REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW I

CASE DIGESTS
[G.R. No. 129680. September 1, 1999]
CARRARA MARBLE vs. COMMISIONER OF
CS!OMS
FAC!S" Collector of Customs conducted a public
auction sale of various articles dul declared
abandoned after appropriate proceedin!s" Included
in t#e sale $as Lot %& advertised as '%& tons more
or less( of marble processin! mac#ine and !rindin!
mac#ine( rust and in )un* condition"+ Lot %& $as
a$arded to En!r" ,ran*lin G" -olicarpio as t#e
#i!#est bidder t#ereof" En!r" -olicarpio #ad ta*en
deliver of said lot( #e $rote t#e Collector of
Customs informin! #im t#at t#e follo$in! items
supposed to be part of Lot %& $ere missin!" T#e
missin! mac#ineries $ere later found installed in
t#e compound of petitioner Carrara Marble
-#ilippines( Inc"( Lipa Cit( .atan!as( true to t#e
information furnis#ed b En!r" -olicarpio #imself"
Conse/uentl( t#e aforesaid mac#ineries $ere
sei0ed 1per Warrant of Sei0ure and Detention from
t#e compound of petitioner" Durin! t#e sei0ure and
forfeiture proceedin!s( Carrara Marble -#ilippines(
Inc"( failed to present evidence of pament of duties
and ta2es on t#e sub)ect mac#ineries" In its defense(
it claimed( t#at t#e mac#ineries $ere purc#ased
locall from a certain 3aina -ere0 as evidenced b
t$o notari0ed deeds of absolute sale" Mean$#ile(
En!r" -olicarpio intervened in said proceedin!s(
claimin! o$ners#ip over t#e sub)ect mac#ineries as
t#e successful bidder in t#e public auction sale
conducted b t#e .ureau of Customs $#erein said
mac#ineries $ere part of Lot %&"
Collector of Customs declared t#e mac#ineries
forfeited in favor of t#e !overnment" -etitioner
appealed from t#e Collector of Customs4 decision to
t#e Commissioner of Customs $#o affirmed said
decision"
CTA dismissed t#e petition for revie$ filed b
petitioner5 affirmed t#e aut#orit of t#e Customs
Commissioner to sei0e t#e mac#ineries5 and ordered
t#e Commissioner to deliver t#e articles to
-olicarpio as t#e #i!#est bidder in accordance $it#
its decision in CTA Case 6o" &7&8" 9n appeal( t#e
Court of Appeals sustained t#e CTA" :ence t#is
petition"
RLING" Incidentall( t#e forfeiture of t#e sub)ect
mac#ineries rests on a different statutor basis from
-olicarpio4s ri!#t to receive t#e propert as $innin!
bidder in t#e auction sale" T#e forfeiture
proceedin!s $ere based upon t#e !overnment4s
ri!#t to recover propert ille!all $it#dra$n from
its custod" 9n t#e ot#er #and( -olicarpio4s ri!#t
stems from t#e !overnment4s contractual obli!ation
to deliver t#e mac#ineries to -olicarpio as buer in
!ood fait# at t#e public auction sale"
[G.R. No. 109#$$. O%tober 29, 1999]
SERAFIN MO&INA '(. CA, E!. AL.
FAC!S" T#e parcels of land in /uestion are t#ose
under t#e name of private resp C:IA6G" :e
t#eori0ed t#at sub)ect properties $ere sold to #im b
#is $ife MERLI6DA( as evidenced b a Deed of
Absolute Sale( and $ere subse/uentl sold b
C:IA6G to t#e petitioner M9DI6A( as s#o$n b
t#e Deeds of Sale"
M9DI6A brou!#t a Complaint for Recover of
-ossession $it# Dama!es a!ainst t#e private
respondents( Ernesto :ontarcie!o( -aul ,i!ueroa
and Teodoro :ipalla before t#e RTC of Iloilo Cit"
;pon learnin! t#e institution of t#e said case(
MERLI6DA presented a Complaint<in<
intervention( see*in! t#e declaration of nullit of
t#e Deed of Sale bet$een #er #usband and
M9DI6A on t#e !round t#at t#e titles of t#e parcels
of land in dispute $ere never le!all transferred to
#er #usband" ,raudulent acts $ere alle!edl
emploed b #im to obtain a Torrens Title in #is
favor" :o$ever( s#e confirmed t#e validit of t#e
lease contracts $it# t#e ot#er private respondents"
MERLI6DA also admitted t#at t#e said parcels of
land $ere t#ose ordered sold b .ranc# = of t#e
t#en Court of ,irst Instance of Iloilo in Special
-roceedin! 6o" =>?@ in 'Intestate Estate of 6elson
-lana+ $#ere s#e $as appointed as t#e
administrati2( bein! t#e $ido$ of t#e deceased( #er
Dan Anc#eta -a!e % of %8 %%A?A=77@
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW I
CASE DIGESTS
first #usband" An Aut#orit to Sell $as issued b
t#e said -robate Court for t#e sale of t#e same
properties"
After due #earin!( t#e Trial Court decided in favor
of MERLI6DA declarin! as void and ine2istent t#e
sale of Lots" CA affirmed t#e aforesaid decision in
toto. -etitioner found #is $a to t#is Court via t#e
present -etition for Revie$ under Rule >& see*in!
to set aside t#e assailed decision of t#e Court of
Appeals"
Raised for resolution #ere areB 1%C $#et#er t#e sale
of sub)ect lots s#ould be nullified( 1=C $#et#er
petitioner $as not a purc#aser in !ood fait#( 1DC
$#et#er t#e decision of t#e trial court $as tainted
$it# e2cess of )urisdiction 222"
RLING" Anent t#e first issue( petitioner t#eori0es
t#at t#e sale in /uestion is null and void for bein!
violative of Article %>@7 of t#e 6e$ Civil Code
pro#ibitin! sales bet$een spouses" Conse/uentl(
$#at is applicable is Article %>%= supra on t#e
principle of in pari delicto, $#ic# leaves bot# !uilt
parties $#ere t#e are( and *eeps undisturbed t#e
ri!#ts of t#ird persons to $#om t#e lots involved
$ere sold5 petitioner stressed"
-etitioner anc#ors #is submission on t#e follo$in!
statements of t#e Trial Court $#ic# t#e Court of
Appeals up#eld( to $itB
Furthermore, under Art. 1490, husband and
wife are prohibited to sell properties to each
other. And where, as in this case, the sale is
inexistent for lack of consideration, the
principle of in pari delicto non oritur actio does
not apply. !as"ue# $s %orta, 9& %hil 490'.
T#us( Art" %>@7 providesB
Art. 1490. (he husband and the wife cannot
sell property to each other, except)
1' when a separation of property was a*reed
upon in the marria*e settlements+ or
,' when there has been a -udicial separation
of property under Art. 191.
T#e e2ception to t#e rule laid do$n in Art" %>@7 of
t#e 6e$ Civil Code not #avin! e2isted $it# respect
to t#e propert relations of Ramon C#ian! and
Merlinda -lana C#ian!( t#e sale b t#e latter in
favor of t#e former of t#e properties in /uestion is
invalid for bein! pro#ibited b la$" 6ot bein! t#e
o$ner of sub)ect properties( Ramon C#ian! could
not #ave validl sold t#e same to plaintiff Serafin
Modina" T#e sale b Ramon C#ian! in favor of
Serafin Modina is( li*e$ise( void and ine2istent"
T#e principle of in pari delicto non oritur actio
denies all recover to t#e !uilt parties inter se" It
applies to cases $#ere t#e nullit arises from t#e
ille!alit of t#e consideration or t#e purpose of t#e
contract" W#en t$o persons are e/uall at fault( t#e
la$ does not relieve t#em" T#e e2ception to t#is
!eneral rule is $#en t#e principle is invo*ed $it#
respect to ine2istent contracts"
In t#e petition under consideration( t#e Trial Court
found t#at sub)ect Deed of Sale $as a nullit for
lac* of an consideration" T#is findin! dul
supported b evidence $as affirmed b t#e Court of
Appeals" Well<settled is t#e rule t#at t#is Court $ill
not disturb suc# findin! absent an evidence to t#e
contrar"
-etitioner4s insistence t#at MERLI6DA cannot
attac* sub)ect contract of sale as s#e $as a !uilt
part t#ereto is e/uall unavailin!" .ut t#e pivot of
in/uir #ere is $#et#er MERLI6DA is barred b
t#e principle of in pari delicto from /uestionin!
