RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 70: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer || Castro !oco !

ato
G.R. No. 182953 October 11, 2010
CORAZON D. SARMIENTA, JOSE DERAMA, CATES RAMA, JOSIE MIWA, TOTO
NOASCO, JES!S OI"!INO, NOR#ERTO O$EZ, R!#EN ES$OSO, #ERNARDO
%ORESCA, MARINA DIMATAO, RO#E DIMANDA&O, RICARDO $E'A, ED!ARDO
ES$INO, ANTONIO GAEGOS, (ICTOR SANDO(A, %EICITAS A#RANTES, MERC)
CR!Z, ROSENDO ORGANO, RIC&) #ARENO, ANITA TA&SAGON, JOSIE RAMA *+,
$A#O DIMANDA&O, "etitioners vs#MANAITE -OMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
.MA-A/, Res$ondent#
%ACTS0
%&e case stemmed from a com$laint
'
for (Forcible Entry/Unlawful Detainer( )led by
res$ondent *analite +omeowners ,ssociation -nc# .*,+,/ against ,*,R, 0 C-1E23,24
,ssociation .,*,R,/ and its members# %&e com$laint was ra5ed to t&e *%CC of ,nti$olo
City !ranc&#
*,+, alleged t&at it is t&e registered owner of a certain $arcel of land situated in 3itio
*analite "&ase - !arangay 3ta# Cru6 ,nti$olo City#
7
%&roug& force intimidation t&reat
strategy and stealt& $etitioners entered t&e $remises and constructed t&eir tem$orary
&ouses and an o8ce building#
9
"etitioners li:ewise even )led a civil case to annul *,+,;s
title on 3e$tember 2 <992 but said case was dismissed by t&e trial court# ,fter said
dismissal *,+, demanded t&at $etitioners vacate t&e land# "etitioners $leaded t&at t&ey be
given one year wit&in w&ic& to loo: for a $lace to transfer to w&ic& re=uest *,+, acceded#
%&e said one>year $eriod &owever was re$eatedly e?tended due to t&e benevolence of
*,+,;s members# 2ater on $etitioners came u$ wit& a $ro$osal t&at t&ey become members
of *,+, so t&ey can be =uali)ed to ac=uire $ortions of t&e $ro$erty by sale $ursuant to t&e
Community *ortgage "rogram .C*"/#
<0
*,+, again agreed and tolerated $etitioners;
$ossession giving t&em until December <999 to com$ly wit& t&e re=uirements to avail of t&e
C*" bene)ts# "etitioners nonet&eless failed to com$ly wit& said re=uirements# %&us on
,ugust 9 2000 *,+, sent formal demand letters to $etitioners to vacate t&e $ro$erty# U$on
t&e latter;s refusal to &eed t&e demand *,+, )led t&e com$laint for (Forcible
Entry/Unlawful Detainer#(
-n t&eir ,nswer wit& Counterclaims
<<
$etitioners denied t&e said allegations and averred t&at
t&ey are t&e owners of t&e sub@ect lot &aving been in actual $&ysical $ossession t&ereof for
more t&an t&irty .A0/ years before *,+, intruded into t&e land# %&ey claimed t&at as t&e
years went by t&ey establis&ed t&e ,*,R, and boug&t t&e sub@ect $ro$erty from Bulian
%allano# %&e $ro$erty later became :nown as t&e %allano Estate# %&ey li:ewise argued t&at
t&e allegations in t&e com$laint do not confer @urisdiction u$on t&e court acting as an
e@ectment court and t&at t&e com$laint was irregular and defective because its ca$tion
states t&at it was for (Forcible EntryCUnlawful Detainer#( *,+, additionally &ad no legal
ca$acity to sue and was guilty of forum s&o$$ing# -ts o8cers were li:ewise )ctitious#
4n *ay <9 200D t&e *%CC of ,nti$olo City rendered a decision dismissing t&e case for lac:
of cause of action# %&e *%CC &eld t&at t&e com$laint )led was one of forcible entry but
*,+, failed to establis& t&e @urisdictional re=uirement of $rior $&ysical $ossession in its
com$laint# ,lso t&e trial court &eld t&at *,+,;s failure to initiate immediate legal action
after $etitioners unlawfully entered its $ro$erty and its subse=uent declaration of
benevolence u$on t&e $etitioners cannot be construed as tolerance in accordance wit& law
as to @ustify t&e treatment of t&e case as one for unlawful detainer#
<A
*,+, a$$ealed t&e decision to t&e R%C# %&e R%C rendered a Decision dated Banuary <0
200' reversing t&e decision of t&e *%CC# %&e R%C &eld t&at t&e lower court erred in
dismissing t&e case by considering t&e com$laint as one of forcible entry w&ic& re=uired $rior
$&ysical $ossession# %&e R%C found t&at *,+, was able to allege and $rove by
$re$onderance of evidence t&at $etitioners; occu$ation of t&e $ro$erty was by mere
(tolerance#( *,+, tolerated t&e occu$ation until all t&ose w&o wanted to ac=uire *,+,;s
rig&ts of owners&i$ could com$ly wit& members&i$ obligations and dues#
<E
"etitioners
&owever failed to com$ly wit& said obligations wit&in t&e given $eriodF t&us t&eir occu$ation
became illegal after *,+, demanded t&at t&ey vacate t&e $ro$erty#
,ggrieved $etitioners )led a $etition for review wit& t&e C, assailing t&e decision of t&e R%C#
-n a Decision dated 4ctober <9 2007 t&e C, a8rmed t&e decision of t&e R%C# The CA held
that while the complaint in the beginning alleged facts, which make out a case for forcible
entry, the rest of the aerments therein show that the cause of action was actually for
unlawful detainer! %&e C, noted t&at t&e com$laint alleged su$ervening events t&at would
s&ow t&at w&at was initially forcible entry was later tolerated by *,+, t&ereby converting its
cause of action into one for unlawful detainer# ,ccordingly t&e com$laint was )led wit&in t&e
re=uired one>year $eriod counted from t&e date of last demand# %&e C, furt&er &eld t&at t&e
fact t&at t&e com$laint was ca$tioned as bot& for forcible entry and unlawful detainer does
not render it defective as t&e nature of t&e com$laint is determined by t&e allegations of t&e
com$laint#
ISS!ES0
0&et&er or not t&e allegations in t&e com$laint are su8cient to ma:e u$ a case of forcible
entry or unlawful detainer#
0&et&er or not t&e C, was correct in a8rming t&e R%C;s decision )nding a case of unlawful
detainer#
-ED0
"etitioners assert t&at t&e @urisdictional re=uirement of $rior $&ysical $ossession in actions
for forcible entry was not alleged wit& $articularity in t&e com$laint as it merely alleged t&at
res$ondent &ad been de$rived of its $ossession over t&e $ro$erty# %&ey also maintained t&at
t&ey were not wit&&olding $ossession of t&e $ro$erty u$on t&e e?$iration or termination of
t&eir rig&t to $ossess because t&ey never e?ecuted any contract e?$ress or im$lied in favor
of t&e res$ondent# +ence t&ere was also no unlawful detainer#
0e deny t&e $etition#
0ell settled is t&e rule t&at w&at determines t&e nature of t&e action as well as t&e court
w&ic& &as @urisdiction over t&e case are t&e allegations in t&e com$laint#
<9
-n e@ectment
cases t&e com$laint s&ould embody suc& statement of facts as to bring t&e $arty clearly
wit&in t&e class of cases under 3ection < Rule 70 of t&e <997 Rules of Civil "rocedure as
amended#
%&ere are two entirely distinct and diGerent causes of action under t&e afore=uoted rule to
wit: .</ a case for 1orc2b3e e+tr4 w&ic& is an action to recover $ossession of a $ro$erty from
t&e defendant w&ose occu$ation t&ereof is illegal from t&e beginning as &e ac=uired
$ossession by force intimidation t&reat strategy or stealt&F and .2/ a case for 5+3*6153
,et*2+er w&ic& is an action for recovery of $ossession from t&e defendant w&ose
$ossession of t&e $ro$erty was ince$tively lawful by virtue of a contract .e?$ress or im$lied/
wit& t&e $laintiG but became illegal w&en &e continued &is $ossession des$ite t&e
termination of &is rig&t t&ereunder#
-n forcible entry t&e $laintiG must allege in t&e com$laint and $rove t&at &e was in $rior
$&ysical $ossession of t&e $ro$erty in dis$ute until &e was de$rived t&ereof by t&e defendant
by any of t&e means $rovided in 3ection < Rule 70 of t&e Rules eit&er by force intimidation
t&reat strategy or stealt&#
20
-n unlawful detainer t&ere must be an allegation in t&e
com$laint of &ow t&e $ossession of defendant started or continued t&at is by virtue of lease
or any contract and t&at defendant &olds $ossession of t&e land or building (after t&e
e?$iration or termination of t&e rig&t to &old $ossession by virtue of any contract e?$ress or
im$lied#(
, com$laint su8ciently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it recites t&e
following: .</ initially $ossession of $ro$erty by t&e defendant was by contract wit& or by
tolerance of t&e $laintiGF .2/ eventually suc& $ossession became illegal u$on notice by
$laintiG to defendant of t&e termination of t&e latter;s rig&t of $ossessionF .A/ t&ereafter t&e
defendant remained in $ossession of t&e $ro$erty and de$rived t&e $laintiG of t&e en@oyment
t&ereofF and .E/ wit&in one year from t&e last demand on defendant to vacate t&e $ro$erty
t&e $laintiG instituted t&e com$laint for e@ectment#
22
2i:ewise t&e evidence $roves t&at after *,+, ac=uired t&e $ro$erty *,+, tolerated
$etitioners; stay and gave t&em t&e o$tion to ac=uire $ortions of t&e $ro$erty by becoming
members of *,+,# "etitioners; continued stay on t&e $remises was sub@ect to t&e condition
t&at t&ey s&all com$ly wit& t&e re=uirements of t&e C*"# %&us w&en t&ey failed to ful)ll t&eir
obligations *,+, &ad t&e rig&t to demand for t&em to vacate t&e $ro$erty as t&eir rig&t of
$ossession &ad already e?$ired or &ad been terminated# %&e moment *,+, re=uired
RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 70: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer || Castro !oco !ato
$etitioners to leave $etitioners became deforciants illegally occu$ying t&e land#
2A
0ell
settled is t&e rule t&at a $erson w&o occu$ies t&e land of anot&er at t&e latter;s tolerance or
$ermission wit&out any contract between t&em is necessarily bound by an im$lied $romise
t&at &e will vacate u$on demand failing w&ic& a summary action for e@ectment is t&e $ro$er
remedy against &im#
2E
%&us t&e R%C and t&e C, correctly ruled in favor of *,+,#
"etition for review on certiorari is &ereby denied# C, resolution is a8rmed#
7G.R. No. 158939 0 Se:te;ber 29, 2010<
CEMENCIA $. CAARA, ET A., $ETITIONER, (S. TERESITA %RANCISCO, ET A.
RES$ONDENTS.
%ACTS0
"etitioner Clemencia Calara and &er c&ildren $etitioners Conce$cion Elenita -sidro Carlosa
!ernardino Doris Cladiolosa and 2o$&cal all surnamed Calara own t&e 2o$&cal .Calara/
3ubdivision in !rgy# ,nos 2os !anos# "etitioner Clemencia Calara was named res$ondent in a
letter>com$laint for violation of "#D# 9D7 instituted on 27 ,$ril <972 by a grou$ of buyers one
1audencio Havarro and res$ondent Besus Francisco among t&em before t&e t&en +uman
3ettlement Regulatory Commission .+3RC/#
4n 29 Buly <972 $etitioners conse=uently )led against res$ondents 3$ouses Besus and
%eresita Francisco t&e com$laint for unlawful detainer doc:eted as Civil Case Ho# 99A before
t&e t&en *unici$al Court of 2os !anos 2aguna#

