DEMAMAY v. CA HELD:NO.

Rule 70 – Prior Possession
[Ocampo, M.]
FACTS:
 Petitioners were the registered owners of a parcel of land
located in Calamba, Laguna.
 They mortgaged the same to the Luzon Development Bank
(LDB) for the sum of P10,000.00 payable in installments in
five.
 As petitioners defaulted in the payment of the loan the
LDB extra judicially foreclosed the mortgage, so the
property was sold at public auction to LDB as the highest
bidder. Upon failure of the petitioners to redeem the
property within one year from the sale, title over the same
was consolidated in favor of LDB, so that petitioners' title
was canceled and a new TCT was issued to LDB.
 LDB filed in the RTC of Laguna a petition for the issuance
of a writ of possession. Petitioners filed an opposition
thereto. The trial court issued an order authorizing the
Clerk of Court to issue the corresponding writ of
possession which was returned unsatisfied.
 LDB filed a motion for demolition which was opposed by
petitioners. Nevertheless the trial court granted the
motion.
Under the provisions of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, an unlawful
detainer case may be filed by any landlord, vendor or vendee (like
herein private respondents) against whom the possession of any
land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or
termination of the right to hold possession by virtue of any contract
express or implied. Petitioners' right to Possess the property in
question terminated from the moment they ceased to be the
owners thereof and the transfer of said ownership to Luzon
Development Bank. This was bolstered by the issuance of a writ of
possession turning over the possession thereof to the Bank, which in
turn transferred its right of ownership or possession to private
respondents, who in turn became the owners thereof entitled to its
possession with the issuance in their name of the title to the
property.
It is true that in forcible entry cases the plaintiff must allege and
prove that he was in prior physical possession of the property in
litigation until he was deprived thereof by the defendant. However,
in unlawful detainer cases, the plaintiff need not have been in prior
physical possession of the property.

 A motion for reconsideration of said order was filed by

petitioners wherein it was alleged that LDB was no longer
the owner of the property inasmuch as it had already sold
the same to spouses Cecilia de Ramos and Cesar de
Ramos, who have elected to file an unlawful detainer case
against petitioners. The motion was granted.
 Petitioners filed an action against the Ramos spouses and
LDB in the RTC of Laguna for annulment of sale,
reconveyance of property with damages.
 The Ramos spouses filed an action for unlawful detainer
against petitioners in the MTC of Calamba, Laguna. On
motion of LDB the said cross claim was dismissed.

 A decision was rendered ordering petitioners to vacate the

property in question within sixty (60) days from receipt
thereof. The counterclaim was dismissed. Petitioners
appealed the decision to the RTC of Laguna but the same
was affirmed. They filed a petition for review in the Court
of Appeals, which dismissed the petition. A motion for
reconsideration filed by petitioners was denied.
 Petitioners contend that as they continued to be in
physical possession of the property and in the absence of
the jurisdictional allegation in the complaint for unlawful
detainer that private respondents had prior physical
possession of the property the MTC did not acquire
jurisdiction over the case.

ISSUE: WON in unlawful detainer case, the plaintiff need to have

a prior physical possession of the property for the lower court to
have jurisdiction