sub)ect Deed of Sale"
T#e Trial Court debun*ed petitioner4s t#eor t#at
MERLI6DA intentionall !ave a$a t#e bul* of
#er and #er late #usband4s estate to defendant
C:IA6G as #is e2clusive propert( for $ant of
evidentiar anc#or" T#e insist on t#e Deed of Sale
$#erein MERLI6DA made t#e misrepresentation
t#at s#e $as a $ido$ and C:IA6G $as sin!le(
$#en at t#e time of e2ecution t#ereof( t#e $ere in
fact alread married" -etitioner insists t#at t#is
document conclusivel establis#ed bad fait# on t#e
part of MERLI6DA and t#erefore( t#e principle of
in pari delicto s#ould #ave been applied"
E
Dan Anc#eta -a!e = of %8 %%A?A=77@
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW I
CASE DIGESTS
T#ese issues are factual in nature and it is not for
t#is Court to appreciate and evaluate t#e pieces of
evidence introduced belo$" An appellate court
defers to t#e factual findin!s of t#e Trial Court(
unless petitioner can s#o$ a !larin! mista*e in t#e
appreciation of relevant evidence"
Since one of t#e c#aracteristics of a void or
ine2istent contract is t#at it does not produce an
effect( MERLI6DA can recover t#e propert from
petitioner $#o never ac/uired title t#ereover"
As to t#e second issue( petitioner stresses t#at #is
title s#ould #ave been respected since #e is a
purc#aser in !ood fait# and for value" T#e Court of
Appeals( #o$ever( opined t#at #e 1petitionerC is not
a purc#aser in !ood fait#" It found t#at t#ere $ere
circumstances *no$n to M9DI6A $#ic# rendered
t#eir transaction fraudulent under t#e attendant
circumstances"
As a !eneral rule( in a sale under t#e Torrens
sstem( a void title cannot !ive rise to a valid title"
T#e e2ception is $#en t#e sale of a person $it# a
void title is to a t#ird person $#o purc#ased it for
value and in !ood fait#"
A purc#aser in !ood fait# is one $#o bus t#e
propert of anot#er $it#out notice t#at some ot#er
person #as a ri!#t to or interest in suc# propert and
pas a full and fair price at t#e time of t#e purc#ase
or before #e #as notice of t#e claim or interest of
some ot#er person in t#e propert"
In t#e case under scrutin( petitioner cannot claim
t#at #e $as a purc#aser in !ood fait#" T#ere are
circumstances $#ic# are indicia of bad fait# on #is
part( to $itB 1%C :e as*ed #is nep#e$( -lacido
Matta( to investi!ate t#e ori!in of t#e propert and
t#e latter learned t#at t#e same formed part of t#e
properties of MERLI6DA4s first #usband5 1=C t#at
t#e said sale $as bet$een t#e spouses5 1DC t#at $#en
t#e propert $as inspected( M9DI6A met all t#e
lessees $#o informed t#at sub)ect lands belon! to
MERLI6DA and t#e #ad no *no$led!e t#at t#e
same lots $ere sold to t#e #usband"
It is a $ell<settled rule t#at a purc#aser cannot close
#is ees to facts $#ic# $ould put a reasonable man
upon #is !uard to ma*e t#e necessar in/uiries( and
t#en claim t#at #e acted in !ood fait#" :is mere
refusal to believe t#at suc# defect e2ists( or #is
$ilful closin! of #is ees to t#e possibilit of t#e
e2istence of a defect in #is vendor4s title( $ill not
ma*e #im an innocent purc#aser for value( if it
after$ards develops t#at t#e title $as in fact
defective( and it appears t#at #e #ad suc# notice of
t#e defect as $ould #ave led to its discover #ad #e
acted $it# t#at measure of precaution $#ic# ma
reasonabl be re/uired of a prudent man in a li*e
situation"
T#us( petitioner cannot claim t#at t#e sale bet$een
#im and M9DI6A falls under t#e e2ception
provided for b la$"
In a -etition for Revie$( onl /uestions of la$ ma
be raised" It is perceived b t#e Court t#at $#at
petitioner is trin! to( albeit subtl( is for t#e Court
to e2amine t#e probative value or evidentiar
$ei!#t of t#e evidence presented belo$ T#e Court
cannot do t#at unless t#e appreciation of t#e pieces
of evidence on #and is !larin!l erroneous" .ut t#is
is $#ere petitioner utterl failed"
[G.R. No. 1#2)$#. Febr*+r, 1$, 1999]
SIASOCO, E!. AL., '(. CA, E!. AL.,
FAC!S" -etitioners $ere t#e re!istered o$ners of
nine parcels of land located in Montalban( Ri0al" In
December %@@>( t#e be!an to offer t#e sub)ect
properties for sale" -etitioners made a final offer to
t#e I6C" T#e latter4s counsel sent a repl received
b -etitioner Mario Siasoco on December =>( %@@?(
statin! t#at t#e offer $as accepted( but t#at t#e I6C
$as 'not amenable to our proposal to an
undervaluation of t#e total consideration"+ In t#eir
letter dated 3anuar F( %@@8( petitioners claimed t#at
t#e I6C #ad not reall accepted t#e offer( addin!
t#at( prior to t#eir receipt of t#e aforementioned
repl on December =>( %@@?( t#e #ad alread
'contracted+ $it# Carissa for t#e sale of t#e said
properties 'due to t#e absence of an response to
t#eir offer from I6C"+
Dan Anc#eta -a!e D of %8 %%A?A=77@
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW I
CASE DIGESTS
Maintainin! t#at a sale #ad been consummated( I6C
demanded t#at t#e correspondin! deed be e2ecuted
in its favor" -etitioners refused"
-rivate respondent filed a civil suit for GsHpecific
GpHerformance and GdHama!es a!ainst petitioners
and Carissa :omes and Development I -roperties"
-endin! resolution of petitioners4 Motion to
Dismiss( private respondent ne!otiated $it# Carissa
:omes $#ic# culminated in t#e purc#ase of t#e
sub)ect properties of Carissa :omes b private
respondent" -rivate respondent filed an GAHmended
GCHomplaint( droppin! Carissa :omes as one of t#e
defendants and c#an!in! t#e nature of t#e case to a
mere case for dama!es"
CA ruled t#at alt#ou!# private respondent could no
lon!er amend its ori!inal Complaint as a matter of
ri!#t( it $as not precluded from doin! so $it# leave
of court" T#us( t#e CA concluded t#at t#e RTC #ad
not acted $it# !rave abuse of discretion in
admittin! private respondent4s Amended
Complaint"
ISSE" &id t#e CA err in affirmin! t#e t$o 9rders
of t#e RTC $#ic# #ad allo$ed t#e Amended
ComplaintJ
RLING" T#e petition is devoid of merit" We
sustain t#e Court of Appeals( but for reasons
different from t#ose !iven in t#e assailed Decision"
-reliminar IssueB -ropriet of Certiorari
,or t#e $rit of certiorari under Rule ?& to issue( t#e
petitioner must s#o$ not onl t#at t#e lo$er court
acted $it# !rave abuse of discretion( but also t#at
't#ere is no appeal( or an ot#er plain( speed( and
ade/uate remed in t#e ordinar course of la$"+
Since t#e /uestioned CA Decision $as a disposition
on t#e merits( and since said Court #as no remainin!
issue to resolve( t#e proper remed available to
petitioners $as a petition for revie$ under Rule >&(
not Rule ?&"
,urt#ermore( as a !eneral rule( certiorari under
Rule ?& cannot issue unless t#e lo$er court( t#rou!#
a motion for reconsideration( #as been !iven an
opportunit to correct t#e imputed error" Alt#ou!#
t#ere are reco!ni0ed e2ceptions to t#is rule(
petitioners do not claim t#at t#is case is one of
t#em" ,or t#is procedural lapse( t#e instant petition
s#ould be dismissed outri!#t"
6onet#eless( inasmuc# as t#e -etition $as filed
$it#in t#e %&<da period provided under Rule >&(
and considerin! t#e importance of t#e issue raised
and t#e fact t#at private respondent did not /uestion
t#e propriet of t#e instant -etition( t#e Court
treated t#e action as a petition for revie$ 1not
certiorariC under Rule >& in order to accord
substantial )ustice to t#e parties" We $ill t#us
proceed to discuss t#e substantive issue"
Main IssueB Admission of Amended Complaint
It is clear t#at plaintiff 1#erein private respondentC
can amend its complaint once( as a matter of ri!#t(
before a responsive pleadin! is filed" Contrar to
t#e petitioners4 contention( t#e fact t#at Carissa #ad
alread filed its Ans$er did not bar private
respondent from amendin! its ori!inal Complaint
once( as a matter of ri!#t( a*ainst herein
petitioners" Indeed( $#ere some but not all t#e
defendants #ave ans$ered( plaintiffs ma amend
t#eir Complaint once( as a matter of ri!#t( in respect
to claims asserted solel a!ainst t#e non<ans$erin!
defendants( but not as to claims asserted a!ainst t#e
ot#er defendants"
T#e rationale for t#e aforementioned rule is in
Section D( Rule %7 of t#e Rules of Court( $#ic#
provides t#at after a responsive pleadin! #as been
filed( an amendment ma be re)ected $#en t#e
defense is substantiall altered" Suc# amendment
does not onl pre)udice t#e ri!#ts of t#e defendant5
it also delas t#e action" In t#e first place( $#ere a
part #as not et filed a responsive pleadin!( t#ere
are no defenses t#at can be altered" ,urt#ermore(
t#e Court #as #eld t#at 'GaHmendments to pleadin!s
are !enerall favored and s#ould be liberall
allo$ed in furt#erance of )ustice in order t#at ever
case ma so far as possible be determined on its real
facts and in order to speed t#e trial of cases or
prevent t#e circuit of action and unnecessar
e2pense( unless t#ere are circumstances suc# as
ine2cusable dela or t#e ta*in! of t#e adverse part
Dan Anc#eta -a!e > of %8 %%A?A=77@
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW I
CASE DIGESTS
b surprise or t#e li*e( $#ic# mi!#t )ustif a refusal
of permission to amend"+
True( Carissa #ad alread filed its o$n Ans$er"
-etitioners( #o$ever( #ave not et filed an"
Moreover( t#e do not alle!e t#at t#eir defense is
similar to t#at of Carissa" 9n t#e contrar( private
respondent4s claims a!ainst t#e latter and a!ainst
petitioners are different" A!ainst petitioners( $#ose
offer to sell t#e sub)ect parcels of land #ad alle!edl
been accepted b private respondent( t#e latter is
suin! for specific performance and dama!es for
breac# of contract" Alt#ou!# private respondent
could no lon!er amend( as a matter of ri!#t( its
Complaint a!ainst Carissa( it could do so a!ainst
petitioners $#o( at t#e time( #ad not et filed an
ans$er"

T#e amendment did not pre)udice t#e petitioners or
dela t#e action" Au contraire, it simplified
t#e case and tended to e2pedite its disposition"
T#e Amended Complaint became simpl an action
for dama!es( since t#e claims for specific
performance and declaration of nullit of t#e sale
#ave been deleted"
RTC :ad 3urisdiction
-etitioners also insist t#at t#e RTC of Kue0on Cit
did not #ave )urisdiction over t#e ori!inal
Complaint5 #ence( it did not #ave an aut#orit to
allo$ t#e amendment" T#e maintain t#at t#e
ori!inal action for specific performance involvin!