, se$arate com$laint for unlawful detainer
was li:ewise )led by $etitioners against 1audencio Havarro and was doc:eted before t&e
same court as Civil Case Ho# 99E#
-n t&eir 29 Banuary <990 amendment of t&e com$laint against res$ondents $etitioners
alleged t&at sometime in <97' t&e former manifested t&eir intention to buy t&e 2D0>s=uare
meter $arcel denominated as 2ot Ho# 2A of t&e 2o$&cal .Calara/ 3ubdivision at t&e $rice of
"70#00 $er s=uare meterF t&at &aving made an advance $ayment in t&e sum of "709A#00
res$ondents were made to understand t&at t&eir $urc&ase of said $arcel is conditioned on
t&e $artiesI e?ecution of a contract to sell over t&e sameF t&at after constructing a &ouse of
strong materials &owever res$ondents &ave not only refused to e?ecute a contract to sell
but also failed to ma:e any furt&er $ayments on t&e lotF and t&at &aving already ignored
$etitioner Clemencia CalaraIs 20 *arc& <979 demand letter for t&em to vacate t&e $ro$erty
res$ondents also refused to &eed t&e 27 *arc& <972 demand to t&e same eGect served u$on
t&em by $etitionersI counsel# -n addition to res$ondentsI e@ectment from t&e lot and t&e
turnover of t&e $eaceful $ossession t&ereof $etitioners soug&t indemnities for e?em$lary
damages attorneyIs fees and t&e costs#
4n 2' ,ugust <972 res$ondents and 1audencio Havarro )led a @oint motion to dismiss on
t&e ground t&at t&e *unici$al Court &ad no @urisdiction over t&e com$laints )led against
t&em by $etitioner since anot&er action over t&e same cause and t&e same $arties was
$ending before t&e +3RCF and t&at said com$laints failed to state a cause of
action# Dissatis)ed wit& t&e denial of said motion in t&e 27 Bune <97A resolution issued by t&e
*unici$al Court w&ic& &ad by t&en been reorgani6ed as a *unici$al %rial Court .*%C/
$ursuant to !atas "ambansa !lg# <29

res$ondents and 1audencio Havarro )led a A0 Bune
<97A motion for reconsideration

w&ic& was no longer resolved in view of t&e ensuing
a$$roval and eGectivity of t&e Rules on 3ummary "rocedure# -n t&e meantime t&e +3RC
rendered a decision dated E Bune <97D in +2UR! Case dis$osing of t&e case#
4n t&e ot&er &and in com$liance wit& t&e *%CIs directive during 2A *ay <979 &earing
conducted in t&e case res$ondents and 1audencio Havarro )led t&eir D Bune <979 answer
s$eci)cally denying t&e material allegations of t&e com$laint#
+aving terminated t&e mandatory $re>trial conference

and in recei$t of t&e $osition $a$ers
submitted by t&e $arties t&e *%C went on to render a decision dated ' 4ctober <999
discounting t&e e?istence of a contract of sale between $etitioners and res$ondents and
u$&olding its @urisdiction over t&e case# Furt&er )nding t&at res$ondents were builders in bad
fait&#
3aid defendants %ERE3-%, FR,HC-3C4 and BE3U3 FR,HC-3C4 and all t&ose acting in t&eir
be&alves or claiming rig&ts under t&em to com$letely vacate t&e $arcel of residential lot
containing 277 s=uare meters more or less registered in t&e name of $laintiGs and w&ic&
lot is identi)ed as 2ot 2A in t&e original subdivision $lan of 24"+C,2 .C,2,R,/ 3U!D-J-3-4H
located at !rgy# ,nos 2os !anos 2aguna and fort&wit& to turn over and surrender
$ossession of t&e same to said $laintiG and &er c&ildren#
4n <2 ,$ril 2002 t&e t&en 3$ecial 3event& Division of t&e C, rendered t&e &erein assailed
decision reversing t&e decisions of t&e *%C and R%C and ordering t&e dismissal of
$etitionersI com$laint for unlawful detainer: 0&ere t&e law con)nes in an administrative
o8ce =uasi>@udicial functions t&e @urisdiction of suc& o8ce s&all $revail over t&e court# %&us
t&e courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a =uestion w&ic& is lodged
RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 70: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer || Castro !oco !ato
wit& an administrative tribunal of s$ecial com$etence and w&en a uniformity of ruling is
essential to com$ly wit& t&e $ur$oses of t&e regulatory statute administered# %&e *%C
&aving no @urisdiction to entertain t&e case it is also wit&out @urisdiction to award damages
to $etitioners#
ISS!E0
%+E +4H4R,!2E C4UR% 4F ,""E,23 ERRED -H DEC2,R-H1 %+,% %+E *UH-C-",2 %R-,2
C4UR% +,3 H4 BUR-3D-C%-4H 4JER %+E 3U!BEC% C4*"2,-H% F4R EBEC%*EH%CUH2,0FU2
DE%,-HER F-2ED !K "E%-%-4HER C2E*EHC-, C,2,R, ,1,-H3% RE3"4HDEH%3 %ERE3-%, ,HD
BE3U3 FR,HC-3C4
-ED0
H4
Designed to $rovide an e?$editious means of $rotecting actual $ossession or t&e rig&t to
$ossession of t&e $ro$erty involved
LAEM
e@ectment cases concededly fall wit&in t&e original
and e?clusive @urisdiction of )rst level courts by e?$ress $rovision of 3ection AA of "atas
#ambansa "lg! $%&, in relation to 3ection < Rule 70 of t&e $&&' (ules of Ciil #rocedure!
Considering t&at t&e same is determined by t&e allegations $leaded in t&e com$laint and t&e
c&aracter of t&e relief soug&t