1
PEOPLE v. WONG CHUEN MING
Rule 130 – Testimonial Evidence (Confession)
[Ocampo, M.]
FACTS:
 PAL Flight PR No. 301 from Hongkong arrived at the
NAIA. Among the many passengers who arrived on board
said flight were the eleven (11) accused. Their respective
passports showed that Wong Chuen Ming and Au Wing
Cheung are the only British (Hongkong) nationals in the
group while the rest are all Malaysian nationals. All
accused arrived in Manila as a tour group arranged by
Select Tours International Co., Ltd. Accused-appellant Au
Wing Cheung, an employee of Select Tours International
Co., Ltd. acted as their tour guide.
 Danilo Gomez, custom examiner, testified that he
instructed the tour group to place their baggages on the
examiners table for inspection.
 Chin Kong Songs baggage was first to be examined by
Gomez. Gomez put his hand inside the baggage and in the
course of the inspection, he found three (3) brown colored
boxes similar in size to powdered milk boxes underneath
the clothes. The boxes were marked Alpen Cereals and as
he found nothing wrong with them, Gomez returned them
inside the baggage and allowed Chin Kong Song to go.
 Following the same procedure, Gomez next examined the
baggage of Wong Chuen Ming. Gomez again found and
pulled out two (2) boxes of Alpen Cereals from said
baggage and like in the previous inspection, he found
nothing wrong with them and allowed Wong Chuen Ming
to go.
 The third baggage to be examined belonged to Lim Nyuk
Sun. When Gomez pulled out another three (3) boxes of
Alpen Cereals from said baggage, he became suspicious
and decided to open one of the boxes with his cutter.
Inside the box was a plastic bag containing white
crystalline substance. Alarmed, Gomez immediately called
the attention of Appraiser Oreganan Palala and Duty
Collector Zenaida Reyes Bonifacio to his discovery.
 Bonifacio testified that upon learning about the boxes
containing the white crystalline substance, she
immediately ordered the tour group to get their baggages
and proceed to the district collectors office. Chin Kong
Song and Wong Chuen Ming, who were previously cleared
by Gomez, were also brought inside together with the rest
of the group. Inside the collectors office, Gomez continued
to examine the baggages of the other members of the tour
group. He allegedly found that each baggage contained
one (1), two (2) or three (3) boxes similar to those
previously found in the baggages of Chin Kong Song, Wong
Chuen Ming and Lim Nyuk Sun. A total of thirty (30) boxes
of Alpen Cereals containing white crystalline substance
were allegedly recovered from the baggages of the eleven
(11) accused. As Gomez pulled out these boxes from their
respective baggages, he bundled said boxes by putting
masking tape around them and handed them over to
Bonifacio. Upon receipt of these bundled boxes, Bonifacio
called out the names of accused as listed in the passengers
manifest and ordered them to sign on the masking tape
placed on the boxes allegedly recovered from their
respective baggages. A few minutes later, District Collector
Antonio Marquez arrived with General Job Mayo and then
NBI Deputy Director Mariano Mison.
 Capt. Francisco testified that shortly after all boxes of
Alpen Cereals were recovered, he conducted a field test
on a sample of the white crystalline substance. His test
showed that the substance was indeed shabu. Thereafter,
all accused, as well as the Alpen Cereals boxes which were
placed inside a big box, were brought to Camp Crame.
 At Camp Crame, accused were asked to identify their
signatures on the boxes and after having identified them,
they were again made to sign on the plastic bags
containing white crystalline substance inside the boxes
bearing their signatures by Elizabeth Ayonon, a forensic
chemist at the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory
at Camp Crame.
ISSUE: WON the signatures of the accused on the boxes and
plastic bags be admissible against them.
HELD: NO.
The Court holds that the signatures of accused on the boxes, as well
as on the plastic bags containing shabu, are inadmissible in
evidence. A careful study of the records reveal that accused were
never informed of their fundamental rights during the entire time
that they were under investigation. Specifically, accused were not
informed of their Miranda rights, when they were made to affix their
signatures on the boxes of Alpen Cereals while they were at the
NAIA and again, on the plastic bags when they were already taken in
custody at Camp Crame.
Prosecution witness Danilo Gomez admitted this fatal lapse during
cross-examination together with the testimony of Elizabeth Ayonon.
These signatures of accused are tantamount to an uncounselled
extra-judicial confession which is not sanctioned by the Bill of Rights
(Section 12[1][3], Article III, 1987 Constitution). They are, therefore,
inadmissible as evidence for any admission wrung from the accused
in violation of their constitutional rights is inadmissible against
them. The fact that all accused are foreign nationals does not
preclude application of the exclusionary rule because the
constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights are given
and extend to all persons, both aliens and citizens.