parcels of land in Montalban( Ri0al s#ould #ave
been filed in t#e RTC of t#at area" T#us( t#e c#ide
t#e CA for alle!edl misunderstandin! t#e
distinction bet$een territorial -urisdiction and
$enue( t#ereb erroneousl #oldin! t#at t#e RTC
#ad -urisdiction over t#e ori!inal Complaint(
alt#ou!# t#e $enue $as improperl laid"
We disa!ree" True( an amendment cannot be
allo$ed $#en t#e court #as no )urisdiction over t#e
ori!inal Complaint and t#e purpose of t#e
amendment is to confer )urisdiction on t#e court" In
t#e present case( #o$ever( t#e RTC #ad )urisdiction
because t#e ori!inal Complaint involved specific
performance $it# dama!es" In .a (onde/a
0istillers $. %onferrada( t#is Court ruled t#at a
complaint for 'specific performance $it# dama!es+
is a personal action and ma be filed in t#e proper
court $#ere an of t#e parties reside( $i#"B
Finally, 1w2e are not also persuaded by
petitioner3s ar*ument that $enue should be
lod*ed in 4a*o 5ity where the lot is situated.
(he complaint is one for specific performance
with dama*es.6 %ri$ate respondents do not
claim ownership of the lot but in fact 1reco*ni#e
the2 title of defendants by annotatin* a notice of
lis pendens. 7n one case, a similar complaint
for specific performance with dama*es6
in$ol$in* real property, was held to be a
personal action, which may be filed in the
proper court where the party resides. 8ot bein*
an action in$ol$in* title to or ownership of real
property, $enue, in this case, was not
improperly laid before the 9(5 of 4acolod
5ity.6
[G.R. No. 11)92$. O%tober 12, 1999]
!ENSORE- IN&S!RIAL COR.ORA!ION
'(. CA
FAC!S" T#e present controvers arose as a
conse/uence of t#e e2ecution of )ud!ment in t#e
case of '(ensorex 7ndustrial 5orporation $s. Alicia
:ala and ;eirs of <anuel :ala+( for e)ectment
$it# dama!es" MTC rendered )ud!ment a!ainst
defendants and in favor of plaintiff"
-rivate respondent t#en appealed t#e )ud!ment of
t#e MTC in t#e e)ectment case to t#e RTC of
Ma*ati" In t#e meantime( even before said appeal
could be raffled( t#e .ranc# S#eriff of MTC<Ma*ati
served t#e alias $rit of e2ecution and levied upon
t#e personal properties of t#e private respondent(
t#reatenin! to sell said properties" Confronted $it#
t#is dilemma( private respondent filed a petition for
certiorari $it# praer for t#e issuance of $rit of
preliminar in)unction $it# t#e RTC of Ma*ati to
en)oin t#e s#eriff from carrin! out t#e t#reatened
sale of its properties" T#e RTC( after preliminar
#earin!( issued a $rit of preliminar in)unction
conditioned upon t#e postin! of an in)unction bond"
Dan Anc#eta -a!e & of %8 %%A?A=77@
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW I
CASE DIGESTS
After #earin!( t#e RTC( dismissed t#e petition for
certiorari and lifted t#e $rit of preliminar
in)unction it earlier issued" ,rom t#is dismissal(
private respondent filed its notice of intention to
appeal Civil Case 6o" @%<=%>F to t#e Court of
Appeals" RTC !ave due course to t#e appeal to t#e
CA" CA dismissed private respondent4s appeal for
its failure to file Memorandum"
-rivate respondent filed a Motion for
Reconsideration premised on t#e !round t#at it did
not receive an notice to file memorandum and as
suc# its period $it#in $#ic# to file t#e re/uired
memorandum #ad not et lapsed" CA denied t#e
Motion for Reconsideration" In t#e meantime( even
before private respondent could receive said order
of denial of t#e motion for reconsideration( it filed a
Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration $it#
praer t#at its Comment filed on 3anuar 8( %@@>(
be considered as its Memorandum"
-rivate respondent filed a Motion for Leave to ,ile
Second Motion for Reconsideration( t#e resolution
of $#ic# alon! $it# ot#er pendin! incidents of t#e
case $as deferred b t#e CA" CA promul!ated a
Resolution acceptin! private respondent4s
e2planation and proceeded to treat t#e Comment
filed b private respondent as its Memorandum" It
also ordered t#e petitioner to file its Memorandum
$it#in %7 das from receipt of t#e Resolution after
$#ic# t#e appeal s#all be deemed submitted for
decision" Accordin! to t#e Court of AppealsB 'It
appears t#at t#e appellant4s counsel did not receive
t#e aforesaid notice to file Memorandum 222 I $e
denied t#e motion in a Resolution on Ma =?( %@@>
o/ t0e m1(t+2e/ prem1(e t#at t#e appellant #ad
received t#e notice to file memorandum( $#ic# $as
previousl ordered to be re<sent to t#e appellant"+
:ence( t#is petition"
RLING" T#e sole issue no$ for consideration in
t#is case( in our vie$( is $#et#er or not t#e Court of
Appeals committed !rave abuse of discretion
amountin! to lac* or e2cess of )urisdiction in
reinstatin! t#e appeal of t#e private respondent"
It is petitioner4s contention t#at t#e remed of
private respondent in re!ard to t#e decision of t#e
RTC is a petition for revie$ pursuant to Supreme
Court Circular =<@7" T#is is because t#e RTC
decision sou!#t to be revie$ed $as rendered b t#e
RTC in t#e e2ercise of its appellate )urisdiction"
Conse/uentl( t#e filin! of a notice of appeal $it#
t#e RTC $as t#e $ron! mode of appeal and as suc#
t#e appeal s#ould #ave been dismissed"
We find( #o$ever( t#at petitioner4s ar!ument is
$it#out merit" It is $ort# notin! t#at $#at private
respondent filed $it# t#e RTC $as a special civil
action for certiorari under Rule ?& of t#e Rules of
Court"
9ne of t#e basic distinctions bet$een certiorari as a
mode of appeal and an ori!inal special civil action
for certiorari is t#at in appeal b certiorari( t#e
appellate court acts in t#e e2ercise of its appellate
)urisdiction and po$er of revie$( $#ile on certiorari
as an ori!inal action( t#e #i!#er court e2ercises
ori!inal )urisdiction under its po$er of control and
supervision over t#e orders of lo$er court"
Moreover( t#e period for filin! appeal is muc#
s#orter t#an for filin! an ori!inal action for
certiorari" Conse/uentl( $#ere t#e appealed
)ud!ment $as rendered b t#e RTC in t#e e2ercise
of its ori!inal )urisdiction( t#e appeal to t#e Court of
Appeals ma be ta*en b $rit of error or ordinar
appeal" :ence( t#e Court of Appeals committed no
!rave abuse of discretion in ta*in! co!ni0ance of
t#e appeal"
,urt#ermore( t#e mere fact t#at private respondent
earlier appealed t#e decision of t#e MTC to t#e
RTC does not preclude t#e filin! of a special civil
action for certiorari $it# t#e RTC concernin! an
entirel different incident" Settled is t#e rule t#at
availabilit of an appeal does not foreclose resort to
t#e e2traordinar remedies( suc# as certiorari and
pro#ibition( $#ere appeal is not ade/uate or e/uall
beneficial( speed and sufficient" In t#e case at
#and( private respondent #ad no c#oice" T#e appeal
proved to be inade/uate as its properties $ere bein!
attac#ed( $it# t#e possibilit of t#eir sale
imminent" -rivate respondent $as left $it# no
c#oice but to avail of t#e e2traordinar remed of
certiorari to protect its interest"
Dan Anc#eta -a!e ? of %8 %%A?A=77@
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW I
CASE DIGESTS
Wit# respect to t#e second assi!nment of error( it is
petitioner4s contention t#at t#e /uestioned
Resolution of t#e Court of Appeals is null and void
for it undul set aside its earlier resolution
dismissin! t#e appeal( as $ell as private
respondent4s motion for reconsideration" It is also
ar!ued t#at t#e filin! of t#e second motion for
reconsideration did not suspend t#e period for
perfectin! an appeal and t#erefore( t#e order of
denial of t#e first motion for reconsideration( alon!
$it# t#e earlier resolution dismissin! t#e appeal #ad
alread become final and e2ecutor"
T#e ar!ument fails to persuade us" T#e Court of
Appeals in t#e /uestioned resolution ruled t#at it
denied private respondent4s motion for
reconsideration 'on t#e mista*en premise+ t#at
private respondent received t#e notice to file
memorandum $#ic# $as previousl ordered to be
re<sent" Considerin! t#at private respondent did not
receive a cop of t#e notice( t#e period $it#in
$#ic# to file said memorandum could not be said to
#ave alread e2pired"
W#ile it is true t#at a second motion for
reconsideration is not allo$ed( courts in t#e e2ercise
of t#eir functions( and in renderin! decisions( must
not be too do!matic as to restrict itself to literal
interpretations of $ords( p#rases and sentences5 a
complete and #olistic vie$ must be ta*en in order to
render a )ust and e/uitable )ud!ment" In addition( it
#as often been stressed t#at procedural la$s s#ould
be liberall construed in order to promote t#eir
ob)ective and assist t#e parties in obtainin! )ust(
speed and ine2pensive determination of ever
action or proceedin!"
In t#e case at #and( t#e Court of Appeals merel
corrected itself $#en it issued t#e /uestioned
resolution of 6ovember 8( %@@>" Ever court #as
t#e po$er and indeed t#e dut to revie$ and amend
or reverse its findin!s and conclusions $#en its
attention is timel called to an error or defect
t#erein" To do ot#er$ise $ould be tantamount to an
abro!ation of its solemn dut to do )ustice to ever
man"
:ere $e find t#at t#e Court of Appeals( in issuin!
its /uestioned resolution( committed no !rave abuse
of discretion amountin! to lac* of )urisdiction"
T#ere are factual bases and le!al )ustification for t#e
assailed order" T#e burden is upon t#e petitioner to
demonstrate t#at t#e /uestioned resolution
constitutes a $#imsical and capricious e2ercise of
)ud!ment" T#is( petitioner #as not done" To
reiterate our establis#ed rule( certiorari $ill not be
issued to cure errors in proceedin!s or correct
erroneous conclusions of la$ or fact" As lon! as a
court acts $it#in its )urisdiction( an alle!ed errors
committed in t#e e2ercise of its )urisdiction $ill
amount to not#in! more t#an errors of )ud!ment
$#ic# are revie$able b timel appeal and not b
certiorari" Moreover( t#ere bein! no !rave abuse of
discretion committed b t#e respondent court( in t#e
e2ercise of its )urisdiction( t#e relief of pro#ibition
is also unavailable"
[G.R. No. 9$89). &e%ember 13, 1999]
4IBON4OA vs. CA
FAC!S" ,lorencia T" :uibon#oa entered into a
memorandum of a!reement $it# siblin!s Rufina
Go)occo Lim( Severino Go)occo and Loreta
Go)occo C#ua stipulatin! t#at ,lorencia T"
:uibon#oa $ould lease from t#em 1Go)occosC D
commercial lots at .inondo( Manila"
T#e conse/uent #oardin! of construction materials
and increase in interest rates alle!edl affected
adversel t#e construction of t#e buildin! suc# t#at
:uibon#oa failed to complete t#e same $it#in t#e
stipulated ei!#t<mont# period from 3ul %( %@FD"
-ro)ected to be finis#ed on ,ebruar =@( %@F>( t#e
construction $as completed onl in September %@F>
or seven 18C mont#s later"
;nder t#e contract( :uibon#oa $as supposed to
start pain! rental in Marc# %@F> but s#e failed to
do so" Conse/uentl( t#e Go)occos made several
verbal demands upon :uibon#oa for t#e pament of
rental arreara!es and( for #er to vacate t#e leased
premises" 9n December %@( %@F>( lessors sent
lessee a final letter of demand to pa t#e rental
arreara!es and to vacate t#e leased premises" T#e
Dan Anc#eta -a!e 8 of %8 %%A?A=77@
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW I
CASE DIGESTS
former also notified t#e latter of t#eir intention to
terminate t#e contract of lease"
:o$ever( on 3anuar D( %@F&( :uibon#oa brou!#t
an action for reformation of contract before .ranc#
%>F of t#e Re!ional Trial Court in Ma*ati"
Doc*eted as Civil Case 6o" @>7=" S#e 1lesseeC
alle!ed t#at t#e Go)occos #ad erroneousl
considered t#e first accrual date of t#e rents to be
Marc# %@F> $#en t#eir true intention $as t#at
durin! t#e entire period of actual construction of t#e
buildin!( no rents $ould accrue" T#us( accordin! to
:uibon#oa( t#e first rent $ould #ave been due onl
in 9ctober %@F>"
T#e Go)occos filed Civil Case 6o" %7?7@8 a!ainst
:uibon#oa for 'cancellation of lease( e)ectment and
collection+ $it# t#e Metropolitan Trial Court of
Manila" T#e t#eori0ed t#at despite t#e e2piration
of t#e F<mont# construction period( :uibon#oa
failed to pa t#e rents t#at #ad accrued since Marc#
%( %@F>( t#eir verbal demands t#erefor
not$it#standin!5 t#at( in t#eir letter of December
%@( %@F>( t#e #ad notified :uibon#oa of t#eir
intention to 'terminate and cancel t#e lease for
violation of its terms+ and t#at t#e demanded from
#er t#e 'restitution of t#e land in /uestion+ and t#e
pament of all rentals due t#ereunder"
Ma*ati RTC rendered a decision #oldin! t#at
:uibon#oa #ad not presented clear and convincin!
evidence to )ustif t#e reformation of t#e lease
contract" 9n t#e ot#er #and( in Civil Case 6o"
%7=?7>( t#e MTC of Manila ordered :uibon#oa to
vacate t#e lots o$ned Go)occo" RTC of Manila(
.ranc# &&( reversed t#e decision of t#e
Metropolitan Trial Court and ordered t#e dismissal
of t#e complaint in Civil Case 6o" %7?7@8"
:ence( Civil Case 6os" @>7= and %7?7@8 1t#at $as
doc*eted before t#e RTC of Manila as Civil Case
6o" @7<&>&&8C $ere bot# elevated to t#e Court of
Appeals" CA rendered a Decision affirmin! t#e
decision of t#e Ma*ati RTC in Civil Case 6o" @>7=
and t#e decision of t#e RTC of Manila in Civil Case
6o" %7?7@8"
ISSE" W#et#er or not t#e Metropolitan Trial
Court #ad )urisdiction over t#e complaint for
'cancellation of lease( e)ectment and collection+ in
Civil Case 6o" @7<&>&&8"
RLING" Well<settled is t#e rule t#at in an
e)ectment suit( t#e onl issue is possession de facto
or p#sical or material possession and not
possession de -ure. So t#at( even if t#e /uestion of
o$ners#ip is raised in t#e pleadin!s( as in t#is case(
t#e court ma pass upon suc# issue but onl to
determine t#e /uestion of possession especiall if
t#e former is inseparabl lin*ed $it# t#e latter" It
cannot dispose $it# finalit t#e issue of o$ners#ip<
suc# issue bein! inutile in an e)ectment suit e2cept
to t#ro$ li!#t on t#e /uestion of possession" T#is is
$# t#e issue of o$ners#ip or title is !enerall
immaterial and forei!n to an e)ectment suit"
Detainer( bein! a mere /uietin! process( /uestions
raised on real propert are incidentall discussed"
In fact( an evidence of o$ners#ip is e2pressl
banned b Sec" >( Rule 87 e2cept to resolve t#e
/uestion of possession" T#us( all t#at t#e court ma
do( is to ma*e an initial determination of $#o is t#e
o$ner of t#e propert so t#at it can resolve $#o is
entitled to its possession absent ot#er evidence to
resolve t#e latter" .ut suc# determination of
o$ners#ip is not clot#ed $it# finalit" 6eit#er $ill
it affect o$ners#ip of t#e propert nor constitute a
bindin! and conclusive ad)udication on t#e merits
$it# respect to t#e issue of o$ners#ip"
;ndoubtedl( t#e complaint avers ultimate facts
re/uired for a cause of action in an unla$ful
detainer case" It alle!es possession of t#e properties
b t#e lessee( verbal and $ritten demands to pa
rental arreara!es and to vacate t#e leased premises(
continued refusal of t#e lessees to surrender
possession of t#e premises( and t#e fact t#at t#e
action $as filed $it#in one ear from demand to
vacate"
:o$ever( for!in! contracts for parties in a case is
beond t#e )urisdiction of courts" 9t#er$ise( it
$ould result in t#e court4s substitution of its o$n
volition in a contract t#at s#ould e2press onl t#e
parties4 $ill" 6ecessaril( t#e Metropolitan Trial
Dan Anc#eta -a!e F of %8 %%A?A=77@
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW I
CASE DIGESTS
Court could not favorabl act on t#e praer for
cancellation of t#e contract $it# anot#er containin!
terms su!!ested b t#e plaintiffs as t#e alle!ations
and praer t#erefor are no more t#an superfluities
t#at do not affect t#e main cause of action averred
in t#e complaint" T#e court t#erefore !ranted onl
t#e main relief sou!#t b t#e plaintiffs<t#e eviction
of t#e defendant"
T#e Re!ional Trial Court incorrectl #eld t#at t#e
complaint $as also for rescission of contract( a case
t#at is certainl not $it#in t#e )urisdiction of t#e
Metropolitan Trial Court" . t#e alle!ations of t#e
complaint( t#e Go)occos4 aim $as to cancel or
terminate t#e contract because t#e sou!#t its
partial enforcement in prain! for rental arreara!es"
T#ere is a distinction in la$ bet$een cancellation of
a contract and its rescission" To rescind is to
declare a contract void in its inception and to put an
end to it as t#ou!# it never $ere" It is not merel to
terminate it and release parties from furt#er
obli!ations to eac# ot#er but to abro!ate it from t#e
be!innin! and restore t#e parties to relative
positions $#ic# t#e $ould #ave occupied #ad no
contract ever been made"
Termination of a contract is con!ruent $it# an
action for unla$ful detainer" T#e termination or
cancellation of a contract $ould necessaril entail
enforcement of its terms prior to t#e declaration of
its cancellation in t#e same $a t#at before a lessee
is e)ected under a lease contract( #e #as to fulfill #is
obli!ations t#ereunder t#at #ad accrued prior to #is
e)ectment" :o$ever( termination of a contract need
not under!o )udicial intervention" T#e parties
t#emselves ma e2ercise suc# option" 9nl upon
disa!reement bet$een t#e parties as to #o$ it
s#ould be underta*en ma t#e parties resort to
courts" :ence( not$it#standin! t#e alle!ations in
t#e complaint t#at are e2traneous or not essential in
an action for unla$ful detainer( t#e Metropolitan
Trial Court correctl assumed )urisdiction over
Civil Case 6o" @7<&>&&8"
54EREFORE( t#e decision of t#e Court of
Appeals in CA<G"R" S- 6o" =>?&>( affirmin! t#e
decision of t#e Re!ional Trial Court of ori!in $#ic#
dismissed t#e e)ectment case instituted b t#e
petitioners a!ainst t#e private respondent is SE!
ASI&E5 t#e order of e)ectment issued b t#e
Metropolitan Trial Court a /uo on 3ul D7( %@F7 is
.4EL&5 and t#e private respondent and all
persons claimin! aut#orit under #er are ordered to
vacate t#e land and portion of t#e buildin!
correspondin! to Lot 6o" =?<. covered b TCT 6o"
F78=F of petitioner Severino Go)occo( and t#e
portion correspondin! to Lot 6o" =?<C covered b
TCT 6o" %&&>&7 of petitioner Loreta C#ua"
[G.R. No. 12#0$0. 6+/*+r, 20, 1999]
SICO IN&S!RIAL
COR.ORA!ION vs. CA
FAC!S" -etitioner Suico Industrial Corporation(
represented b Esmeraldo Suico( its -resident(
secured a loan paable in & ears( from respondent
-DC- .an*" As securit t#ereof( petitioner spouses
mort!a!ed t#eir = real estate properties situated at
Mandaue Cit( Cebu" ,or failure to pa t#e balance
of t#e loan respondent -DC- .an* caused t#e
e2tra)udicial foreclosure of t#e real estate
mort!a!e" It $as ad)ud!e as t#e #i!#est bidder and
a Certificate of Sale $as dul issued b t#e S#eriff
of Mandaue in its favor" -etitioner failed to redeem
t#e said properties" After e2piration of t#e %<ear
redemption period( o$ners#ip over t#e properties
$ere consolidated and $ere correspondin!l issued
in t#e name of respondent -DC- .an*"
Respondent -DC- .an* filed $it# RTC of
Mandaue Cit( .ranc# =F an 'E2 parte Motion for
t#e Issuance of Writ of -ossession+ $#ic# $as
!ranted" :o$ever( t#e $rit could not be enforced
because petitioners filed a 'Complaint for Specific
-erformance( In)unction and Dama!es 1$it# -raer
for Restrainin! 9rderC+ before t#e RTC of Mandaue
Cit( .ranc# &? see*in! to en)oin respondent -DC-
.an* from sellin! t#e mort!a!ed properties and
from ta*in! p#sical possession over t#e same
durin! t#e pendenc of t#e case"
ISSE" W#et#er or not RTC .ranc# &? can en)oin
t#e enforcement of t#e $rit of possession issued b
RTC .ranc# =F"
Dan Anc#eta -a!e @ of %8 %%A?A=77@
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW I
CASE DIGESTS
RLING" T#e petition does not deserve merit"
F1r(t" RTC .ranc# &? acted $it# !rave abuse of
discretion for #avin! issued t#e $rit of in)unction
$#ic# prevented t#e implementation of t#e $rit of
possession issued b RTC .ranc# =F" T#e issuance
of t#e $rit of in)unction $as not proper in t#e
absence of an le!al ri!#t on t#e part of petitioners
to en)oin t#e enforcement of t#e $rit of possession
in favor of respondent -DC- .an*"
We espoused in Arce!a v" Court of Appeals t#atB
For the issuance of the writ of preliminary
in-unction to be proper, it must be shown that
the in$asion of the ri*ht sou*ht to be protected
is material and substantial, that the ri*ht of
complainant is clear and unmistakable and
there is an ur*ent and paramount necessity for
the writ to pre$ent serious dama*e.6
=7n the absence of a clear le*al ri*ht, the
issuance of the in-uncti$e writ constitute *ra$e
abuse of discretion. 7n-unction is not desi*ned
to protect contin*ent or future ri*hts, >here
the complainants ri*ht or title is doubtful or
disputed, in-unction is not proper. (he
possibility of irreparable dama*e without proof
of actual existin* ri*ht is no *round for an
in-unction.6
W#en petitioners failed to pa t#e balance of t#e
loan and t#ereafter failed to redeem t#e properties(
title to t#e propert #ad alread been transferred to
respondent -DC- .an*" Respondent -DC- .an*4s
ri!#t to possess t#e propert is clear and is based on
its ri!#t of o$ners#ip as a purc#aser of t#e
properties in t#e foreclosure sale to $#om title #as
been conveed"
Se%o/7" Indeed( it is t#e ministerial dut of t#e trial
court to !rant suc# $rit of possession" In Sulit v"
Court of Appeals, t#e rule $as applied in t#is
mannerB
8o discretion appears to be left to the 5ourt.
Any "uestion re*ardin* the re*ularity and
$alidity of the sale, as well as the conse"uent
cancellation of the writ is to be determined in a
subse"uent proceedin* as outlined in ?ection &,
and it cannot be raised as a -ustification for
opposin* the issuance of the writ of possession
since, under the Act, the proceedin* for this is
ex parte. ?uch recourse is a$ailable of the
mort*a*ee, who effects the extra-udicial
foreclosure of the mort*a*e, e$en before the
expiration of the period of redemption pro$ided
by law and the 9ules of 5ourt.6
T#is is stated also in A"G" Development
Corporation v" Court of Appeals)
A writ of possession is *enerally understood to
be an order whereby the sheriff is commanded
to place a person in possession of a real or
personal property, such as when a property is
extra-udicially foreclosed. 7n this re*ard, the
issuance of a writ of possession to a purchaser
in an extra-udicial foreclosure is merely a
ministerial function. As such, the 5ourt neither
exercises its official discretion nor -ud*ment.6
!01r7" T#e statute boo*s are replete $it#
)urisprudence to t#e effect t#at trial courts #ave no
po$er to interfere b in)unction $it# t#e orders or
)ud!ments issued b anot#er court of concurrent or
coordinate )urisdiction" In t#is re!ard( RTC .ranc#
&? t#erefore #as no po$er nor aut#orit to nullif or
en)oin t#e enforcement of t#e $rit of possession
issued b RTC .ranc# =F"
[G.R. No. 12$3)#. 6*/e 29, 1999]
ES.IRI! vs. CA, E!. AL.
FAC!S" 9n ? 3anuar %@@> petitioner Constancio
Espiritu lod!ed a complaint a!ainst private
respondents Gideon 6atividad and 3ose Casip $it#
t#e MTC .ulacan( for unla$ful detainer and
recover of reasonable rentals for t#e use of t#e
land plus attorne4s fees and liti!ation e2penses"
-etitioner alle!ed in #is complaint t#at private
respondents Mr" 6atividad and Mr" Casip #ad been
ille!all occupin!As/uattin! on #is land b
buildin! a c#apel t#ereon alt#ou!# no buildin!
Dan Anc#eta -a!e %7 of %8 %%A?A=77@
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW I
CASE DIGESTS
permit $as ever issued for its construction" :e also
claimed t#at notices and demands for t#e removal of
t#e c#apel $ere made but private respondents failed
to compl t#ere$it#"
-rivate respondents( averred t#at petitioner #ad no
valid cause of action a!ainst t#em as t#e propert in
/uestion $as donated to t#eir con!re!ation( t#e
C#urc# of C#rist( and t#us o$ned b t#eir c#urc#
and not b t#em" T#e furt#er claimed t#at t#e
Municipal Trial Court of .aliua!( did not ac/uire
)urisdiction over t#e case as it did not fall $it#in t#e
meanin! of 'an action+ under Rule 87C of t#e
Rules of Court" T#e maintained t#at since
petitioner failed to alle!e t#at #e #ad prior
possession of t#e propert( and t#at #e $as deprived
of possession t#ereof t#rou!# an of t#e means
specified in t#e Rules of Court 1Rule 87C( petitioner
s#ould ventilate #is ri!#t of possession b $a of an
action ot#er t#an unla$ful detainer or forcible entr"
MTC rendered its decision in favor of petitioner"
T#e trial court declared t#at it #ad )urisdiction over
t#e case because $#at determined $#ic# court #ad
)urisdiction over t#e case as $ell as t#e nature of t#e
action $ere t#e alle!ations in t#e complaint"
Moreover( a court $as not deprived of its
)urisdiction over an action for e)ectment simpl
because defendants set up a claim different from
t#at alle!ed b plaintiff" It up#eld t#e ri!#t of
petitioner to e)ect private respondents from t#e
sub)ect propert for failure of t#e latter to
substantiate t#eir claim t#at t#e propert #ad been
donated to t#eir c#urc# or t#at t#ere $as an e2istin!