t&e rule is e=ually settled t&at @urisdiction in e@ectment cases
cannot be made to de$end u$on t&e defenses set u$ in t&e answer or $leadings )led by t&e
defendant#
+owever our $erusal of t&e record s&ows t&at t&e C, correctly ruled t&at t&e cause of action
embodied in t&e original and amended com$laint $etitioners )led a )uo was not a sim$le
cause of action for unlawful detainer against res$ondents# Claiming t&at res$ondents oGered
to buy 2ot 2A of t&e 2o$&cal 3ubdivision sometime in <97' for t&e selling $rice of "70#00 $er
s=uare meters $etitioners alleged among ot&er matters t&at t&ey acce$ted advance
$ayments in t&e total sum of "709A#00 from t&e former on t&e condition t&at t&e
transaction would only $us& t&roug& u$on t&e $arties e?ecution of a written contract to sellF
t&at aside from not ma:ing any furt&er $ayments on t&e $ro$erty res$ondents &ave
un@usti)ably refused to &eed t&eir re$eated demands for t&e e?ecution of said contract to
sellF t&at in view of t&eir non>$erformance of t&e foregoing $restations res$ondents were
guilty of bad fait& in constructing a &ouse of strong materials on t&e 2ot 2AF and t&at
res$ondents stubborn refusal to &eed t&e 20 *arc& <979 and 27 *arc& <972 demands to
vacate res$ectively served by $etitioner Clemencia Calara and &er counsel left t&em no ot&er
recourse e?ce$t to )le t&e com$laint for unlawful detainer from w&ic& t&e instant suit
stemmed#
-n Francel (ealty Corporation s! *ycip

t&e town&ouse develo$er similarly )led a com$laint
for unlawful detainer against t&e buyer on t&e ground t&at t&e latter failed to $ay t&e
mont&ly amorti6ations sti$ulated in t&e $artiesI Contract to 3ell# -n &is answer t&e buyer
alleged t&at &e sto$$ed $ayment of &is mont&ly amorti6ations because t&e town&ouse was
defective and t&at &e &ad already )led an action for unsound real estate business $ractice
against t&e town&ouse develo$er# 0&ile dismissing t&e com$laint on t&e ground t&at
@urisdiction over t&e case $ro$erly $ertained to t&e +2UR! &owever t&e *%C granted t&e
buyerIs counterclaims for moral and e?em$lary damages as well as attorneyIs fees# 0it& t&e
R%CIs a8rmance of t&e decision t&e town&ouse develo$er )led a $etition for review wit& t&e
C, w&ic& u$&eld t&e grant of damages on t&e ground t&at t&e *%C &ad @urisdiction over t&e
com$laint for unlawful detainer# -n reversing t&e C,Is decision t&is Court ruled as follows:
"etitionerIs com$laint is for unlawful detainer# 0&ile generally s$ea:ing suc& action falls
wit&in t&e original and e?clusive @urisdiction of t&e *%C t&e determination of t&e ground for
e@ectment re=uires a consideration of t&e rig&ts of a buyer on installment basis of real
$ro$erty# -ndeed $rivate res$ondent claims t&at &e &as a rig&t under "#D# Ho# 9D7 3ec# 2A to
sto$ $aying mont&ly amorti6ations after giving due notice to t&e owner or develo$er of &is
decision to do so because of $etitionerIs alleged failure to develo$ t&e subdivision or
condominium $ro@ect according to t&e a$$roved $lans and wit&in t&e time for com$lying wit&
t&e same# %&e case t&us involves a determination of t&e rig&ts and obligations of $arties in a
sale of real estate under "#D# Ho# 9D7# "rivate res$ondent &as in fact )led a com$laint
against $etitioner for unsound real estate business $ractice wit& t&e +2UR!#
%&is is t&erefore not a sim$le case for unlawful detainer arising from t&e failure of t&e lessee
to $ay t&e rents com$ly wit& t&e conditions of a lease agreement or vacate t&e $remises
after t&e e?$iration of t&e lease# 3ince t&e determinative =uestion is e?clusively cogni6able
by t&e +2UR! t&e =uestion of t&e rig&t of $etitioner must be determined by t&e agency#
-n t&e case at benc& res$ondents similarly claimed in t&eir answer t&at t&ey sto$$ed
$ayments on 2ot 2A in view of $etitionersI failure to develo$ 2o$&cal .Calara/ 3ubdivision#
"rior to t&e commencement of t&e case for unlawful detainer before t&e *%C res$ondent
Besus Francisco along wit& ot&er lot buyers at said subdivision also )led a letter>com$laint
for violations of "#D# 9D7 w&ic& was doc:eted before +3RC as +3RC Case Ho# RE*>0'0E72>
<0EA# -n &er answer to t&e com$laint $etitioner Clemencia Calara alleged t&at t&e
subdivision was not covered by "#D# 9D7 and t&at s&e was about to )le com$laints for
e@ectment against said buyers# Even before t&e issues could be @oined in t&e com$laint for
unlawful detainer $etitioners )led against res$ondents &owever t&e record s&ows t&at a
decision dated E Bune <97D was rendered in +3RC Case Ho# RE*>0'0E72 &olding $etitioner
Clemencia Calara liable for violation of "#D# 9D7#
1iven t&e foregoing factual and $rocedural antecedents and t&e absence of s&owing t&at
$etitioner Clemencia Calara $erfected an a$$eal from t&e foregoing decision 0e )nd t&at
t&e C, correctly ruled t&at t&e case $etitioners )led before t&e *%C fell wit&in t&e @urisdiction
of t&e +2UR! w&ic& as a recon)guration of t&e +3RC

retained said o8ceIs regulatory and
ad@udicatory functions under 3ection 7 of E#4# 'E7# (0&en an administrative agency is
conferred =uasi>@udicial functions it &as been ruled t&at all controversies relating to t&e
sub@ect matter $ertaining to its s$eciali6ation are deemed to be included wit&in its
@urisdiction( since (s$lit @urisdiction is not favored#(

%&is &olds $articularly true of t&e case at
benc& w&ere des$ite $etitioner Clemencia CalaraIs failure to a$$eal t&e afore=uoted
decision of t&e +3RC $etitionersI $ursuit of t&eir com$laint for unlawful detainer against
res$ondents was accom$anied by a de)ance of said o8ceIs order to develo$ subdivision
w&ic& &ad in t&e meantime been renamed as t&e 3an -sidro Jillage#
%&e mere relations&i$ of t&e $arties as a subdivision develo$erCowner and subdivision lot
buyer does not concededly vest t&e +2UR! automatic @urisdiction over a case# -n t&e cases
of (o+as s! Court of Appeals and Filar Deelopment Corporation s! *ps! ,illar
LE9M
t&is Court
u$&eld t&e *%CIs @urisdiction over t&e com$laint for e@ectment commenced by t&e
subdivision develo$er on account of t&e buyerIs failure to $ay t&e installments sti$ulated in
t&e $artyIs contract to sell# -n said cases &owever t&e buyers &ad no @usti)able ground to
sto$ $ayment of t&e sti$ulated installments andCor any of t&e causes of action cogni6able by
t&e +2UR! under 3ection <

