Foreclosure

45. Biaco vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank

GR No. 161417
February 8, 2007
Ponente: Tinga, J.
Facts:
Ernesto Biaco, while he was employed in the Philippine Countryside Rural
Bank, obtained several loans from the respondent bank. As security he executed a
real estate mortgage in favor of the bank covering a parcel of land. When he failed
to settle the said loans on its due date, the bank sent him a written demand which
proved futile. The respondent then filed a complaint for foreclosure of mortgage
against the petitioners. When he failed to answer, the petitioners were declared in
default upon motion of the respondent bank. After the foreclosure, the property was
insufficient to fulfill the obligation. Hence, the bank filed an ex parte motion for
judgment praying for the issuance of a writ of execution against the other properties
of the spouses.
Issue: W/N the court still has jurisdiction over the case even after the foreclosure
case had already been decided.
Held: No
The judicial foreclosure proceeding instituted by the respondent undoubtedly
vested the court with jurisdiction over the res. A judicial foreclosure proceeding is an
action quasi in rem. As such, the jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner is not
required, it being sufficient that the trial court is vested with such jurisdiction over
the subject matter. However, in this case the trial courts jurisdiction is limited to a
rendition of judgment on the res. It cannot extend its jurisdiction beyond the res and
issue a judgment enforcing petitioners personal liability.

Forcible Entry
46. Yu vs. Pacleb
GR No. 130316
January 24, 2007
Ponente: Corona, J.
Facts:
Javier offered to sell a lot owned by the respondents to the petitioners. After
the alleged sale, the title of the property still remained in the names of the
respondents. During this time, the respondents were in the United States and upon
their return they allegedly entered the property by means of force, threat, strategy,
and stealth thereby ousting petitioners. Despite repeated demands,. Respondent
refused to vacate the premises and surrender its possession to petitioners,
asserting his rights as registered owner of the property. Hence, petitioners filed an
action for forcible entry.
Issue: W/N there is forcible entry
Held: No
Possession is the holding of a thing and enjoyment of a right. However, it is
not necessary that the person in possession should himself be the occupant. The
occupancy can be held by another in his name. Two things are paramount in
possession: 1. Occupancy, apprehension or taking, and 2. Intent to possess. In this
case, petitioners failed to establish that they had prior physical possession to justify
a ruling in their favor in the complaint for forcible entry against respondents. In view
of the evidence presented by the respondents establishing their continuous
possession of the subject property, petitioners allegation of forcible entry was
clearly untenable.

47. Regis vs. CA

GR No. 153914
July 31, 2007
Ponente: Nachura, J.
Facts:
The first complaint for forcible entry was dismissed by the MTCC and no
further action was commenced by the petitioners. However, in the second
ejectment case filed by the private respondent, MTCC also dismissed the case for
failure to prove his prior physical possession of the property in question. Garcia
appealed the said decision to the RTC which reversed the decision of the lower court
and ordered the Regis to vacate the property in dispute. In the CA affirmed the
decision of the RTC.
Issue: W/N forcible entry is the proper action in this case
Held: Yes
A complaint for forcible entry may be brought within a year from unlawful
dispossession before a municipal trial court in a summary proceeding. Title or
ownership over the property is not an issue. However, when the defendant raises
the defense of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be
resolved without deciding the same, then the issue of ownership shall be resolved in
order to decide the issue of possession.

Forcible Entry vs. Accion Publiciana

48. Regis vs CA
Same as #47
Issue: W/N the court decided the case as accion publiciana and not as forcible entry
Held: No
Forcible entry is distinct from accion publiciana (AP). First, FE should be filed
within 1 year from the unlawful dispossession of the property, while AP is filed a
year after the unlawful dispossession of the real property. Second, FE is concerned
with the issue of the right to the physical possession of the real property, while in AP
the subject of the litigation is the better right to possession over the real property.
Third, an action for FE is filed in the MTC and is a summary action, while AP is a
plenary action in the RTC. In this case, the Court decided the case as FE and merely
commented on the observation of the RTC that it would have been better if Garcia
filed an AP instead of a complaint for FE.

FE vs Unlawful Detainer (UD)

49. Del Rosario vs Gerry Roxas
GR No. 170575
June 8, 2011
Ponente: Del Castillo, J.
Facts:
The controversy emanated from a complaint for UD filed by the petitioner
against the respondent. The petitioner appears to be the registered owner of the
subject property and sometime in 1991, the respondent took possession and
occupancy of said land by virtue of a memorandum of agreement. In 2003, the
petitioners served notices upon the respondent to vacate the premises of said land.
But such notices were futile. However, it was also proven later in the course of the
trial that respondent took possession and control over the subject property without
any contractual or legal basis.
Issue: W/N the case is UD instead of FE
Held: No
The case should be that of FE. In FE, one is deprived of physical possession
by means of force, threat, intimidation, strategy, or stealth while in UD, one
unlawfully withholds possession thereof after the expiration or termination of his
right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied. In FE, the
possession is illegal from the beginning while in UD, possession was originally lawful
but became unlawful. In their complaint, petitioners maintained that the respondent
took possession and control of the subject property without any contractual or legal
basis. With this, it follows that respondents possession was illegal from the very
beginning.