contract of lease bet$een t#em" T#us( t#eir
possession of t#e sub)ect propert $as deemed to be
one of mere tolerance $it# an implied
understandin! t#at t#e $ould vacate t#e premises
upon demand"
RTC dismissed t#e complaint $it#out pre)udice to
its refilin! $it# t#e proper court" T#e lo$er court
noted t#at TCT 6o" D%F7F $as issued in t#e name
of t#e #eirs of A!ustin Espiritu and Apolonia dela
Rama onl on %? April %@@D $#ile t#e propert $as
in t#e possession of private respondents since %@&>
or for more t#an fort 1>7C ears" It ruled t#at it
$as mandated b Sec" %( Rule 87( Rules of Court
t#at e)ectment cases 1forcible entr and unla$ful
detainerC s#ould be filed $it#in one 1%C ear from
t#e unla$ful deprivation or $it##oldin! of
possession" Since private respondents #ad deprived
petitioner of possession of sub)ect propert for more
t#an one 1%C ear( t#e filin! of t#e complaint before
t#e Municipal Trial Court $as inappropriate"
-etitioner elevated t#e case to t#e Court of Appeals
b $a of a petition for revie$" :e contended
t#erein t#at t#e RTC erred in #oldin! t#at t#e MTC
did not ac/uire )urisdiction over t#e complaint as it
failed to alle!e facts constitutive of unla$ful
detainer or forcible entr"
CA declared t#e petition devoid of merit based
mainl on t#e !round t#at t#e Municipal Trial Court
did not ac/uire )urisdiction over t#e complaint"
T#e sole issue before t#is Court is $#et#er t#e
appellate court erred in dismissin! t#e petition for
alle!ed )urisdictional infirmities" -etitioner(
maintainin! t#at $#at determines t#e )urisdiction of
t#e court as $ell as t#e nature of t#e action are t#e
alle!ations made b t#e plaintiff in #is complaint(
ar!ues t#at t#e complaint $as clearl one for
unla$ful detainer5 conse/uentl( alle!ation of prior
possession of t#e propert need not be made"
RLING" -etitioner4s contention is devoid of
merit" W#ile petitioner is correct in statin! t#at t#e
nature of an action as $ell as t#e )urisdiction of a
court is determined b t#e alle!ations in t#e
complaint( a careful scrutin of t#e complaint
reveals t#at petitioner4s cause of action is neit#er for
unla$ful detainer nor for forcible entr but some
ot#er action involvin! recover of possession"
In forcible entr t#e deprivation of p#sical
possession of land or buildin! is effected t#rou!#
force( intimidation( t#reat( strate! or stealt#" In
unla$ful detainer t#e unla$ful $it##oldin! of
possession is made after t#e e2piration or
termination of t#e ri!#t to #old possession under
an contract( e2press or implied" In forcible entr
t#e possession is ille!al from t#e be!innin! and t#e
issue centers on $#o $as in prior possession de
facto" In unla$ful detainer t#e possession $as
Dan Anc#eta -a!e %% of %8 %%A?A=77@
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW I
CASE DIGESTS
ori!inall la$ful but became unla$ful upon t#e
e2piration or termination of t#e ri!#t to possess t#e
sub)ect propert"
Clearl( t#e complaint failed to aver facts
constitutive of eit#er forcible entr or unla$ful
detainer" ,orcible entr must be ruled out as t#ere
$as no alle!ation t#at petitioner $as denied
possession of t#e land in /uestion t#rou!# an of
t#e means stated in Sec" %( Rule 87( Rules of Court"
6eit#er $as t#e action one for unla$ful detainer as
t#ere $as no lease a!reement bet$een t#e parties(
and t#e demand to vacate b petitioner on private
respondents did not ma*e t#e latter tenants of t#e
former" -etitioner s#ould t#erefore avail of ot#er
remedies provided for b la$ to recover possession
of sub)ect propert"
[G.R. No. 1116)6. M+r%0 3, 1999]
8&A. &E CR9 vs. CA
FAC!S" -etitioner Silvina Torres Vda" de Cru0 and
private respondent -riscilla Cru0<Gatc#alian are
sisters<in<la$" -etitioner is t#e $ido$ of private
respondent4s brot#er( 3ose Cru0( Sr" -rivate
respondent and #er siblin!s 13ose( Maria( and
EmilioC in#erited from t#eir mot#er( Emilia Gloria<
Cru0( a parcel of land in .ulacan"
-rivate respondent( t#rou!# counsel( sent a letter to
petitioner demandin! t#at s#e vacate t#e premises
and remove t#e #ouse built t#ereon" As petitioner
refused to do so( private respondent brou!#t t#e
matter to t#e baran!a aut#orities for conciliation"
:o$ever( t#e parties failed to settle t#eir dispute
amicabl( promptin! private respondent to file t#e
case in t#e MTC of .ulacan" -rivate respondent
alle!ed t#at s#e $as t#e o$ner of t#e lot in /uestion
and t#at petitioner #ad been merel allo$ed to sta
on it"
MTC rendered a decision in t#e e)ectment case
orderin! petitioner to vacate t#e propert"
-etitioner appealed to t#e RTC $#ic# affirmed t#e
decision of t#e Municipal Trial Court in toto"
-etitioner appealed t#e case to t#e Court of
Appeals( $#ic# rendered t#e /uestioned decision"
T#e appellate court up#eld t#e )urisdiction of t#e
Municipal Trial Court and affirmed private
respondent4s ri!#t to material possession( as
distin!uis#ed from possession de -ure( of t#e
propert in /uestion"
:ence( t#is petition for revie$ on certiorari"
-etitioner ar!ues t#at t#e primar issue in t#is case
is t#e o$ners#ip of t#e land in /uestion since
private respondent relies on a certificate of title
$#ile s#e 1petitionerC relies on a ta2 declaration in
support of t#eir respective ri!#t to t#e possession of
t#e lot" S#e contends t#at t#e /uestion of
possession cannot be determined $it#out first
resolvin! t#e /uestion of o$ners#ip" ,or t#is
reason( petitioner maintains t#at t#e Municipal Trial
Court #as no )urisdiction over t#is case"
ISSE" W#et#er t#e municipalAmetropolitan trial
court is ousted of )urisdiction $#en t#e issue of
o$ners#ip is raised"
RLING" We rule in t#e ne!ative" In t#e recent
decisions of t#is Court( $e #ave repeatedl #eld t#at
t#e filin! of an action for reconveance of title over
t#e same propert or for t#e annulment of t#e deed
of sale over t#e land does not divest t#e Municipal
Trial Court of its )urisdiction to tr t#e forcible
entr or unla$ful detainer case before it" " " T#is is
so because( $#ile t#ere ma be identit of parties
and sub)ect matter in t#e forcible entr case and t#e
suit for annulment of title andA or reconveance( t#e
ri!#ts asserted and t#e relief praed for are not t#e
same" " " T#e respondents in e)ectment proceedin!s
cannot defeat t#e summar nature of t#e action
a!ainst t#em b simpl filin! an action /uestionin!
t#e o$ners#ip of t#e person $#o is trin! to e)ect
t#em from t#e premises"
More importantl( t#e la$ #as under!one a c#an!e
since 5hin* $. <alaya( t#e case in fact cited b
petitioner( $as decided" R"A" 6o" =@? 13udiciar
Act of %@>FC( LFF( under $#ic# t#e case $as
decided( allo$ed in/uiries into /uestions of
o$ners#ip onl for t#e limited purpose of
determinin! 't#e c#aracter and e2tent of possession
Dan Anc#eta -a!e %= of %8 %%A?A=77@
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW I
CASE DIGESTS
and dama!es for detention"+ .ut after t#e
enactment of ."-" .l!" %=@ 13udiciar
Reor!ani0ation Act of %@F7C( municipalA
metropolitan trial courts #ave been !iven t#e po$er
to determine o$ners#ip /uestions( t#ou!#
provisionall( in cases $#ere t#e issue of o$ners#ip
is intert$ined $it# t#e /uestion of possession"
Wit# t#e enactment of .atas -ambansa .l!" %=@(
t#e inferior courts no$ retain )urisdiction over an
e)ectment case even if t#e /uestion of possession
cannot be resolved $it#out passin! upon t#e issue
of o$ners#ip( $it# t#e e2press /ualification t#at
suc# issue of o$ners#ip s#all be resolved onl for
t#e purpose of determinin! t#e issue of possession"
In ot#er $ords( t#e fact t#at t#e issues of o$ners#ip
and possession de facto are intricatel inter$oven
$ill not cause t#e dismissal of t#e case for forcible
entr and unla$ful detainer on )urisdictional
!rounds"
T#e )urisdiction of inferior courts to resolve t#e
issue of o$ners#ip in e)ectment cases( $#ile not
plenar( is certainl broader t#an merel for t#e
purpose of determinin! t#e e2tent of possession"
9ne of t#e !uidelines set fort# in t#e same case of
9efu*ia indicates t#e scope of t#eir po$er( t#usB
>here the "uestion of who has prior possession
hin*es on the "uestion of who the real owner of
the disputed portion is, the inferior court may
resol$e the issue of ownership and make a
declaration as to who amon* the contendin*
parties is the real owner. 7n the same $ein,
where the resolution of the issue of possession
hin*es on a determination of the $alidity and
interpretation of the document of title or any
other contract on which the claim of possession
is premised, the inferior court may likewise pass
upon these issues. (his is because, and it must
be so understood, that any such pronouncement
made affectin* ownership of the disputed
portion is to be re*arded merely as pro$isional,
hence, does not bar nor pre-udice an action
between the same parties in$ol$in* title to the
land.
6or does t#e fact t#at t#e parties base t#eir
respective claims of possession on evidence of
o$ners#ip ma*e o$ners#ip t#e principal issue in
t#e case or /ualif t#e action as one for
reconveance instead of e)ectment" T#e )urisdiction
of a court over t#e sub)ect matter is determined b
t#e alle!ations of t#e complaint and cannot be made
to depend upon t#e defenses set up in t#e ans$er or
pleadin!s filed b t#e defendant" Since t#ere is no
dispute t#at t#e alle!ations of t#e complaint filed b
private respondent sufficientl /ualif t#e case as
one for e)ectment( t#e inferior court ac/uired
)urisdiction over t#e sub)ect matter t#ereof"
[G.R. No. 1#))18. 6*:, 2), 1999]
MALON9O '(. 9AMORA
FAC!S" Durin! t#e incumbenc of t#en Macario A
Asistio( 3r"( t#e ?an**unian* %anlun*sod of
Caloocan Cit passed Or71/+/%e No. 0168, S.