of "#D# <AEE# -n not a$$lying t&e ruling in Francel (ealty
Corporation s! *ycip
LD2M
moreover t&e Court li:ewise too: a$$ro$riate note of t&e fact t&at
t&e buyers in said cases &ave not commenced an action for unsound real estate businesses
$ractices against t&e subdivision develo$ers# +ere res$ondents &ave not only instituted a
com$laint for violation of "#D# 9D7 against $etitioner Clemencia Calara but &ad also already
obtained a de)nitive ruling on t&e latterIs failure to fully develo$ t&e subdivision w&ic& t&ey
cited as @usti)cation for not ma:ing furt&er $ayments on 2ot Ho# 2A of t&e 2o$&cal .Calara/
3ubdivision#
,s t&e sole regulatory body for &ousing and land develo$ment
L'7M
t&e +2UR! &as @urisdiction
over $etitionersI cause against res$ondents and is clearly t&e best forum for t&e
determination of all t&e issues relevant t&ereto#
RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 70: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer || Castro !oco !ato
G.R. No. 189859 October 18, 2010
$IO MODESTO *+, CIRIA RI(ERA=MODESTO, "etitioners vs#CAROS !R#INA,
>5b>t2t5te, b4 t?e ?e2r> o1 O)M$IA MIG!E (DA. DE !R#INA .S5r@2@2+A S:o5>e/
*+, c?23,re+, +*;e340 ESCOASTICA M. !R#INA, ET A., Res$ondents#
%ACTS0
%&is case stems from a com$laint for recovery of $ossession )led by res$ondent Carlos
Urbina .Urbina/ against t&e $etitioners wit& t&e Regional %rial Court of "asig .(TC/#
-n &is com$laint Urbina alleged t&at &e is t&e owner of a $arcel of land situated at 2ower
!icutan %aguig designated as 2ot D' "23 272# ,ccording to Urbina t&e *odestos t&roug&
stealt& sc&eme and mac&ination were able to occu$y a $ortion of t&is $ro$erty designated
as 2ot AD' "23 272# %&ereafter t&e *odestos negotiated wit& Urbina for t&e sale of t&is lot#
+owever before t&e $arties could )nali6e t&e sale t&e *odestos allegedly cancelled t&e
transaction and began claiming owners&i$ over t&e lot# Urbina made several demands on t&e
*odestos to vacate t&e $ro$erty t&e last of w&ic& was t&roug& a demand letter sent on Buly
22 <97A# 0&en t&e *odestos still refused to vacate Urbina )led t&e $resent action against
t&em#
-n t&eir answer t&e *odestos claimed t&at Urbina could not be t&e lawful owner of t&e
$ro$erty because it was still government $ro$erty being a $art of t&e Fort !onifacio *ilitary
Reservation#
R%C of "asig City rendered a decision in favor of Urbina #%&e R%C noted t&at t&e $etitioners
recogni6ed Urbina;s $ossessory rig&ts over t&e $ro$erty w&en t&ey entered into a negotiated
contract of sale wit& &im for t&e $ro$erty# %&us t&e *odestos were esto$$ed from
subse=uently assailing or disclaiming Urbina;s $ossessory rig&ts over t&is lot#
%&e $etitioners a$$ealed CA and C, a8rmed t&e R%C;s decision# +ence t&is $etition
ISS!E0
0&o &as a better rig&t of $ossession over t&e sub@ect $ro$erty#
-ED0
Heit&er *odesto nor Urbina &as t&e rig&t of $ossession#
"refatorily we observe t&at t&e sub@ect $ro$erty &as not yet been titled nor &as it been t&e
sub@ect of a validly issued $atent by t&e 2*!# %&erefore t&e land remains $art of t&e $ublic
domain and neit&er Urbina nor t&e *odestos can legally claim owners&i$ over it# %&is does
not mean &owever t&at neit&er of t&e $arties &ave t&e rig&t to $ossess t&e $ro$erty#
Urbina alleged t&at &e is t&e rig&tful $ossessor of t&e $ro$erty since &e &as a $ending
*iscellaneous 3ales ,$$lication as well as ta? declarations over t&e $ro$erty# +e also
relied to su$$ort &is claim of a better rig&t to $ossess t&e $ro$erty on t&e admission on t&e
$art of t&e *odestos t&at t&ey negotiated wit& &im for t&e sale of t&e lot in =uestion#
4n t&e ot&er &and t&e *odestos anc&ored t&eir rig&t to $ossess t&e same on t&eir *ct5*3
:o>>e>>2o+ of t&e $ro$erty# %&ey also =uestioned t&e legality of Urbina;s *iscellaneous
3ales ,$$lication and &is ta? declarations over t&e $ro$erty arguing t&at since t&ese were
obtained w&en t&e land was still not alienable and dis$osable t&ey could not be t&e source
of any legal rig&ts#
*emorandum Ho# <<9 t&e following are t&e =uali)cations for an a$$licant to be
=uali)ed to a$$ly for and ac=uire a lot under "roclamation Ho# <72 among ot&ers
to wit:
.</ +eC3&e ;5>t be * bona fde re>2,e+t of t&e $roclaimed areas# %o
be considered a bona -de resident t&e a$$licant must &ave t&e
following =uali)cations:
a/ , Fili$ino citi6en of legal age andCor a &ead of t&e familyF
b/ M5>t ?*@e co+>tr5cte, * ?o5>e in t&e area $roclaimed
for dis$osition on or before Banuary ' <97' and *ct5*334
re>2,2+A t?ere2+F
c/ M5>t +ot o6+ *+4 ot?er re>2,e+t2*3 or co;;erc2*3
3ot 2+ Metro M*+23*B
d/ *ust not &ave been a registered awardee of any lot under
t&e administration of t&e H+, *+3 or any ot&er
government agency nor t&e ,F" 48cer;s villageF
e/ *ust not be a $rofessional s=uatter# , $rofessional
s=uatter for $ur$oses of t&is 4rder is one w&o engages
in selling lots in t&e areas $roclaimed for dis$ositionF and
f/ +as )led t&e $ro$er a$$lication to $urc&ase#

!ased on t&e Re$ort of 3$ecial -nvestigator 2im and t&e ot&er
2and -ns$ectors w&o investigated t&is case namely: Bose "# ,ntonio and
Bose "# "arayno it was found t&at $2o Mo,e>to *+, ?2> 1*;234 *re t?e
*ct5*3 occ5:*+t> o1 t?e *re* 62t? * re>2,e+t2*3 ?o5>e *+, c?*:e3
;*,e o1 32A?t ;*ter2*3> and "io *odesto and &is family are actually
residing in t&e said residential &ouse# 4n t&e ot&er &and it was
establis&ed t&at C*r3o> !rb2+* ?*> bee+ * re>2,e+t o1 $*>*4 Ro*,
or 9929 $2o De3 $23*r, M*C*t2 C2t4. ,$$lying t&e =uali)cations
$rovided for in *emorandum 4rder Ho# <<9 we )nd t&at 3$ouses
*odesto are to be =uali)ed to a$$ly for t&e sub@ect lot as t&ey &ave
been in occu$ation t&ereof and &ave constructed t&eir residential &ouse
t&ereon# +ence t&ey satisfy t&e re=uirements in order to be considered
a N!ona)de ResidentO as de)ned in t&e guidelines#
,s $er our records S:o5>e> $2o *+, C2r23* Mo,e>to ?*@e
*3>o D3e, *+ 5++5;bere, I.G.$.S.A. A::32c*t2o+ 1or t?e >5bEect
3ot o+ J*+5*r4 2F, 2009. C*r3o> !rb2+*, ?o6e@er, +e@er
co+>tr5cte, *+4 ?o5>e o+ t?e >5bEect 3ot *+, +e2t?er ,2, ?e
*ct5*334 re>2,e t?ere2+. #e>2,e>, ?e *3re*,4 o6+> * re>2,e+t2*3
3ot 2+ M*C*t2 C2t4 6?ere ?e ?*, bee+ re>2,2+A *33 t?2>
t2;e. +ence &e cannot be considered a bona)de resident of t&e sub@ect
lot# +e li:ewise failed to )le &is -#1#"#3#, a$$lication for t&e lot# -nstead
w&at &e &ad )led on Banuary 20 <9'' was a *iscellaneous 3ales
,$$lication# ,t t&at time &owever t&e area of !arangay 2ower !icutan
w&ere t&e sub@ect lot is located was still $art of t&e Fort !onifacio
*ilitary Reservation and t&e same &ad not yet been segregated and
declared to be alienable and dis$osable# -e+ce, +o :o>>e>>or4 r2A?t>
co53, ?*@e bee+ *cG52re, b4 ?2> o@er t?e >5bEect 3ot.
Furt&ermore t&e *odestos &ave a valid -nsular 1overnment "atent 3ales
,$$lication over t&e $ro$erty $ending wit& t&e 2*! w&ic& t&ey )led on Banuary 27 2009#
L2EM
-n contrast Urbina &as a *iscellaneous 3ales ,$$lication )led in <9'' w&ic& t&e 2*!
considered invalid since it was )led w&en t&e $ro$erty still formed $art of a military
reservation#
,s for t&e Certi)cation from t&e City %reasurer of %aguig t&at t&e res$ondents
$resented
L2DM
w&ic& certi)ed t&at Carlos Urbina &ad $aid real estate ta?es on real $ro$erty
NdescribeLdM in t&e name of Carlos Urbina wit& $ro$erty located at 2ower !icutan %aguig
CityO from 2009 and $rior years we note t&at t&e certi)cation contains no descri$tion of t&e
$ro$erty sub@ect of t&e ta? declaration leaving us to wonder on t&e identity of t&e $ro$erty
covered by t&e declaration#
-n any case even if we consider t&is certi)cation as su8cient $roof t&at Urbina
declared t&e sub@ect $ro$erty for ta? declaration $ur$oses it must be stressed t&at t&e ;ere
,ec3*r*t2o+ o1 3*+, 1or t*H*t2o+ :5r:o>e> ,oe> +ot co+>t2t5te :o>>e>>2o+ t?ereo1
+or 2> 2t :roo1 o1 o6+er>?2: 2+ t?e *b>e+ce o1 t?e c3*2;*+tI> *ct5*3 :o>>e>>2o+#
L2'M
,nd in lig&t of our categorical )nding t&at t&e *odestos actually occu$ied t&e $ro$erty in
RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 70: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer || Castro !oco !ato
=uestion from t&e time t&at it was declared alienable and dis$osable until t&e $resent time
t&e ta? declaration fails to convince us t&at Urbina &as a rig&t to legally $ossess it#
For t&ese reasons we )nd t&at Urbina utterly failed to $rove t&at &e &as a better
rig&t to $ossess t&e $ro$erty# %&us we cannot sustain &is com$laint for e@ectment against
t&e *odestos and $erforce must dismiss t&e same for lac: of merit#
G.R. No. 1FF83F J534 28, 2010
DR. DIOSCORO CAR#ONIA, "etitioner vs#MARCEO A#IERA *+, MARICRIS A#IERA
$AREDES, S!#STIT!TED #) -ER -EIRS, Res$ondents#
%ACTS0
"etitioner Dr# Dioscoro Carbonilla )led a com$laint for e@ectment against res$ondents
*arcelo ,biera and *aricris ,biera "aredes wit& t&e *unici$al %rial Court in Cities .*%CC/
*aasin City# %&e com$laint alleged t&at $etitioner is t&e registered owner of a $arcel of land
located in !arangay Canturing *aasin City# "etitioner furt&er claimed t&at &e is also t&e
owner of t&e residential building standing on t&e land w&ic& building &e ac=uired t&roug& a
Deed of E?tra@udicial 3ettlement of Estate .Residential !uilding/ wit& 0aiver and Puitclaim of
4wners&i$# +e maintained t&at t&e building was being occu$ied by res$ondents by mere
tolerance of t&e $revious owners# "etitioner asserted t&at &e intends to use t&e $ro$erty as
&is residence t&us &e sent a demand letter to res$ondents as:ing t&em to leave t&e
$remises wit&in <D days from recei$t of t&e letter but t&ey failed and refused to do so#
Conciliation eGorts wit& t&e !arangay $roved futile#

-n t&eir defense res$ondents ve&emently denied $etitioner;s allegation t&at t&ey $ossessed
t&e building by mere tolerance of t&e $revious owners# -nstead t&ey asserted t&at t&ey
occu$ied t&e building as owners &aving in&erited t&e same from ,lfredo ,biera and
%eodorica Ca$istrano res$ondent *arcelo;s $arents and res$ondent *aricris; grand$arents#
%&ey maintained t&at t&ey &ave been in $ossession of t&e building since <9'0 but it &as not
been declared for ta?ation $ur$oses# ,s for t&e sub@ect land res$ondents claimed t&at t&ey
in&erited t&e same from Francisco "lasabas grandfat&er of ,lfredo ,biera# %&ey $ointed out
t&at t&e land &ad in fact been declared for ta?ation $ur$oses in t&e name of Francisco
"lasabas# Res$ondents averred t&at t&e building was $reviously a garage>li:e structure but
in <977 ,lfredo ,biera and %eodorica Ca$istrano re$aired and remodeled it for w&ic& reason
t&ey obtained a building $ermit on ,$ril << <977 from t&e t&en *unici$ality of *aasin#
%&e *%CC decided t&e case in favor of res$ondents# -t o$ined t&at $etitioner;s claim of
owners&i$ over t&e sub@ect $arcel of land was not successfully rebutted by res$ondentsF
&ence $etitioner;s owners&i$ of t&e same was deemed establis&ed#
E
+owever wit& res$ect
to t&e building t&e court declared res$ondents as &aving t&e better rig&t to its material
$ossession in lig&t of $etitioner;s failure to refute res$ondents; claim t&at t&eir $redecessors
&ad been in $rior $ossession of t&e building since <9'0 and t&at t&ey &ave continued suc&
$ossession u$ to t&e $resent#
D
-n so ruling t&e court a$$lied ,rt# DE'
'
of t&e Civil Code w&ic&
allows t&e $ossessor in good fait& to retain t&e $ro$erty until &e is reimbursed for necessary
e?$enses#
"etitioner elevated t&e case to t&e Regional %rial Court .R%C/# 4n Buly <2 200E t&e R%C
reversed t&e *%CC decision# %&e R%C agreed wit& t&e *%CC t&at t&e land is owned by
$etitioner# %&e two courts diGered &owever in t&eir conclusion wit& res$ect to t&e building#
%&e R%C $laced t&e burden u$on res$ondents to $rove t&eir claim t&at t&ey built it $rior to
$etitioner;s ac=uisition of t&e land w&ic& burden t&e court found res$ondents failed to
disc&arge# %&e R%C &eld t&at eit&er wayQw&et&er t&e building was constructed before or
after $etitioner ac=uired owners&i$ of t&e landQ$etitioner as owner of t&e land would &ave
every rig&t to evict res$ondents from t&e land# ,s t&eori6ed by t&e R%C if t&e building was
erected before $etitioner or &is $redecessors ac=uired owners&i$ of t&e land t&en ,rticle
EED
7
of t&e Civil Code would a$$ly# %&us $etitioner as owner of t&e land would be deemed
t&e owner of t&e building standing t&ereon considering t&at w&en owners&i$ of t&e land was
transferred to &im t&ere was no reservation by t&e original owner t&at t&e building was not
included in t&e transfer# 4n t&e ot&er &and if t&e building was constructed after $etitioner
became t&e owner of t&e land it is wit& more reason t&at $etitioner &as t&e rig&t to evict
res$ondents from t&e land#
"etitioner soug&t reconsideration of t&e Decision but t&e C, denied $etitioner;s motion for
lac: of merit#
<<
+ence $etitioner came to t&is Court t&roug& a $etition for review on
certiorari#
ISS!E0
0&et&er $etitioner &as su8ciently establis&ed &is owners&i$ of t&e sub@ect $ro$ertiesF
conse=uently &e asserts t&e rig&t to recover $ossession t&ereof#
RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 70: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer || Castro !oco !ato
-ED0
Ho# %&e $etition &as no merit#
%o set t&e record straig&t w&ile $etitioner may &ave $roven &is owners&i$ of t&e land as
t&ere can be no ot&er $iece of evidence more wort&y of credence t&an a %orrens certi)cate of
title &e failed to $resent any evidence to substantiate &is claim of owners&i$ or rig&t to t&e
$ossession of t&e building# 2i:e t&e C, we cannot acce$t t&e Deed of E?tra@udicial
3ettlement of Estate .Residential !uilding/ wit& 0aiver and Puitclaim of 4wners&i$ e?ecuted
by t&e 1arcianos as $roof t&at $etitioner ac=uired owners&i$ of t&e building# %&ere is no
s&owing t&at t&e 1arcianos were t&e owners of t&e building or t&at t&ey &ad any $ro$rietary
rig&t over it# Ranged against res$ondents; $roof of $ossession of t&e building since <977
$etitioner;s evidence $ales in com$arison and leaves us totally unconvinced#
0it&out a doubt t&e registered owner of real $ro$erty is entitled to its $ossession# +owever
t&e owner cannot sim$ly wrest $ossession t&ereof from w&oever is in actual occu$ation of
t&e $ro$erty# %o recover $ossession &e must resort to t&e $ro$er @udicial remedy and once
&e c&ooses w&at action to )le &e is re=uired to satisfy t&e conditions necessary for suc&
action to $ros$er#
-n t&e $resent case $etitioner o$ted to )le an e@ectment case against res$ondents#
E@ectment casesQforcible entry and unlawful detainerQare summary $roceedings designed
to $rovide e?$editious means to $rotect actual $ossession or t&e rig&t to $ossession of t&e
$ro$erty involved#
<E
%&e only =uestion t&at t&e courts resolve in e@ectment $roceedings is:
w&o is entitled to t&e $&ysical $ossession of t&e $remises t&at is to t&e $ossession de facto
and not to t&e $ossession de @ure# -t does not even matter if a $arty;s title to t&e $ro$erty is
=uestionable#
<D
For t&is reason an e@ectment case will not necessarily be decided in favor of
one w&o &as $resented $roof of owners&i$ of t&e sub@ect $ro$erty# Rey @urisdictional facts
constitutive of t&e $articular e@ectment case )led must be averred in t&e com$laint and
su8ciently $roven#
%&e statements in t&e com$laint t&at res$ondents; $ossession of t&e building was by mere
tolerance of $etitioner clearly ma:e out a case for unlawful detainer# Unlawful detainer
involves t&e $erson;s wit&&olding from anot&er of t&e $ossession of t&e real $ro$erty to
w&ic& t&e latter is entitled after t&e e?$iration or termination of t&e former;s rig&t to &old
$ossession under t&e contract eit&er e?$ressed or im$lied#
<'
, re=uisite for a valid cause of action in an unlawful detainer case is t&at $ossession must be
originally lawful and suc& $ossession must &ave turned unlawful only u$on t&e e?$iration of
t&e rig&t to $ossess#
<7
-t must be s&own t&at t&e $ossession was initially lawfulF &ence t&e
basis of suc& lawful $ossession must be establis&ed# -f as in t&is case t&e claim is t&at suc&
$ossession is by mere tolerance of t&e $laintiG t&e acts of tolerance must be $roved#
"etitioner failed to $rove t&at res$ondents; $ossession was based on &is alleged tolerance#
+e did not oGer any evidence or even only an a8davit of t&e 1arcianos attesting t&at t&ey
tolerated res$ondents; entry to and occu$ation of t&e sub@ect $ro$erties# , bare allegation of
tolerance will not su8ce# "laintiG must at least s&ow overt acts indicative of &is or &is
$redecessor;s $ermission to occu$y t&e sub@ect $ro$erty# %&us we must agree wit& t&e C,
w&en it said:
, careful scrutiny of t&e records revealed t&at &erein res$ondent miserably failed to $rove &is
claim t&at $etitioners; $ossession of t&e sub@ect building was by mere tolerance as alleged in
t&e com$laint# %olerance must be L$resentM rig&t from t&e start of $ossession soug&t to be
recovered to be wit&in t&e $urview of unlawful detainer# *ere tolerance always carries wit& it
($ermission( and not merely silence or inaction for silence or inaction is negligence not
tolerance#
<7
-n addition $laintiG must also s&ow t&at t&e su$$osed acts of tolerance &ave been $resent
rig&t from t&e very start of t&e $ossessionQfrom entry to t&e $ro$erty# 4t&erwise if t&e
$ossession was unlawful from t&e start an action for unlawful detainer would be an im$ro$er
remedy#
<9
Hotably no mention was made in t&e com$laint of &ow entry by res$ondents was
eGected or &ow and w&en dis$ossession started# Heit&er was t&ere any evidence s&owing
suc& details#$aphi$
-n any event $etitioner &as some ot&er recourse# +e may $ursue recovering $ossession of
&is $ro$erty by )ling an accion publiciana w&ic& is a $lenary action intended to recover t&e
better rig&t to $ossessF or an accion reiindicatoria, a suit to recover owners&i$ of real
$ro$erty# 0e stress &owever t&at t&e $ronouncement in t&is case as to t&e owners&i$ of t&e
land s&ould be regarded as merely $rovisional and t&erefore would not bar or $re@udice an
action between t&e same $arties involving title to t&e land#
RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 70: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer || Castro !oco !ato
A.M. No. MTJ=05=1580 October 8, 20107%or;er34 OCA I$I No. 09=1808=MTJ<
O!RDES #. %ERRER *+, $ROS$ERIDAD M. ARANDEZ, Com$lainants vs#J!DGE
ROMEO A. RA#ACA, Metro:o32t*+ Tr2*3 Co5rt, #r*+c? 25, M*+23*, Res$ondent#

