ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 135259. June 14, 2000]

SPS. DE JESUS vs. HEIRS OF CELSO DICO, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 14 2000.

G.R. No. 135259. (Spouses Ricardo and Victoria de Jesus vs. Heirs of Celso Dico, namely: Enrico, Melando, Audie and Angeles, all surnamed Dico.)

On May 26, 1996, herein respondents, heirs of Celso Dico filed a complaint ¹ Rollo , pp. 37-42.for unlawful detainer before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Cadiz City entitled "Enrico Dico, Melando Dico, Audie Dico and Angeles Dico, heirs of Celso Dico vs. Spouses Mr. & Mrs. Ricardo De Jesus" and docketed as Civil Case No. 807. On June 14, 1996, herein petitioners Sps. Ricardo and Victoria de Jesus, defendants therein, filed their Answer. ² Rollo , p. 25.On September 12, 1996, the MTCC rendered judgment ³ Rollo , pp. 61-62.in favor of respondents and against petitioners, the dispositive portion of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing, judgment is therefore hereby rendered, declaring that the lot - subject matter of this case is owned by the plaintiffs and defendants ate directed to vacate the premises of Lot No. 486, situated in the City of Cadiz, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-22922 registered in the name of Celso Dico; to pay unto the plaintiffs the amount of P1,440.00 representing the accrued unpaid rentals up to the date of the filing of the complaint in this case; to pay P240.00 every month thereafter until they shall have vacated the premises in question; to pay the further sum of P5,000.00 for and as attorney's fee, and the costs of this suit.

"As there is no legal basis for the granting of exemplary and moral damages in ejectment cases, the same are hereby denied.

"SO ORDERED."���

On October 3, 1996, petitioners received a copy of the said Judgment. ⁴ Petition, p. 8, Rollo, p. 18.On October 7, 1996, petitioners filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment ⁵ Rollo, pp. 63-65.on the grounds that the pre-trial Order was not duly signed by the defendants nor their counsel on record, this said Order was not valid and bonding on them, and that they were not furnished with a copy of the Report and Sketch Plan of the Court Commissioner so that they were not able to file their objection, or exception, to said Commissioner's Report. Said motion was denied by the MTCC in an Order ⁶ Petition, Annex "I," Rollo, pp. 68-69.dated November 13, 1996.

On November 25, 1996, petitioners filed their Notice of Appeal. ⁷ Petition, Annex "J," Rollo, pp. 70-71.On December 5, 1996, respondents filed their Motion to Dismiss Appeal And For the Issuance of Writ of execution. ⁸ Annex "K," Rollo, pp. 72-74.On January 30. 1997, the MTCC issued an Order which granted the Motion to Dismiss Appeal on the ground that the Notice of Appeal was filed beyond the reglementary period. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the Order dated January 30, 1997 was denied by the MTCC in an Order ⁹ Rollo, pp. 87-89.dated March 13, 1997.

On April 7, 1997, petitioners filed a Petition for Mandamus ¹⁰ Rollo , pp. 32-36.before the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental praying that a Writ of Mandamus be issued commanding the MTCC Judge to allow their appeal from the Judgment in Civil Case No. 807.

On April 2, 1998, after the parties have filed their respective pleadings, the RTC of Negros Occidental rendered a Decision ¹¹ Petition, Annex "A," Rollo, pp. 23-28.dismissing the petition for mandamus.

In this petition for review, petitioners submit that the filing of their Motion to Set Aside Judgment in Civil Case No. 807 on October 7, 1996 after receiving the Judgment on October 3, 1996, tolled the running of the period to appeal in ordinary cases, as the said case does not fall under the Rule on Summary Procedure because the complaint made allegations and claims for moral damages and exemplary damages which are separate and distinct from the respondents' cause of action for unlawful detainer, but the RTC Judge ruled otherwise.

This Court finds no merit in the instant petition.

While actual, moral and exemplary damages are neither rents nor the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises, nor fair rental value of the property, and hence, not recoverable in ejectment cases, ¹² Baens vs. Court of Appeals, 125 SCRA 634 [1983].claim for such damages does not remove the ejectment case from the scope of the Rules on Summary Procedure. An allegation in a complaint for unlawful detainer suffices if it states that defendant unlawfully withholds the possession of a certain land and building after termination of the right of possession despite demand ¹³ Dio vs. Concepcion, 296 SCRA 579 [1998]; Javellosa vs. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 493 [1996].filed within one year therefrom. ¹⁴ Medina vs. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 837 [1990].

Cases of unlawful detainer are summary in nature for they involve perturbation of the social order which may be restored as promptly as possible, and accordingly, technicalities or details of procedure which may cause unnecessary delays should be carefully avoided. ¹⁵ Salvador vs. Salamanca, 144 SCRA 276 [1986].

Thus, the Regional Trial Court did not err in ruling that the Motion To Set Aside Judgment filed by the petitioners partakes the nature of a new trial or the reopening of trial which are prohibited pleadings under Section 13, Rule 70 of the Rules of Civil Procedure or Section 19 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Hence, the reglementary period to appeal continued to run despite the said motion. Indeed, the notice of appeal which are filed only on November 25, 1996 was filed beyond the reglementary period to appeal which is fifteen (15) days from receipt by the petitioners on October 3, 1996, of the copy of the Judgment rendered by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE