REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION
City of Dasmariñas, Cavite
Tel. No. 416-0095 L-120

RAFAELA FERRER BUCAO,

Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE NO. 3958-16
- versus - FOR: EJECTMENT with
DAMAGES
RAUL MAGAT, REY MAGAT, and all
persons claiming rights under them,
Defendants.
x - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

DECISION
This treats of the Complaint for Ejectment filed before this Court by
plaintiff Rafaela Ferrer Bucao (Bucao, for brevity) on July 27, 2016 seeking
the eviction of the above-named defendants, Raul Magat and Rey Magat,
along with all persons claiming rights under them, from a parcel of land
together with the house existing thereat, situated at Block 39, Lot 6, Excess
Lot, Brgy. Fatima II, City of Dasmariñas, Cavite, supposedly acquired by
herein plaintiff by virtue of a Deed of Sale with Transfer of Rights executed
by the property's previous owner, Elizabeth Mahusay Caindoy.

The Return prepared by the Court Process Server on August 12, 2016
showed that Summons and its requisite attachments were duly served upon the
person of one of the defendants, Raul Magat, on August 11, 2016.

Under Section 5 of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, the

defendants are mandated to file their Answer within ten (10) days from service
of Summons or until August 21, 2016. However, the prescribed period expired
without herein defendants bothering to file their Answer. Hence, on September
14, 2016, plaintiff's counsel filed a Motion to Render Judgment with a prayer
that judgment be rendered as warranted by the facts alleged in the Complaint,
invoking Section 6 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, to which
motion the defendants did not file any opposition.

During the hearing of the said Motion last November 22, 2016, Atty.
Miriam S. Clorina appeared in behalf of plaintiff Bucao while defendant Rey
Magat also appeared sans his counsel. Inasmuch as herein defendants
acknowledged their failure to file a responsive pleading within the
reglementary period provided under Section 5 of the 1991 Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure, the Court granted said Motion. Also, since the plaintiff
had presented the original copies of the Complaint's attachments, the case was
submitted for decision, pursuant to Section 6 of the Revised Rules on
Summary Procedure.

The facts, based on the Complaint and its annexes extant in the records,
are as follows:

Plaintiff Rafaela F. Bucao is the owner of a property located at Block

39, Lot 6, Excess Lot, Brgy. Fatima II, City of Dasmariñas, Cavite, with an
area of Twenty-Four (24) square meters, as evidenced by a notarized Deed of
Sale with Transfer of Rights executed by one Elizabeth Mahusay Caindoy in
favor of the former1. The latter likewise executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay2
stating that the subject property was indeed sold to Bucao and it was Bucao
who paid P70,000.00 as payment for the same.

Sometime in February 2016, after plaintiff Bucao's common-law

husband, Rolando Magat's death3, herein defendants, by means of threat,
force, stealth and intimidation, forcibly encroached and entered the subject
property and illegally took physical possession of the same to the prejudice of
the former's use and possession of said property legally belonging to her.
Immediately, herein plaintiff, through her lawyer, sent a demand letter4 dated
April 1, 2016 demanding the defendants to vacate the premises. Yet, despite
receipt of the letter on April 18, 20165, the latter did not heed such demand
and still refuse to vacate the property. According to the plaintiff, herein
defendants' unjustifiable and illegal occupation and possession of the subject
property deprives her rights of enjoyment and possession over the same.

Ultimately, the matter was referred to the Lupong Tagapamayapa of

Barangay Fatima II, City of Dasmariñas, Cavite for possible mediation, but
the parties failed to agree on a settlement. A Certificate to File Action6 was
therefore issued to the plaintiff.

By way of supplication, the plaintiff prays that herein defendants and all
persons claiming rights under them be ordered to vacate and surrender the
subject property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is also praying that she be paid
by the defendants reasonable rentals, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and
costs of suit.