%ACTS0
%&is is an administrative case against +on# Romeo ,# Rabaca "residing Budge of !ranc& 2D of
t&e *e%C of *anila wit& ignorance of t&e law disregard of t&e law dereliction of duty
:nowingly rendering an un@ust interlocutory order and violation of t&e Code of Conduct for
1overnment 48cial
Com$lainants were t&e $laintiGs in an e@ectment case decided by Res$ondent Budge# -n said
case res$ondentIs decision was in favor of t&e com$lainant>$laintiGs# Com$lainants t&en
t&roug& counsel )led a motion for immediate e?ecution $raying t&at a writ of e?ecution be
issued for t&e immediate e?ecution of t&e aforesaid Budgment#
Des$ite t&e motion for immediate e?ecution res$ondent @udge granted and gave due course
to t&e notice of a$$eal )led by t&e defendants in t&e e@ectment case# %&e Hotice of ,$$eal
was )led one day after $laintiGIs )ling of *otion for -mmediate E?ecution# ,ggrieved by t&e
action of res$ondent com$lainants )led a motion for reconsideration but res$ondent denied
t&e same#
Com$lainants t&en )led an administrative case against Budge Rabaca#
%&e case was doc:eted as a regular administrative case and t&e C4UR% ,D*-H-3%R,%4R
re=uired t&e res$ondent to submit &is comment on t&e com$laint#
-n defense res$ondent alleged t&at &e &ad &onestly t&oug&t t&at &is court &ad lost
@urisdiction over t&e case $ursuant to t&e $rovision of 3ection 9 Rule E< of t&e Rules of Court
>w&ic& $rovides t&at in a$$eals by notice of a$$eal t&e court loses @urisdiction over t&e case
u$on t&e $erfection of t&e a$$eals )led in due time and t&e e?$iration of t&e time to a$$eal
of t&e ot&er $arties> once &e &ad given due course to t&e defendant;s notice of a$$eal# +e
claimed t&at &e &ad issued t&e orders in good fait& and wit& no malice after a fair and
im$artial evaluation of t&e facts a$$licable rules and @uris$rudenceF and t&at if &e &ad
t&ereby committed la$ses in t&e issuance of t&e orders &is doing so s&ould be considered as
error of @udgment on &is $art#
-n t&eir re$ly com$lainants reiterated t&at res$ondent s&ould :now t&e law# %&e $rovision
w&om res$ondent relied on is a$$licable only in a$$eals made from t&e R%C to t&e &ig&er
courts# %&e a$$licable $rovision in t&is case is Rule E< in relation to3ection <9 Rule 70 of t&e
<997 Revised Rules on Civil "rocedure $rovides: (3EC# <9# -f @udgment is rendered against t&e
defendant e?ecution shall issue immediatelyu$on motion unless an a$$eal &as been
$erfected and the defendant to stay e+ecution -les a supersedeas bond a$$roved by t&e
*unici$al %rial Court and e?ecuted in favor of t&e $laintiG to $ay t&e rents damages and
costs accruing down to t&e time of t&e @udgment a$$ealed from and unless during t&e
$endency of t&e a$$eal &e de$osits wit& t&e a$$ellate court t&e amount of rent due from
time to time under t&e contract if any as determined by t&e @udgment of t&e *unici$al %rial
Court# SSSS#(
%&e Court ,dministrator agreed wit& t&e com$lainants t&at res$ondent erred w&en &e did not
act on com$lainants; motion for immediate e?ecution and im$osed a )ne of D000#00#
ISS!E0
0&et&er or not t&e act of res$ondent is an error of @udgment or an error amounting to
incom$etence t&at calls for administrative disci$line#
-ED0
%&e act of res$ondent is ine?cusable# -t is clear from t&e $rovisions of t&e Rules t&at t&e
$erfection of an a$$eal by itself is not su8cient to stay t&e e?ecution of t&e @udgment in an
e@ectment case# %&e losing $arty s&ould li:ewise )le a su$ersedeas bond e?ecuted in favor of
t&e $laintiG to answer for rents damages and costs and if t&e @udgment of t&e court
re=uires it &e s&ould li:ewise de$osit t&e amount of t&e rent before t&e a$$ellate court from
t&e time during t&e $endency of t&e a$$eal# 4t&erwise e?ecution becomes ministerial and
im$erative# .#hilippine .olding Corporation s! ,alen/uela, $01 *C(A 10$ as cited in .ualam
Construction and Deelopment Corporation s! Court of Appeals, %$1 *C(A 2$%, 2%23!
Res$ondent erred in denying t&e motion for immediate e?ecution and granting t&e a$$eal
wit&out any su$ersedeas bond#
*oreover res$ondentIs claim t&at &e cannot act on t&e motion since &e lost @urisdiction over
t&e case w&en all t&e records were forwarded to t&e R%C does not &old water# %&e court loses
@urisdiction only after an a$$eal was $erfected and t&e $eriod to a$$eal of bot& t&e $arties
&ad la$sed# -n t&is case t&e motion for immediate e?ecution was )led "R-4R to t&e )ling of
t&e notice of ,$$eal# %&ese acts of res$ondent constitute ignorance of t&e law#
%&us as ruled by t&e 3C> Under ,#*# Ho# 0<>7><0>3C T1ross -gnorance of t&e 2aw or
"rocedure; is classi)ed as serious oGense for w&ic& t&e im$osable $enalty ranges from a )ne
to dismissal# +owever we )nd res$ondent;s acts not ingrained wit& malice or bad fait&# -t is a
matter of $ublic $olicy t&at in t&e absence of fraud dis&onesty or corru$t motive t&e acts of
a @udge in &is @udicial ca$acity are not sub@ect to disci$linary action even t&oug& suc& acts
are erroneous# -n Domingo s! 4udge #agayatan, A!5! 6o! (T47087$'9$, $0 4une %008 t&e
$enalty of )ne in t&e amount of )ve t&ousand $esos was deemed su8cient w&ere it was &eld
t&at res$ondent;s lac: of malice or bad fait& frees &im from administrative liability but not for
gross ignorance of t&e law#
0e concur wit& t&e rationali6ation of t&e Court ,dministrator# Jerily even if res$ondent
Budge;s omission would &ave easily amounted to gross ignorance of t&e law and $rocedure a
serious oGense under 3ection 7 Rule <E0 of t&e Rules of Court as amended t&e fact t&at
t&e com$lainants did not establis& t&at malice or bad fait& im$elled &is omission to act or
t&at fraud dis&onesty or a corru$t motive attended &is omission to act demands a
downgrading of t&e liability#
RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 70: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer || Castro !oco !ato
G.R. No. 192893 J5+e 5, 2013
MANIA EECTRIC COM$AN), "etitioner vs#-EIRS O% S$O!SES DIONISIO DEO) *+,
$RAJEDES MARTONITO, re:re>e+te, b4 $OICAR$IO DEO), Res$ondents#
%ACTS0
4n Buly 7 200A Res$ondents t&e &eirs of 3$ouses D2o+2>2o De3o4 .D2o+2>2o/ and "ra?edes
*artonito>Deloy re$resented by "olicar$io Deloy instituted t&e Com$laint for Unlawful
Detainer against *anila Electric Com$any .*ER,2C4/ before t&e *%CC#
Res$ondents are t&e owners by way of succession of a $arcel of land consisting of 7DD0
s=uare meters located in %rece *artires City# 4n Hovember <2 <9'D Dionisio donated a
'70>s=uare meter $ortion of t&e 7DD0 s=uare meter $ro$erty to t&e Communications and
Electricity Develo$ment ,ut&ority .CED,/ for t&e latter to $rovide c&ea$ and aGordable
electric su$$ly to t&e $rovince of Cavite# , deed of donation was e?ecuted to reUect and
formali6e t&e transfer#
3ometime in <97D CED, oGered for sale to *ER,2C4 its electric distribution system
consisting of transformers and accessories $oles and &ardware wires service dro$s and
customer meters and all rig&ts and $rivileges necessary for $roviding electrical service in
Cavite# %&is was embodied in a memorandum of agreement .*4,/

