Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

Rule 70 – Forcible and Unlawful Detainer An ejectment suit is an action in personam wherein judgment is

binding only upon parties properly impleaded and given an opportunity


Pasion v. Melegrito March 28, 2007 to be heard. However, as an exception, even a non-party is bound by the
judgment in an ejectment suit where he is a:
DOCTRINE: (a) trespasser, squatter or agent of the defendant fraudulently
GR: The judgment in an ejectment suit is binding only upon the parties occupying the property to frustrate the judgment;
impleaded and given an opportunity to be heard. (b) guest or occupant of the premises with the permission of the
Except: A non-party is bound by the judgment in an ejectment suit where he defendant;
is a: (1) trespasser, squatter or agent of the defendant fraudulently occupying (c) transferee pendente lite;
the property to frustrate the judgment; (2) guest or occupant of the premises (d) sublessee;
with the permission of the defendant; (3) transferee pendente lite; (4) (e) co-lessee; or
sublessee; (5) co-lessee; or (6) member of the family, relative or privy of (f) member of the family, relative or privy of the defendant.
the defendant. In this case, petitioner falls under (f) because she is a relative of the
Bueno sisters, the defendants in the ejectment case. She herself admitted this
FACTS: in her complaint when she referred to the Bueno sisters as her legitimate
Respondent Simplicio Melegrito filed a complaint for forcible sisters.
entry against the Bueno sisters (Filipina, Divina and Regina) with the Petitioner cannot deny her knowledge of the pendency of the ejectment
MCTC. Respondent claimed that the Bueno sisters constructed a 2-story case. Even the judgment in the said case acknowledges the fact that she went
residential structure on his land through stealth and strategy and without his to the hearings with Zafra, the representative of her sisters. If she truly had an
knowledge and consent. He further claims that despite notice and demand, interest in the structure sought to be demolished, she could have informed
the Bueno sisters refused to leave and remove the structure. respondent even before the filing of the case to enable the latter to take the
MCTC ordered the Bueno sisters to vacate the premises and pay necessary and appropriate action. However, respondent apparently had been
damages to respondent. unaware of petitioner’s ownership claim over the structure as she divulged
RTC reversed and ordered dismissal of the case. the same only when she filed the complaint for injunction.
CA reinstated the MCTC judgment which became final. Even if petitioner was prevented from intervening, a motion for
On remand, the MCTC issued a writ of execution (upon motion of intervention being a prohibited under the Rules on Summary Procedure, she
respondent). Also, MCTC granted respondent’s motion for the issuance of a was not precluded from filing a separate case to assert and claim her
writ of demolition. An alias writ of demolition was issued directing the ownership over the structure.
sheriff to demolish the improvements erected by the Bueno sisters. It was only a month after the issuance of the alias writ of demolition,
Petitioner Nora Bueno Pasion, the agricultural tenant on a portion of that petitioner filed the complaint for injunction to restrain the
the land and sister of the Bueno sisters filed a Complaint for Injunction implementation of the writ. At that time, the ejectment case which originated
with WPI and TRO against the Judge and the Provincial Sheriff to restrain in the MCTC had already been appealed to the RTC whose decision was
the enforcement of the writ of demolition. The 20-day TRO was granted but eventually reviewed and reversed by the CA. Through all these court
the preliminary injunction was denied. proceedings spanning a number of years, petitioner did not do or say
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari (65) with the CA imputing anything. Verily, the principle of equitable estoppel would now operate to
grave abuse to the Judge in allowing a writ of demolition to be enforced prevent petitioner from asserting her alleged ownership over the structure and
against her although she was not a party to the ejectment case. defeating the alias writ of execution issued in execution of the decision.
Moreover, the RTC found, in accordance with the MCTC’s findings as
ISSUE: W/N the writ of demolition can be enforced against petitioner affirmed by the CA, that the Bueno sisters, and not petitioner, were the
despite her not being a party to the ejectment case. owners of the structure sought to be demolished. Clearly, the trial court found
that petitioner had no actual right that needs to be protected by a writ of
HELD: YES. preliminary injunction.