The following documents were submitted by plaintiff Rafaela F. Bucao:

Exhibit “A” – Deed of Sale with Transfer of Rights dated January 10,
2014 executed by Elizabeth Mahusay Caindoy in favor of Rafaela F.
Bucao
Exhibit “B” – Sinumpaang Salaysay executed and sworn to, by
Elizabeth Mahusay Caindoy containing facts as to the latter's
conveyance of the subject property's ownership to Rafaela F. Bucao

Exhibit “C” – Certificate of Death of Rolando Altiche Magat, plaintiff

Rafaela F. Bucao's common-law husband

Exhibits “D” and “D-1” – Demand Letter dated April 1, 2016 sent to
defendants by the plaintiff's counsel, Atty. Miriam S. Clorina and proof
of defendants' receipt of the Demand Letter on April 18, 2016
1
A copy of Deed of Sale with Transfer of Rights dated January 10, 2014 executed by Elizabeth Mahusay
Caindoy in favor of plaintiff Rafaela F. Bucao marked as Exhibit “A” and made an integral part hereof.
2
A copy of Sinumpaang Salaysay executed and sworn to, by Elizabeth Mahusay Caindoy containing facts as
to the latter's conveyance of the subject property's ownership to Rafaela F. Bucao marked as Exhibit “B” and
made an integral part hereof.
3
A copy of Certificate of Death of Rolando Altiche Magat, plaintiff Rafaela Bucao's common-law husband
marked as Exhibit “C” and made an integral part hereof.
4
A copy of the Demand Letter dated April 1, 2016 sent by plaintiff Rafaela Bucao's counsel, Atty. Miriam S.
Clorina, to defendants Raul and Rey Magat marked as Exhibit “D” and made an integral part hereof.
5
A copy of the proof of defendants' receipt of the Demand Letter on April 18, 2016 marked as Exhibit “D-1”
and made an integral part hereof.
6
A copy of Certificate to File Action issued by the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay Fatima II, Dasmariñas
City, Cavite to plaintiff Rafaela F. Bucao marked as Exhibit “E” and made an integral part hereof.
 Exhibit “E” – Certificate to File Action issued by the Lupong
Tagapamayapa of Barangay Fatima II, City of Dasmariñas, Cavite to
plaintiff Rafaela F. Bucao

Stripped of non-essentials, the issues to be resolved are as follows:

I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE ORDERED
TO VACATE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY

II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE PLAINTIFF MAY BE AWARDED THE
ITEMS OF DAMAGES AND PECUNIARY CLAIMS SHE IS
DEMANDING FROM THE DEFENDANTS

After an exhaustive review of the case record, the Court finds that the
Complaint was sufficient in form and substance and that there was proof of
prior physical possession by herein plaintiff.

Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, a case of forcible

entry may be filed by, “a person deprived of the possession of any land or
building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth x x x.” In cases of
forcible entry, “the possession is illegal from the beginning and the basic
inquiry centers on who has the prior possession de facto and it must be
brought within one year from the date of actual entry on the land, except when
entry was made through stealth so that the one-year period would be counted
from the time the plaintiff learned about it.”7 In particular, the following are
the three (3) requisites to be met in actions for forcible entry. First, the
plaintiffs must allege their prior physical possession of the property. Second,
they must also assert that they were deprived of possession either by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. Third, the action must be filed within
one (1) year from the time the owners or legal possessors learned of their
deprivation of physical possession of the land or building.8

Based on the above-enumerated requisites, the Complaint's allegations

sufficiently established the need to evict herein defendants from the subject
property. There is no question that herein defendants unlawfully deprived the
plaintiff of the possession of the subject property through stealth. Obviously, it
should be remembered that the plaintiff did not bestow any right to herein
defendants to occupy and possess the said property as there was no contract or
agreement, expressly or impliedly made between them. Inarguably, the
defendants' illegal and unauthorized use of such property is done with scheme
characterized with caution and surreptitious action as the plaintiff is without
knowledge and consent to such occupation, thus, making the former's
possession initially unlawful. All that need be alleged, as they are alleged in
the Complaint, is that herein defendants illegally possessed the subject
premises without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff who is the owner
of the property in question; that demand to vacate the property was instituted
and served upon them by way of a Demand Letter dated April 1, 2016; that
they obstinately refused to do so despite repeated oral and written demands
made upon them; and that the Complaint was seasonably filed within the one-
year period prescribed by law, that is, from the time herein plaintiffs learned of
7
Sarmiento vs Court of Appeals, 320 Phil. 146, 153 (1995)
8
Javier vs Veridiano II, G.R. No. L-48050, 10 October 1994, 237 SCRA 565, 572-573
the possession sometime in February 2016 and the filing of the Complaint on
July 27, 2016. With all the elements present, there was clearly a cause of
action in the Complaint for forcible entry which is undeniably within the
scope of Section 1 of Rule 70.