dated Bune 27 <97D
signed by t&e $arties# 4n t&e same date Bune 27 <97D after t&e a$$roval of t&e *4, CED,
and *ER,2C4 e?ecuted t&e Deed of ,bsolute 3ale# %&ereafter *ER,2C4 occu$ied t&e
sub@ect land#
4n 4ctober << <97D *ER,2C4 wrote a letter to Dionisio re=uesting t&e latter;s $ermission
for t&e continued use of t&e sub@ect land as a substation site#
%&e $arties were not able to reac& any agreement# -n an internal memorandum
9
dated
December <' <97D it was stated t&at one of t&e conditions made by Dionisio was t&at a
member of t&e Deloy family be em$loyed by *ER,2C4 &owever Dionisio died before t&ey
could )nali6e t&e agreement# ,nd u$on as:ing &is &eir t&ey unfortunately did not reac& any
agreement#
3ometime after Hovember 200< res$ondents oGered to sell t&e sub@ect land to *ER,2C4
but t&eir oGer was re@ected# For said reason in t&eir letter

dated *ay <9 200A res$ondents
demanded t&at *ER,2C4 vacate t&e sub@ect land on or before Bune <D 200A# Des$ite t&e
written demand *ER,2C4 did not move out of t&e sub@ect land# %&us on Buly 7 200A
res$ondents were constrained to )le t&e com$laint for unlawful detainer#
%raversing res$ondents; com$laint *ER,2C4 countered t&at CED, as t&e owner of t&e
sub@ect land by virtue of t&e deed of donation e?ecuted by Dionisio lawfully sold to it all
rig&ts necessary for t&e o$eration of t&e electric service in Cavite by way of a deed of sale on
Bune 27 <97D#
*ER,2C4 stressed t&at t&e condition of $roviding aGordable electricity to t&e $eo$le of
Cavite