1993, aut#ori0in! t#e Cit Maor to initiate
proceedin!s for t#e e2propriation of Lot =? of t#e
Masilo Estate re!istered in t#e name of CLT
Relat Development Corporation 1CLTC"
It turned out( #o$ever( t#at t#e Masilo Estate
straddled t#e Cit of Caloocan and t#e Municipalit
of Malabon( promptin! CLT to file a special civil
action for Interpleader $it# -raer for t#e Issuance
of a Temporar Restrainin! 9rder andAor Writ of
-reliminar In)unction before t#e Caloocan Cit
Re!ional Trial Court( branc# %=>"
'-endin! t#e final determination and resolution of
t#e court on t#e issue 1territorial )urisdictionC raised
in Civil Case 6o" C<%F7%@ before .ranc# %=> of t#e
Re!ional Trial Court of Caloocan Cit( t#e
e2propriation of t#e sub)ect propert be cancelled
andAor abandoned"+ In t#e meantime( 'since t#e
e2propriation of CLT -ropert is discontinued( t#e
appropriation for e2propriation of ,I,TM
MILLI96 -ES9S 1-&7MC can be reverted for use
in a supplemental bud!et+ statin! furt#er t#at #e
certifies '1,Cor its reversion since it is not et
obli!ated( and for its availabilit for re<
appropriation in a supplemental bud!et"+
Dan Anc#eta -a!e %D of %8 %%A?A=77@
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW I
CASE DIGESTS
Alle!in!( #o$ever( t#at petitioners conspired and
confederated in $illfull violatin! certain
provisions of t#e Local Government Code of %@@%
1#ereinafter t#e NCodeNC t#rou!# t#e passa!e of
9rdinance 6o" 7=&>( S" %@@F( a certain Eduardo
Tibor( b #imself and as a ta2paer( filed on 3ul
%&( %@@F( an administrative complaint for
Dis#onest( Misconduct in 9ffice( and Abuse of
Aut#orit a!ainst petitioners before t#e 9ffice of
t#e -resident 19-C"
9- #ereb ad)ud!ed !uilt of misconduct and eac#
is meted t#e penalt of S;S-E6SI96"
RLING" T#e petition is impressed $it# merit"
-reliminaril( $e find a need to resolve a couple of
procedural issues $#ic# #ave a bearin! on t#e
propriet of t#is Court4s action on t#e petition( to
$itB 222 $#et#er t#e Supreme Court ma entertain
t#e instant petition despite t#e absence of a prior
motion for reconsideration filed b petitioners $it#
t#e 9-"
-ursuant to said )udicial polic( $e resolve to ta*e
primar )urisdiction over t#e present petition in t#e
interest of speed )ustice and to avoid future
liti!ations 1sicC so as to promptl put an end to t#e
present controvers $#ic#( as correctl observed b
petitioners( #as spar*ed national interest because of
t#e ma!nitude of t#e problem created b t#e
issuance of t#e assailed resolution" Moreover( as
$ill be discussed later( $e find t#e assailed
resolution $#oll void and re/uirin! t#e petitioners
to file t#eir petition first $it# t#e Court of Appeals
$ould onl result in a $aste of time and mone"
T#at t#e Court #as t#e po$er to set aside its o$n
rules in t#e #i!#er interests of )ustice is $ell<
entrenc#ed in our )urisprudence"
Wit# respect to t#e alle!ed non<e2#austion of
administrative remedies( $e do not see t#e same as
a fatal procedural lapse t#at $ould prevent us from
entertainin! t#e more pressin! /uestions raised in
t#is case" In an event( )urisprudence is replete $it#
instances instructin! us t#at a motion for
reconsideration is neit#er al$as a prere/uisite nor
a #ard<and<fast rule to be follo$ed $#ere t#ere are
particularl e2ceptional attendant circumstances
suc# as( in t#e instant case( patent nullit of t#e
/uestioned act and t#e necessit of resolvin! t#e
issues $it#out furt#er dela"
[G.R. No. 123#)3. &e%ember 1$, 1999]
MA!4A; 6R. vs. CA, E!. AL.
FAC!S" .ri!ido R" Simon appointed private
respondents to positions in t#e Civil Service ;nit
1'CS;+C of t#e local !overnment of Kue0on Cit"
Civil Service ;nits $ere created pursuant to
-residential Decree 6o" &% $#ic# $as alle!edl
si!ned into la$ on 6ovember %& or %?( %@8="
T#e Civil Service Commission issued
Memorandum Circular 6o" D7( directin! all Civil
Service Re!ional or ,ield 9ffices to recall( revo*e
and disapprove $it#in one ear from issuance of t#e
said Memorandum( all appointments in CS;s
created pursuant to -residential Decree 6o" &% on
t#e !round t#at t#e same never became la$"
Amon! t#ose affected b t#e revocation of
appointments are private respondents in t#ese t#ree
petitions"
9n Ma %%( %@@=( petitioner Ismael A" Mat#a( 3r"
$as elected Maor of Kue0on Cit" 9n 3ul %(
%@@=( Maor Mat#a a!ain rene$ed t#e contractual
appointments of all private respondents effective
3ul % to 3ul D%( %@@=" ;pon t#eir e2pir( t#ese
appointments( #o$ever( $ere no lon!er rene$ed"
T#e non<rene$al b Kue0on Cit Maor Ismael A"
Mat#a( 3r" of private respondents4 appointments
became t#e seed of discontent from $#ic# t#ese
t#ree consolidated petitions !re$"
RLING" In t#e case

G"R" %=?D&>( t#e standin! of
petitioner Civil Service Commission to brin! t#is
present appeal is /uestionable" We note t#at t#e
person adversel affected b t#e Court of Appeals
decision( 3ovito C" Laba)o #as opted not to appeal"
.asic is t#e rule t#at 'ever action must be
prosecuted or defended in t#e name of t#e real part
in interest"+ A real part in interest is t#e part $#o
Dan Anc#eta -a!e %> of %8 %%A?A=77@
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW I
CASE DIGESTS
stands to be benefited or in)ured b t#e )ud!ment in
t#e suit( or t#e part entitled to t#e avails of t#e suit"
As a !eneral rule( one #avin! no ri!#t or interest to
protect cannot invo*e t#e )urisdiction of t#e court as
a part<plaintiff in an action"
In t#e case at bar( it is evident t#at 3ovito C" Laba)o(
not t#e Civil Service Commission( is t#e real part
in interest" It is 3ovito C" Laba)o $#o $ill be
benefited or in)ured b #is reinstatement or non<
reinstatement"
We are a$are of our pronouncements in t#e recent
case of 5i$il ?er$ice 5ommission $. %edro
0acoycoy $#ic# overturned our rulin!s in %aredes
$s. 5i$il ?er$ice 5ommission, <ende# $s. 5i$il
?er$ice 5ommission and <a*pale $s. 5i$il ?er$ice
5ommission. In 0acoycoy( $e affirmed t#e ri!#t of
t#e Civil Service Commission to brin! an appeal as
t#e a!!rieved part affected b a rulin! $#ic# ma
seriousl pre)udice t#e civil service sstem"
T#e aforementioned case( #o$ever( is different
from t#e case at bar" 0acoycoy $as an
administrative case involvin! nepotism $#ose
deleterious effect on !overnment cannot be
overemp#asi0ed" T#e sub)ect of t#e present case(
on t#e ot#er #and( is 'reinstatement"+
We fail to see #o$ t#e present petition( involvin! as
it does t#e reinstatement or non<reinstatement of
one obviousl reluctant to liti!ate( can impair t#e
effectiveness of !overnment" Accordin!l( t#e
rulin! in 0acoycoy does not appl"
[G.R. No. 12)#6). M+, #, 1999]
GOL& LOO. .RO.ER!IES, INC., vs. CA
FAC!S" -etitioner Gold Loop -roperties 1GL-C(
entered into a Deed of E2c#an!e $it# -#ilippine
International Tradin! Corporation 1-ITCC( a
!overnment controlled corporation" In t#at Deed(
GL-( o$ner of a %?<store residential
condominium e2c#an!ed ten 1%7C condominium
units for D7>(78%"DF ba!s of cement belon!in! to
-ITC( eac# ba! containin! &7 *ilos" Subse/uentl(
GL- offered an additional condominium unit in
e2c#an!e for $#at is referred to as 'bad stoc*+
cement( or cement t#at $as be!innin! to #arden"
-ITC indicated it $as amenable to t#e offer and
su!!ested t#at la$ers prepare t#e necessar
contract documents" M9A $as e2ecuted bet$een
GL- and -ITC"
-ursuant to t#e M9A( GL- issued a c#ec* in t#e
amount of -=(&=7(777"77 bearin! t#e si!nature of
its president Emmanuel Oapanta" Wit# t#e issued
c#ec* #avin! reac#ed maturit( -ITC deposited t#e
c#ec* for encas#ment but it $as returned for #avin!
been dra$n a!ainst insufficient funds"
-ITC filed c#ar!es a!ainst Estrella and Emmanuel
Oapanta for estafa and violation of .- ==" -endin!