While it is true that plaintiff Bucao's acquisition of the property by

virtue of the Deed of Sale with Transfer of Rights executed in her favor,
proved possession de jure, but not her actual possession of the property prior
to defendants' entry, this Court believes that the former successfully
established her case by proving her prior physical possession. The plaintiff
proved her claim of having a better right to possession by submitting the
notarized Deed of Sale with Transfer of Rights executed in her favor prior to
the initiation of this ejectment suit. This Court observed that herein plaintiff
did not fail to establish that such document constitutes a competent evidence
sufficient to prove her prior physical possession on the premise that ownership
certainly carries the right of possession and thus, being the owner who has a
better right, she can recover the possession of the subject property and cause
eviction of herein defendants.9 Consequently, possession of the said property
must revert back to the plaintiff. After all, it is basic that ownership or
dominion includes the right of possession. In fact, in traditional Roman law,
jus possidendi or the right to possess is fundamentally not only an attribute of
ownership but also a direct consequence of ownership.10

In addition, despite the proper service of Summons and its annexes

upon herein defendants on August 11, 2016, they still failed to file their
Answer to the Complaint and likewise failed to provide a sufficient
justification to excuse their lapses. Inasmuch as the defendants did not bother
to file an Answer to the plaintiff's complaint, the allegations contained in the
same are deemed admitted. Otherwise stated, the defendants' failure to timely
file their Answer and to controvert the claim against them constitutes their
acquiescence to every allegation stated in the Complaint. Logically, there is
nothing to be done in this situation11 except to render judgment as may be
warranted by the facts alleged in the Complaint, pursuant to Sections 5 and 6
of the Rules on Summary Procedure.

As regards the pecuniary claims of the plaintiff, Section 17 of Rule 70

of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure clearly provides that in forcible entry and
unlawful detainer, the plaintiff may be duly awarded costs of suit, attorney’s
fees, as well as fair rental value of the property.

As to the award of attorney's fees, the undeniable source of the present

controversy is the failure of defendants to vacate the subject property despite
plaintiff's demand. Hence, in keeping with Article 2208 of the Civil Code,
attorney’s fees should be recovered since it was herein defendants' action
which compelled the plaintiff to litigate or to incur expenses to protect her
interest.

As for the award of actual damages, the Court is inclined to grant the
same reasonable rental, since the Supreme Court has held that the plaintiff in
ejectment cases is entitled to damages caused by his loss of the use and
possession of the subject premises12.

9
Pajuyo vs Guevarra, G.R. No. 146364, 3 June 2004, 430 SCRA
10
Samahan ng Masang Pilipino sa Makati, Inc., vs Bases Conversion Development Authority, G.R. No.
142255, January 26, 2007
11
Luceres, Bernardo M., Revised Rule of Summary Procedure, 1st Ed., p. 14 (2011)
12
Araos vs Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 770
 Lastly, as regards the exemplary damages, this Court could not award
the same to the plaintiff because she failed to clearly establish that the
defendants, in refusing to vacate the subject premises, acted in bad faith.13

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing premises, Raul Magat and

Rey Magat, the defendants herein, and all persons claiming rights under them,
are hereby ordered to vacate and surrender the possession of the subject
property to herein plaintiff. Additionally, the defendants are perforce ordered
to pay the plaintiff the following:

a. By way of reasonable rentals for the use and occupation of the

property, Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) per month starting April
2016 until they have actually vacated the subject premises; and

b. By way of attorney’s fees and litigation costs, Thirty Thousand

Pesos (P30,000.00).

SO ORDERED.

City of Dasmariñas, Cavite, December 28, 2016.

MARIA ROWENA M. AREVALO

Presiding Judge

Copy furnished:

ATTY. MIRIAM S. CLORINA (Counsel for the Plaintiff)

D. Mangubat Street, Brgy. Zone 3,
City of Dasmariñas, Cavite

RAFAELA F. BUCAO (Plaintiff)

Block 39, Lot 6, Excess Lot, Brgy. Fatima II,
City of Dasmariñas, Cavite

RAUL MAGAT and REY MAGAT (Defendants)

Block 39, Excess Lot, Brgy. Fatima II,
City of Dasmariñas, Cavite

13
Article 2232 of the Civil Code of the Philippines