Dolores Macaslang v. Renato and Melba Zamora
CA said that RTC cannot rule on issue not
(Bersamin) 2011 G.R. No. 156375
Facts:
1. Mar 10, 1999: Zamora’s FILED: Unlawful detainer
with MTCC, alleging among others:
a. Macaslang sold to them a residential lot
in Sabang, Danao City. 400sqm.
including a residential house, where
Macaslang was then living.
b. After the sale, Macaslang requested to
be allowed to live in the house. Zamora
granted the request on the reliance of
Macaslang’s promise to vacate as soon
as she would be able to find a new
residence
c. After 1 year, Zamora’s demanded upon
the defendant to vacate but she failed
and refused. The demand letter (Sept
1998) reads:
i. “This is to give notice that since
the mortgage to your property
has long been expired and that
since the property is already in
my name, I will be taking over
the occupancy of said property
two (2) months from the date of
this letter.”
d. Zamora’s sought the help of the Lupon,
but no settlement was reached as shown
by certification to file.
2. Despite the due service of summons, Macaslang
did not file an answer. Hence MTCC declared
her in default.
3. MTC: In favor of Zamora’s, ordered Macaslang to
vacate, pay atty’s fees, and rental until they shall
have vacated the properties in question.
4. Macaslang appealed to the RTC alleging:
a. Extrinsic Fraud
b. Meritorious defense: there was no actual
sale considering that the deed of
absolute sale relied upon is a patent
nullity as her signature therein was
procured through fraud and trickery.
5. RTC: Ruled in favor of Macaslang and DISMISSED
Zamora’s complaint, for failure to state a COA.
The same maybe refiled in the same court by
alleging a COA, if any. Zamora’s motion for
execution of MTCC decision rendered moot by
this judgment.
6. CA: REVERSED RTC decision for having no basis in
fact and law. MTCC decision reinstated.
Issues: W/N RTC in its appellate jurisdiction is limited to
assigned errors
W/N in an action for unlawful detainer, where
there was no prior demand to vacate and
comply with the conditions of the lease, a valid
COA exists.
W/N there was a violation of the Rules on
Summary procedure.
Decision:
1. RTC in its appellate jurisdiction may rule upon an
issue not raised on appeal.
a.
assigned as an error. This may have been
correct if the appeal to the CA was a first
appeal from RTC to CA (R41). There is an
express limitation of the review to only
specify in the assignment of errors.
b. But HERE this is a, MTC to RTC appeal
governed by a specific rule for unlawful
detainer cases. R70 §18 provides that
MTC judgment may be appealed to the
RTC which shall decide the same on the
basis of the entire record.
c. This difference in procedure is traceable
from BP129 §22, then in the 1991 Rules on
summary procedure §21, then 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure R 40 &7. (Please see
code)
d. Even if the rules did not differentiate in
the procedure, the review on the entire
case is still allowed as an exception (c)
and (d).
GN: Appellate court may only review
errors assigned and properly argued
XPNS: (a) When the question affects
jurisdiction
(b) Matters those evidently plain
or clerical errors
(c) Matters whose consideration
is necessary for a just and complete
resolution
(d) Matters of record having
bearing on the issue that parties failed to
raise
(e) Matters closely related to an
error assigned
(f) Matters upon which the
determination of a question is
dependent
2. CA Correctly delved into w/n there was a COA.
a. RTC: there is no COA because there was
no demand to vacate.
b. CA: No, the complaint readily reveals
that there was a demand to vacate.
c. A complaint for Unlawful detainer is
sufficient if it alleges the withholding of
possession or the refusal is unlawful
without necessarily employing the
terminology of the law. (See Fact #1 (c)i)
Demand was not only made but also
alleged in the complaint.
d. A complaint has sufficient COA for
unlawful det. If it states the FF1:
i. Initial possession by defendant
was by contract or tolerance
ii. Eventually possession became
illegal upon notice
re:termination
iii. Defendant still remained in
possession and deprived plaintiff
of its enjoyment
 iv. Complaint was instituted within facts, it may require parties to
one year from last demand to submit affidavits or other
vacate. evidence. (note:in both sections
e. TEST for sufficiency of complaint: is w/n no mention of testimony, only
the court can render a valid judgment affidavits.)
based on facts alleged in complaint.
f. SC: Complaint sufficiently stated a COA. FALLO
Complaint complied with 1-4. BUT Fail to
state and Lack of COA is different. RTC WHEREFORE petition is GRANTED. Complaint for unlawful
said there is failure to state COA when in detainer dismissed.
fact its basis was that there was no
demand to vacate. Again RTC erred in
this regard, see Fact #1 (c) i.
i. Golden Gate Realty Co. v. IAC:
The term vacate is not a
talismatic word that must be
employed in all notices to
vacate.
3. Ejectment was not proper due to defense of
ownership.
a. Zamora’s COA is based on right to
possess resulting from ownership.
b. BUT exhibits show that the real
transaction is one of equitable mortgage
not sale. NCC1602 instances where a
contract may be presumed to be an
equitable mortgage.
i. Land was sold for P100K, when
the demand letter was for a sum
of P1.6M. Price inadequate.
Then the vendor remained in
possession of the property. Deed
of sale was executed as a result
or by reason of a loan.
c. Nonetheless, findings favorable to
Macaslang’s ownership are not finally
definitive because R70 &16 provide: that
when the defendant raises ownership
and the Q of possession cannot be
resolved, ownership shall only be
resolved to determine possession [not
title].
4. MTC committed procedural lapses.
a. MTC granted M to Declare Macaslang in
default for failure to file an answer.
i. This motion is expressly prohibited
under R70 13 (8)
ii. What MTC should have done
was provided for in R70 § 7: to
simply render judgment as may
be warranted by the facts
alleged in the comlaint and
limited to what is prayed for
therein.
iii. Failure to file an answer under
R70, results only to a judgment
by default not a declaration of
default.
b. MTC’s reception of oral testimony is also
a procedural lapse.
i. R70 envisions the submission only
of affidavits of the witnesses
under s.10
ii. Section11 (2) that should the
MTC need to clarify material