im$osed in t&e deed of donation between Dionisio and CED, was still being observed
and com$lied wit&# %&us *ER,2C4 claimed t&at being CED,;s successor>in>interest it &ad
legal @usti)cation to occu$y t&e sub@ect land#
4n 3e$tember <D 200D t&e *%CC rendered t&e decision dismissing res$ondents; com$laint
for unlawful detainer against *ER,2C4# %&e *%CC ruled t&at it &ad no @urisdiction over t&e
case because it would re=uire an inter$retation of t&e deed of donation ma:ing it one not
ca$able of $ecuniary estimation# Hevert&eless it o$ined t&at *ER,2C4 was entitled to t&e
$ossession of t&e sub@ect land# -t was of t&e view t&at it would only be w&en t&e deed of
donation would be revo:ed or t&e deed of sale nulli)ed t&at *ER,2C4;s $ossession of t&e
sub@ect land would become unlawful#
,ggrieved res$ondents a$$ealed t&e *%CC ruling to t&e R%C# -n its *ay E 200' Resolution
t&e R%C sustained t&e *%CC decision# %&eir motion for reconsideration was also denied by t&e
R%C#
Hot satis)ed wit& t&e adverse ruling res$ondents elevated t&e case before t&e C, w&erein
t&e R%C ruling was set aside# -n $artially granting t&e a$$eal t&e C, e?$lained t&at an
e@ectment case based on t&e allegation of $ossession by tolerance would fall under t&e
category of unlawful detainer# ,s to t&e issue of $ossession t&e C, stated t&at by see:ing
Dionisio;s $ermission to continuously occu$y t&e sub@ect land *ER,2C4 e?$ressly
ac:nowledged &is $aramount rig&t of $ossession# *ER,2C4 t&ru its re$resentative ,tty#
%orres would not &ave as:ed $ermission from Dionisio if it &ad an unconditional or su$erior
rig&t to $ossess t&e sub@ect land#
*ER,2C4 moved for reconsideration but its motion was denied by t&e C, in its Buly D 20<0
Resolution# +ence t&is $etition for review#
ISS!ES0
0&et&er an action for unlawful detainer is t&e $ro$er remedy in t&is caseF and if it is w&o
&as a better rig&t of $&ysical $ossession of t&e dis$uted $ro$erty#
-ED0
Unlawful detainer is the proper remedy: the heirs of Dionisio has better right to the
possession of the property
Unlawful detainer is an action to recover $ossession of real $ro$erty from one w&o illegally
wit&&olds $ossession after t&e e?$iration or termination of &is rig&t to &old $ossession under
any contract e?$ress or im$lied# %&e $ossession of t&e defendant in unlawful detainer is
originally legal but became illegal due to t&e e?$iration or termination of t&e rig&t to $ossess#
%&e only issue to be resolved in an unlawful detainer case is $&ysical or material $ossession
of t&e $ro$erty involved inde$endent of any claim of owners&i$ by any of t&e $arties
involved#
<9
,n e@ectment case based on t&e allegation of $ossession by tolerance falls under t&e
category of unlawful detainer# 0&ere t&e $laintiG allows t&e defendant to use &isC&er
$ro$erty by tolerance wit&out any contract t&e defendant is necessarily bound by an im$lied
$romise t&at &eCs&e will vacate on demand failing w&ic& an action for unlawful detainer will
lie#
4n t&e issue of $ossession t&e C, o$ined t&at by see:ing Dionisio;s $ermission to occu$y
t&e sub@ect land *ER,2C4 e?$ressly ac:nowledged &is $aramount rig&t of $ossession#
+owever *ER,2C4 $osits t&at e?trinsic evidence suc& as t&e letter re=uest dated 4ctober
<< <97D and t&e -nternal *emorandum dated December ' <97D cannot contradict t&e
terms of t&e deed of sale between CED, and *ER,2C4 $ursuant to 3ection 9 Rule <A0
22
of
t&e Rules of Court#
%&e Court &as combed t&e records and is not convinced#
-t is undis$uted t&at on 4ctober << <97D or four .E/ mont&s after t&e a$$roval of t&e *4,
and t&e corres$onding Deed of ,bsolute 3ale *ER,2C4 sent a letter to Dionisio see:ing &is
$ermission for t&e continued use of t&e sub@ect land# Relative t&ereto 2#1# De 2a "a6 of t&e
%rece *artires 3ubstation of *ER,2C4 sent t&e December <' <97D -nternal *emorandum
addressed to ,tty# 1#R# 1on6ales and ,tty# %orres informing t&em of some obstacles in
reac&ing a lease agreement wit& t&e Deloys#
Evidently by t&ese two documents *ER,2C4 ac:nowledged t&at t&e owners of t&e sub@ect
land were t&e Deloys# -t is clear as daylig&t# %&e )rst letter was written barely four .E/ mont&s
after t&e deed of sale was accom$lis&ed# ,s observed by t&e C, *ER,2C4 never dis$uted
t&e declarations contained in t&ese letters w&ic& were even mar:ed as its own e?&ibits#
"ursuant to 3ection 2' Rule <A0 of t&e Rules of Evidence t&ese admissions andCor
declarations are admissible against *ER,2C4#
Hevert&eless in t&is $etition *ER,2C4 insists t&at e?trinsic evidence suc& as t&e two
documents even if t&ese were t&eir own cannot contradict t&e terms of t&e deed of sale
between CED, and *ER,2C4 $ursuant to 3ection 9 Rule <A0
2D
of t&e Rules of Court#
%&e Court &as read t&e *4, and t&e Deed of ,bsolute 3ale but found not&ing t&at clearly
stated t&at t&e sub@ect land was included t&erein# 0&at were sold transferred and conveyed
were (its electric distribution facilities service dro$s and customersI electric meters e?ce$t
t&ose owned by t&e JEHD4RI3 customers ? ? ? and all t&e rig&ts and $rivileges necessary
for t&e o$eration of t&e electric service ? ? ?#(
2'
Ho mention was made of any land# Rig&ts
and $rivileges could only refer to franc&ises $ermits and aut&ori6ations necessary for t&e
o$eration of t&e electric service# %&e land on w&ic& t&e substation was erected was not
included ot&erwise it would &ave been so stated in t&e two documents# 4t&erwise also
*ER,2C4 would not &ave written Dionisio to as: $ermission for t&e continued use of t&e
sub@ect land#
RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 70: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer || Castro !oco !ato
,t any rate it is fundamental t&at a certi)cate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible
and incontrovertible title to t&e $ro$erty in favor of t&e $erson w&ose name a$$ears t&erein#
-t bears to em$&asi6e t&at t&e title&older is entitled to all t&e attributes of owners&i$ of t&e
$ro$erty including $ossession# %&us t&e Court must u$&old t&e age>old rule t&at t&e $erson
w&o &as a %orrens title over a land is entitled to its $ossession#
4n a )nal note t&e Court must stress t&at t&e ruling in t&is case is limited only to t&e
determination as to w&o between t&e $arties &as a better rig&t to $ossession# %&is
ad@udication is not a )nal determination on t&e issue of owners&i$ and t&us will not bar any
$arty from )ling an action raising t&e matter of owners&i$#
G.R. No. 159152 A5A5>t 25, 2010
A CAM$ANA DE(EO$MENT COR$ORATION, $et2t2o+er,
@>.
ART!RO EDESMA, -ON. J!DGE ESTREA T. ESTRADA, 2+ ?er c*:*c2t4 *>
$RESIDING J!DGE, ReA2o+*3 Tr2*3 Co5rt, #r*+c? 83, "5eKo+ C2t4, *+, t?e -ON.
CO!RT O% A$$EAS, Re>:o+,e+t>.
%ACTS0
"etitioner )led an e@ectment case wit& t&e *etro$olitan %rial Court .*e%C/ against $rivate
res$ondent 2edesma alleging t&at des$ite e?$iration of t&e contract of lease e?ecuted
between t&em and demands to vacate sub@ect $remises and $ay rentals t&erefor t&e latter
failed to com$ly wit& suc& demands# "rivate res$ondent countered in &is ,nswer t&at &e &ad
$aid t&e rentals over sub@ect $remises and $etitioner no longer &ad t&e rig&t to $ossess t&e
$ro$erty as it &ad been foreclosed by t&e Develo$ment !an: of t&e "&ili$$ines .D!"/# "rivate
res$ondent furt&er $ointed out t&at sub@ect $remises &ad in fact been in t&e $ossession of
t&e D!" since *arc& or ,$ril of <997 so since t&at time it was wit& t&e D!" t&at &e made
arrangements for &is continued occu$ation of t&e sub@ect $remises#
%&e *e%C t&en rendered @udgment in favor of $etitioner ordering $rivate res$ondent to
surrender $ossession of sub@ect $remises to $etitioner# "rivate res$ondent a$$ealed to t&e
Regional %rial Court .R%C/ and to stay e?ecution of said @udgment $rivate res$ondent )led
a supersedeas bond wit& t&e *e%C#
%&e R%C a8rmed t&e *e%C @udgment# "etitioner t&en moved for t&e immediate e?ecution of
t&e R%C Decision w&ic& motion was granted by t&e R%C# *eanw&ile $rivate res$ondent
elevated t&e case to t&e C, ia a $etition for review oncertiorari wit& $rayer for t&e issuance
of a tem$orary restraining order or writ of $reliminary in@unction# , tem$orary restraining
order was issued by t&e C, eGectively staying im$lementation of t&e writ of e?ecution
issued by t&e R%C#
ISS!E0
0&et&er t&e C, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac: or e?cess of
@urisdiction w&en it ordered t&e issuance of a writ of $reliminary in@unction to stay t&e
immediate e?ecution of t&e R%C @udgment and w&et&er mandamus lies to com$el res$ondent
R%C Budge to issue a writ of e?ecution#
-ED0
-t is true t&at 3ection 2< Rule 70 of t&e Rules of Court $rovides t&at (LtM&e @udgment of t&e
Regional %rial Court against t&e defendant s&all be immediately e?ecutory wit&out $re@udice
to a furt&er a$$eal t&at may be ta:en t&erefrom#( +owever t&e Court ruled in "enedicto !
Court of Appeals t&at (on a$$eal t&e a$$ellate court may stay t&e said writ s&ould
circumstances so re=uire#
,s a rule t&e issuance of a $reliminary in@unction rests entirely wit&in t&e discretion of t&e
court ta:ing cogni6ance of t&e case and will not be interfered wit& e?ce$t in cases of
manifest abuse#
!e it noted t&at for a writ of $reliminary in@unction to be issued t&e Rules of Court do not
re=uire t&at t&e act com$lained of be in clear violation of t&e rig&ts of t&e a$$licant# -ndeed
w&at t&e Rules re=uire is t&at t&e act com$lained of be $robably in violation of t&e rig&ts of
t&e a$$licant# Under t&e Rules $robability is enoug& basis for in@unction to issue as a
$rovisional remedy#
-n t&e afore>=uoted case t&e Court reiterated t&at w&en e?igencies in t&e case warrant it t&e
a$$ellate court may stay t&e writ of e?ecution issued by t&e R%C in an action for e@ectment if
t&ere are circumstances necessitating suc& action# ,n e?am$le of suc& e?ce$tional
circumstance can be seen in ;aurel ! Abalos#%&erein a defendant was ordered by t&e trial
court to vacate t&e $remises of t&e dis$uted $ro$erty and return $ossession t&ereof to t&e
$laintiGs but w&ile t&e e@ectment case was on a$$eal a @udgment was $romulgated in a
se$arate case w&ere t&e sale of t&e $ro$erty to said $laintiGs was declared null and void
RemRev 2 Case Digests || Rule 70: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer || Castro !oco !ato
ma:ing t&e $laintiGsI rig&t to $ossess t&e dis$uted $ro$erty inconclusive# %&e Court ruled in
said case t&at:
0&ere su$ervening events .occurring subse=uent to t&e @udgment/ bring about a material
c&ange in t&e situation of t&e $arties w&ic& ma:es t&e e?ecution ine=uitable or 6?ere
t?ere 2> +o co;:e332+A 5rAe+c4 1or t?e eHec5t2o+ bec*5>e 2t 2> +ot E5>t2De, b4 t?e
:re@*232+A c2rc5;>t*+ce>, t?e co5rt ;*4 >t*4 2;;e,2*te eHec5t2o+ o1 t?e
E5,A;e+t#
n t&e $resent case t&ere also e?ists a material c&ange in t&e situation of t&e $arties# %&e C,
$ro$erly too: into serious consideration t&e fact t&at in its Decision in C,>1#R# CJ Ho# AE7D'
entitled ;a Campana Food #roducts, <nc! ! Deelopment "ank of the #hilippines, w&ic& &as
become )nal and e?ecutory 2t or,ere, ?ere2+ :et2t2o+er, 1or;er34 C+o6+ *> *
C*;:*+* %oo, $ro,5ct>, I+c., to >5rre+,er :o>>e>>2o+ o1 >5bEect :ro:ert2e> to t?e
De@e3o:;e+t #*+C o1 t?e $?232::2+e># Evidently a serious cloud of doubt &as been cast
on $etitioner;s rig&t of $ossession ma:ing it =uestionable w&et&er t&e R%C Decision ordering
$rivate res$ondent to surrender $ossession of sub@ect $remises to $etitioner s&ould be
immediately im$lemented# %&erefore t&e C, did not gravely abuse its discretion in t&is caseF
rat&er it acted $rudently w&en it stayed e?ecution of t&e R%C Decision until suc& time t&at a
)nal resolution of t&e main case is reac&ed#
"etitionerIs contention t&at it was im$ro$er for t&e C, to &ave granted $rivate res$ondentIs
motion to consider t&esupersedeas bond it $osted wit& t&e *etro$olitan %rial Court as
su8cient to cover t&e bond re=uired for t&e issuance of t&e writ of $reliminary in@unction is
li:ewise incorrect# "etitioner argues t&at (said su$ersedeas bond is $osted solely and
$rimarily to answer for a s$eci)c $ur$ose w&ic& is for t&e $ayment of un$aid rentals accruing
u$ to t&e )nal @udgment# %&is cannot be &eld answerable for damages to $etitioner s&ould it
later be found out t&at t&e $rivate res$ondent is not entitled to t&e issuance Lof a writ of
$reliminary in@unctionM#(
Hote t&at 3ection E.b/ Rule D7 of t&e Rules of Court $rovides t&at:
.b/ Unless e?em$ted by t&e court t&e a$$licant )les wit& t&e court w&ere t&e action or
$roceeding is $ending a bond e?ecuted to t&e $arty or $erson en@oined in an amount to be
)?ed by t&e court to t&e eGect t&at t&e a$$licant will $ay to suc& $arty or $erson all
damages w&ic& &e may sustain by reason of t&e in@unction or tem$orary restraining order if
t&e court s&ould )nally decide t&at t&e a$$licant was not entitled t&ereto# U$on a$$roval of
t&e re=uisite bond a writ of $reliminary in@unction s&all be issuedF
+owever in .ualam Construction and De=t! Corp! ! Court of Appeals t&e Court e?$ounded
on w&at damages may be recovered in actions for forcible entry or unlawful detainer to wit:
,s to damages 0e &ave on several occasions ruled t&at since t&e only issue raised in
forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases is t&at of rig&tful $&ysical $ossession t&e
(damages( recoverable in t&ese cases are t&ose w&ic& t&e $laintiG could &ave sustained as a
mere $ossessor i!e# t&ose caused by t&e loss of t&e use and occu$ation of t&e $ro$erty and
not t&e damages w&ic& &e may &ave suGered but w&ic& &ave no direct relation to &is loss of
material $ossession# ? ? ? 3im$ly $ut (damages( in t&e conte?t of 3ection 7 of Rule 70 Lnow
3ection <9 Rule 70 of t&e Rules of CourtM is limited to (rent( or (fair rental value( for t&e use
and occu$ation of t&e $ro$erty#
<7
$>wphi$
3ince t&e only damages t&at $etitioner may be entitled to in an action for unlawful detainer
are t&ose arising from its loss of t&e use or occu$ation of sub@ect $remises t&e only damages
$etitioner can claim by reason of t&e stay of e?ecution of t&e R%C @udgment is also only for
t&e (rent( or (fair rental value( for t&e $ro$erty in =uestion# %&erefore t&e C, did not err in
considering t&e supersedeas bond )led wit& t&e *%C w&ic& answers for un$aid rentals as
su8cient bond for t&e issuance of a writ of $reliminary in@unction#