FATIMA O. DE GUZMAN-FUERTE,
married to MAURICE GEORGE FUERTE, Petitioner vs. SPOUSES SIL VINO S. ESTO MO
and CONCEPCION C. ESTOMO, Respondents
FACTS:
Fuerte filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against
Sps. Estomo.
Fuerte alleged that Manuela Co executed a Deed of Real
Estate Mortgage over the subject property in her favor. Co failed to pay the
loan thus, Fuerte caused the foreclosure proceedings and eventually obtained
ownership of the property.
However, the writ of possession was returned
unsatisfied since Co was no longer residing at the property and that the
Spouses Estomo and their family occupied the same. It was only after the said
return that Fuerte discovered and verified that the Spouses Estomo were in
possession of the property. In a letter dated December 1, 2008, she demanded
them to vacate and surrender possession of the subject property and pay the
corresponding compensation but the Spouses Estomo refused to heed to her
demands.
In their Answer the Spouses Estomo denied that they
illegally occupied the subject property. They also denied the existence of the
December 1, 2008 letter. They averred that they acquired the property from the
Homeowners Development Corporation on February 15, 1999 through a Contract to
Sell, and had been their family home since 2000.
The Spouses Estomo also
prayed that the complaint be dismissed on the ground that the allegations are insufficient
to establish a cause of action for unlawful detainer. The spouses alleged that
the case cannot be considered as one for forcible entry since it was never
alleged that their entry was by means of force, intimidation, threat, stealth
or strategy. Lastly, prescription has already set, since Fuerte was aware that
the spouses possessed the property when they filed the complaint for annulment
of deed of absolute sale and real estate mortgage against Co and Fuerte on
January 30, 2007.
The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Antipolo
City, Branch 1 dismissed the complaint without prejudice finding that Fuerte
failed to attach in the complaint a copy of the demand letter and establish
that the same was duly received by the spouses
On appeal, the RTC
reversed and set aside the decision of the MTCC. It held that Fuerte
established the existence of the December 1, 2008 demand letter, which was sent
through registered mail of the Antipolo City Post Office. The notice to vacate
the subject property served through registered mail is a substantial compliance
with the modes of service under Section 2 Rule 70 of the Rules of
Court.
Subsequently, the CA reversed and set aside the ruling
of the RTC. It held that the complaint in ejectment cases should embody such
statement of facts as to bring the party clearly within the class of cases for
which Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides a summary remedy, and
must show enough on its face to give the court jurisdiction without resort to
parole evidence. The CA found that the complaint failed to describe that the
possession by the Spouses Estomo was initially legal or tolerated and became
illegal upon termination of lawful possession.
ISSUE:
Whether the petition filed by Fuerte will prosper.
RULING:
No.
A requisite for
a valid cause of action of unlawful detainer is that the possession was
originally lawful, but turned unlawful only upon the expiration of the right to
possess. To show that the possession was initially lawful, the basis of such
lawful possession must then be established. It is clear that Spouses Estomo's
occupancy was illegal and without Fuerte's consent. Likewise, the Complaint did
not contain an allegation that Fuerte or her predecessor-in-interest tolerated
the spouses' possession on account of an express or implied contract between
them. Neither was there any averment which shows any overt act on Fuerte's part
indicative of her permission to occupy the land.
Acts of tolerance must be proved showing the overt
acts indicative of his or his predecessor's tolerance or permission for them to
occupy the disputed property. There should be any supporting evidence on record
that would show when the respondents entered the properties or who had granted
them to enter the same and how the entry was effected. Without these
allegations and evidence, the bare claim regarding "tolerance" cannot
be upheld.
This Court finds that the complaint failed to state a
cause of action for unlawful detainer. Since the complaint fell short of the
jurisdictional facts to vest the court jurisdiction to effect the ejectment of
respondent, the MTCC failed to acquire jurisdiction to take cognizance of
Fuerte's complaint and the CA correctly dismissed the unlawful detainer case against
the Spouses Estomo.
It cannot be overemphasized that jurisdiction over the
subject matter is conferred only by law and it is "not within the courts,
let alone the parties, to themselves determine or conveniently set aside."
Neither would the active participation of the parties nor estoppel operate to
confer original and exclusive jurisdiction where the court or tribunal only
wields appellate jurisdiction over the case.
It is well to be reminded of the settled distinction
between a summary action of ejectment and a plenary action for recovery of
possession and/or ownership of the land. What really distinguishes an action
for unlawful detainer from a possessory action (accion publiciana) and from a
reivindicatory action (accion reivindicatoria) is that the first is limited to
the question of possession de facto. Unlawful detainer suits (accion
interdictal), together with forcible entry, are the two forms of ejectment suit
that may be filed to recover possession of real property. Aside from the
summary action of ejectment, accion publiciana or the plenary action to recover
the right of possession and accion reivindicatoria or the action to recover
ownership which also includes recovery of possession, make up the three kinds
of actions to judicially recover possession.
Unlawful detainer and forcible entry suits are
designed to summarily restore physical possession of a piece of land or
building to one who has been illegally or forcibly deprived thereof, without
prejudice to the settlement of the parties' opposing claims of juridical
possession in appropriate proceedings. These actions are intended to avoid
disruption of public order by those who would take the law in their hands
purportedly to enforce their claimed right of possession.
A judgment rendered in a forcible entry case, or an
unlawful detainer as in this case, will not bar an action between the same
parties respecting title or ownership because between a case for forcible entry
or unlawful detainer and an accion reinvindicatoria, there is no identity of
causes of action. Such determination does not bind the title or affect the
ownership of the land; neither is it conclusive of the facts therein found in a
case between the same parties upon a different cause of action involving
possession. In fact, Section 18, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court expressly
provides that a "judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or
detainer shall be conclusive with respect to the possession only and shall in
no wise bind the title or affect the ownership of the land." Since there
is no identity of causes of action, there can be no multiplicity of suits.
Without a doubt, the registered owner of real property
is entitled to its possession. However, the registered owner cannot simply
wrest possession thereof from whoever is in actual occupation of the property.
To recover possession, he must resort to the proper remedy, and once he chooses
what action to file, he is required to satisfy the conditions necessary for
such action to prosper. In this case, Fuerte chose the remedy of unlawful
detainer to eject the Spouses Estomo, but, failed to sufficiently allege the
facts which are necessary to vest jurisdiction to MTCC over an unlawful
detainer case. In fine, the CA did not commit reversible error in dismissing
Fuerte's complaint for unlawful detainer.
No comments:
Post a Comment