTORIA ONG DE OCSIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53597 February 28, 1989 - D.C. CRYSTAL, INC. v. ALFREDO C. LAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55226 February 28, 1989 - NIC V. GARCES, ET AL. v. VICENTE P. VALENZUELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55228 February 28, 1989 - MIGUELA CABUTIN, ET AL. v. GERONIMO AMACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56803 February 28, 1989 - LUCAS M. CAPARROS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-59438 February 28, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE J. SALONDRO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 62219 February 28, 1989 - TEOFISTO VERCELES, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78210 February 28, 1989 - TEOFILO ARICA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80391 February 28, 1989 - ALIMBUSAR P. LIMBONA v. CONTE MANGELIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81123 February 28, 1989 - CRISOSTOMO REBOLLIDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82252 February 28, 1989 - SEAGULL MARITIME CORP., ET AL. v. NERRY D. BALATONGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83635-53 February 28, 1989 - DELIA CRYSTAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.