preliminar investi!ation of t#e c#ar!es( a civil
complaint $as filed t#is time b GL- a!ainst -ITC
$it# t#e praer t#at -ITC be ordered to compl
$it# t#e a!reement for t#e s$appin! of cement in
e2c#an!e for t#e condominium unit( and t#at t#e
c#ec* issued to -ITC be declared null and void for
$ant of consideration" It also praed t#at -ITC pa
GL- costs and dama!es" Concurrentl( GL- filed a
Motion for Suspension of t#e -reliminar
Investi!ation of t#e criminal case initiated b -ITC(
on t#e !round t#at t#e civil complaint filed b GL-
constitutes a pre)udicial /uestion"
-etitioners4 main alle!ation Memorandum of
A!reement did not reflect t#e true intent of t#e
parties" T#e claim t#at t#e M9A s#ould onl refer
to t#e sub)ect of t#e contract( namel t#e bad stoc*
cement" W#at !overns t#e s$appin! of petitioners4
condominium unit for t#e cement $ould be anot#er
matter( vide t#e Deed of E2c#an!e"
RLING" We find merit in private respondent4s
contentions" T#ere is no ambi!uit in t#e terms of
t#e contract to $#ic# bot# parties #ad indicated
t#eir consent" It $as never denied t#at t#e M9A(
t#e promissor note and t#e c#ec* issued( came
from t#e petitioners" It is too late for petitioners to
/uestion t#e intent of t#e contract( on t#e self<
servin! !round t#at it did not reflect t#e parties4 real
a!reement" -etitioners4 claim t#at t#e s$appin! 1or
barterC $as $#at t#e parties intended does not
Dan Anc#eta -a!e %& of %8 %%A?A=77@
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW I
CASE DIGESTS
s/uare $it# t#e terms of t#e M9A( $#ic# s#o$s a
sale on credit" T#e cannot no$ claim t#at contract
s#ould not be enforced" T#ere $as no reason found
b bot# lo$er courts to !o beond t#e terms stated
in t#e contract( $#ic# are unambi!uous"
To recapitulate( it is not t#e function of t#is Court to
$ei!# ane$ t#e evidence alread passed upon b
t#e Court of Appeals" 9ur revie$ is !enerall
confined to correctin! errors of la$( if an( t#at
mi!#t #ave been committed belo$" In t#e case at
bar petitioners #ave not s#o$n e2ceptional
circumstances t#at merit disturbin! t#e findin!s of
fact belo$" 6ot onl are t#e terms of t#e assailed
M9A bet$een t#e parties clear( in our vie$( but t#e
contractual obli!ations of t#e parties t#ereto are also
unambi!uous" 6o reversible error could be
attributed to t#e assailed decision( muc# less could
an !rave abuse of discretion be imputed to
respondent court"
[G.R. No. 9#090. M+r%0 #, 1999]
ROMEO CABELLAN vs. CA
FAC!S" -rivate respondent 6at#aniel Dinoro
ac/uired t#e ri!#ts to t#e land in /uestion b
purc#ase" -etitioner Romeo Cabellan #ad been in
possession of t#e sub)ect land since %@?F t#rou!#
tolerance" After ac/uirin! t#e land on Ma =8(
%@F?( private respondent as*ed petitioner to vacate
t#e occupied portion( but t#e latter refused" -rivate
respondent brou!#t t#e matter to t#e baran!a
aut#orities of Suare0( Ili!an Cit for conciliation(
but no amicable settlement $as reac#ed b t#e
parties" Conse/uentl( t#e case $as certified for
trial b t#e courts"
-rivate respondent filed a complaint for unla$ful
detainer a!ainst petitioner in t#e MTC of Ili!an Cit
$#ic# rendered a decision orderin! petitioner to
vacate t#e land and pa private respondent
attorne4s fees in t#e amount of -D(777"77( plus
-&77"77 as liti!ation e2penses( and mont#l rental
at t#e rate of -%77"77 a mont# from t#e date of
filin! of t#e case until petitioner #ad full vacated
t#e premises"
-rivate respondent filed a motion for e2ecution
$#ic# t#e MTC !ranted on t#e !round t#at its
)ud!ment #ad become final and e2ecutor"
T#ereafter( t#e deput s#eriff issued a notice of
e)ectment( for $#ic# reason petitioner filed( a
petition for certiorari in t#e Court of Appeals"
T#e appellate court dismissed t#e petition" :ence(
t#is petition"
RLINGS ON !4E ISSES"
F1r(t" -etitioner contends t#at t#e land in /uestion
is o$ned b t#e !overnment and( #ence( t#e MTC
and RTC #ave no )urisdiction to order #is
e)ectment"
T#e petition for certiorari and pro#ibition filed b
petitioner in t#e Court of Appeals is based on a
certification of t#e District Land 9fficer of Ili!an
Cit to t#e effect t#at t#e land occupied b
petitioner Romeo Cabellan is '$it#in a proposed
road+ and t#at 't#ere is no person G$#o #asH filed
an public land application+ $it# respect to t#e
same" T#e public o$ners#ip of t#e land $as raised
in t#e MTC b petitioner( but t#e court #eld t#at 'it
could be presumed as s#o$n b t#e S*etc# -lan of
t#e land of plaintiff Grespondent 6at#aniel DinoroH
t#at said road $#ere defendant4s Gpetitioner Romeo
CabellanH #ouse is( is a part of t#e plaintiff4s
G6at#aniel DinoroH land"+
W#en t#e case $as appealed to it( t#e RTC at first
found t#e land to be o$ned b t#e !overnment on
t#e basis of t#e aforesaid certification of t#e District
Land 9fficer and( #ence( reversed t#e decision of
t#e MTC" :o$ever( on motion of private
respondent( t#e RTC reconsidered its decision and
#eld t#at even '!rantin! t#at Gt#e land in /uestionH
is a part of t#e proposed road ri!#t of $a or of t#e
public domain( GpetitionerH #ad not s#o$n( not even
b a scintilla of evidence( t#at #e possesses t#e
same area in Gt#eH concept of an o$ner b ma*in!
or introducin! some *ind of improvements5 GT#ere
isH not even an indicia of possession li*e a ta2
declaration( ta2 paments( or an semblance of
aut#orit from t#e !overnment to possess and
occup t#e same area in /uestion"+ 9n t#e ot#er
Dan Anc#eta -a!e %? of %8 %%A?A=77@
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW I
CASE DIGESTS
#and( it found private respondent to #ave a better
ri!#t of possession as s#o$n b t#e deed of sale( a
ta2 declaration( a transfer ta2 receipt( and a real
estate ta2 receipt" Conse/uentl( t#e RTC
reconsidered its decision and dismissed petitioner4s
appeal" T#us( t#e public c#aracter of t#e land $as
considered irrelevant b bot# courts in t#e
e)ectment case"
T#e RTC( $e t#in*( acted correctl" As t#is Court
#eld in <olina $. 0e 4acud( t#e public c#aracter of
t#e land in dispute does not e2clude courts from
t#eir )urisdiction over possessor actions" Indeed(
in <olina( t#is Court up#eld t#e ri!#t of a part(
$#o #ad been in open( continuous( e2clusive( and
notorious possession of a parcel of public land(
a!ainst anot#er $#o #ad alread ac/uired a sales
patent from t#e !overnment over t#e same" Clearl(
t#e onl issue in e)ectment cases is possession(
re!ardless of t#e claim of o$ners#ip of a part" As
t#e )ud!ment in e)ectment cases is bindin! onl
$it# respect to t#e issue of possession( t#e
!overnment cannot possibl be pre)udiced b t#e
rulin! t#at private respondent is entitled to t#e
possession of t#e sub)ect land"
T#ere $as t#us no )urisdictional issue )ustifin!
resort to t#e special civil action of certiorari" T#e
resort to t#is remed appears to #ave been due to
t#e fact t#at t#e decision of t#e RTC( affirmin! t#e
)ud!ment of t#e MTC( #ad alread become final
and e2ecutor rat#er t#an to t#e e2istence of an
)urisdictional /uestion"
Indeed( petitioner failed to appeal from t#e decision
of t#e RTC" Clearl( t#e petition for certiorari(
$#ic# $as filed more t#an seven mont#s after t#e
decision of t#e RTC #ad become final( $as bein!
used as a substitute for a lost appeal"
Se%o/7" Even if a petition for certiorari $ere t#e
appropriate remed( it s#ould nevert#eless be
dismissed for #avin! been filed after an
unreasonable period of time" T#e petition $as filed
on April =8( %@F@( more t#an seven 18C mont#s after
t#e RTC #ad affirmed t#e decision of t#e MTC
orderin! t#e e)ectment of petitioner from t#e sub)ect
land on September F( %@FF" A period of seven 18C
mont#s is certainl more t#an t#e period considered
reasonable for filin! suc# a petition"
!01r7" 9n t#e ot#er #and( even if t#e petition for
certiorari filed b petitioner $ere treated as a
petition for revie$( t#e same s#ould also be
dismissed( as t#e Court of Appeals pointed out( for
late filin! of t#e petition and pament of doc*et
fees( and for lac* of statement of material dates
specificall s#o$in! t#e timel filin! of t#e petition
as re/uired b Rule ?( LD1aC( 1cC( and 1dC in relation
to L%1bC of t#e Revised Internal Rules of t#e Court
of Appeals" Rule ?( LD of t#e said Internal Rules
provides t#at a petition for revie$ filed after t#e %&<
da period to appeal or after t#e %&<da additional
period !ranted b t#e Court of Appeals s#all be
dismissed" A petition $#ic# is not sufficient in
form and substance s#ould( li*e$ise( be dismissed"
Well<settled is t#e rule t#at t#e ri!#t to appeal is a
mere privile!e and( t#erefore( s#ould be e2ercised
onl in t#e manner prescribed b la$" T#e
perfection of an appeal $it#in t#e period and in t#e
manner prescribed b la$ is )urisdictional and
noncompliance $it# suc# le!al re/uirements is fatal
and #as t#e effect of renderin! t#e )ud!ment final
and e2ecutor" 54EREFORE( t#e decision of t#e
Court of Appeals is A,,IRMED"
Dan Anc#eta -a!e %8 of %8 %%A?A=77@