8/19/2019 Rule 70 Cases

1/22

ATTY. VIRGILIO P. ALCONERA, Complainant, vs. ALFREDO T. PALLANAN, Respondent.

Facts:

Complainant was the counsel for Rafols, the defendant in an unlawful detainer case before the MTCC in General

Santos City, South Cotabato. After trial, the MTCC ruled against Rafols and his codefendants in a

!udgment"dated March "#, #$$%.

Rafols, through complainant Alconera, appealed the case to the RTC. &ending appeal, the court issued an 'rder 

granting Cua (eng)s motion for e*ecution she filed in the unlawful detainer case. Alconera sought

reconsideration but the motion was denied.

+velyn Rafols, Rafols) daughterinlaw, called up Alconera to report that the sheriff, respondent &allanan, was

about to implement the adverted writ of e*ecution. Respondent sheriff then allegedly demanded payment of

&h&#$,$$$ to settle Rafols) obligation to which the latter protested on the ground that the amount is too

e*orbitant when they have been religiously depositing monthly rentals in court to satisfy the -udgment.

+velyn Rafols passed her phone to respondent sheriff. 'ver the phone, a verbal disagreement between the two

ensued. Alconera claims that he has a pending motion for reconsideration on the issuance of the writ ofe*ecution, but the respondent said that the motion has already been denied. And since no Temporary

Restraining 'rder TR'/ has been issued en-oining the implementation, respondent claimed that he is legally

mandated to perform his ministerial duty of enforcing the writ. Complainant countered that he has not yet

received a copy of the denial of the motion, rendering the e*ecution premature and, at the same time, preventing

him from securing a TR' from the higher courts. 0evertheless, respondent still pushed through with the

e*ecution of the -udgment.

Complainant returned to General Santos City and found a copy of the 'rder denying his Motion for

Reconsideration. The RTC ruled that there was no pending Motion to Approve Supersedeas (ond filed with it.

1nstead, what was filed not with the RTC but with the MTCC was a 20'T1C+ '3 A&&+A4 5 and 5 M'T1'0 T'

 A&&R'6+ &R'&+RT7 S8&+RS+9+AS ('09,2 which was not granted.

That afternoon, Alconera went to RTC with his daughter to confront respondent sheriff. The faceoff escalated

into a heated argument caught on video. 1t was complainant)s daughter, who filmed the incident and transcribed

the dialogue during the altercation.

 Alconera filed a ComplaintAffidavit: against the respondent sheriff for grave misconduct before this Court.

Respondent filed his comment and averred that the duty of a court sheriff in enforcing a writ of e*ecution is

ministerial, and without a TR' en-oining it, a sheriff is duty bound to implement it.

Respondent filed his own Affidavit of Complaint; against herein complainant for Grave Misconduct and for

violating the Code of +thics. Respondent alleged that during the enforcement of the writ, a second phone

conversation too< place. Complainant allegedly called up +velyn Rafols who put him on loudspea

8/19/2019 Rule 70 Cases

2/22

 After due proceedings, the investigating -udge submitted a report, styled as 'rder  dated August =, #$":, with

the following recommendation>

(ased on the findings and evaluation, the herein +*ecutive !udge hereby recommends the respondent Sheriff

be A9M'01S?+9. The respondent must be reminded that as a Court +mployee, he must e*ercise utmost

patience and humility in the performance of his duties amidst all the pressures and personal attac

". 3or enforcing the writ despite the fact that complainant has yet to receive the copy of the order

denying his motion for reconsideration on the issuance of the writ of e*ecutionB

#. 3or allegedly lea

Section "%. 1mmediate e*ecution of -udgmentB how to stay same. F 1f -udgment is rendered against the

defendant, e*ecution shall issue immediately upon motion, unless an appeal has been perfected and thedefendant to stay e*ecution files a sufficient supersedeas bond, approved by the Municipal Trial Court and

e*ecuted in favor of the plaintiff to pay the rents, damages, and costs accruing down to the time of the -udgment

appealed from, and unless, during the pendency of the appeal, he deposits with the appellate court the amount

of rent due from time to time under the contract, if any, as determined by the -udgment of the Municipal Trial

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/am_p-12-3069_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/am_p-12-3069_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/am_p-12-3069_2014.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/am_p-12-3069_2014.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/am_p-12-3069_2014.html#fnt8

8/19/2019 Rule 70 Cases

3/22

Court. 1n the absence of a contract, he shall deposit with the Regional Trial Court the reasonable value of the

use and occupation of the premises for the preceding month or period at the rate determined by the -udgment of

the lower court on or before the tenth day of each succeeding month or period. The supersedeas bond shall be

transmitted by the Municipal Trial Court, with the other papers, to the cler< of the Regional Trial Court to which

the action is appealed.

Clearly then under said Sec. "%, Rule $, a -udgment on a forcible entry and detainer action is made

immediately e*ecutory to avoid further in-ustice to a lawful possessor. The defendant in such a case may have

such -udgment stayed only by a/ perfecting an appealB b/ filing a supersedeas bondB and c/ ma

8/19/2019 Rule 70 Cases

4/22

otherwise, the officer shall oust all such persons therefrom with the assistance, if necessary, of appropriate

peace officers, and employing such means as may be reasonably necessary to reta

8/19/2019 Rule 70 Cases

5/22

TEODORO S. TEODORO (Deceased), Substituted b !is !ei"s#s$%s NELSON TEODORO a%d ROLANDOTEODORO, &etitioners, vs DANILO ESPINO, ROSARIO SANTIAGO, &'LIANA CASTILLO, PA'LINA LITAO,RA'EL RODRIG'E, R'FINA DELA CR', a%d LEONILA CR', Respondents.

3acts>

The sub-ect property is registered in the name of Genaro, long deceased ascendant of all the parties. This

property is vacant lot where the old ancestral house of Genaro stood until its demolition of Teodoro Teodoro.

Genaro had five children> SantiagoB Maria, from whom respondents descended and trace their claim of

ownership and right of possessionB &etra, Mariano, Teodoro Teodoro)s fatherB and Ana. Genaro and his children

are all deceased.

Respondents) respective parents are first cousins of Teodoro Teodoro. All parties are collateral relatives of &etra

Teodoro> Teodoro Teodoro is her nephew while respondents are her grandnephews and grandnieces,

descendants of &etra)s sister, Maria Teodoro.

'f all Genaro)s children, only &etra occupied the sub-ect property, living at the ancestral house. Genaro)s other

children were beDueathed, and stayed at, a different property, still from the estate of their father.

 After &etra)s death, her purported holographic will, was probated before RTC which 9ecision on the will)s

e*trinsic validity has become final and e*ecutory. 1n the will, &etra, asserting ownership, devised the sub-ect

property to Teodoro Teodoro.

Teodoro Teodoro effected the demolition of the ancestral house, intending to use the sub-ect property for other

purposes.Respondents, whose lots surround the sub-ect property on which the ancestral house previously

stood, erected a fence on the surrounding portion, barricaded its frontage, and put up a sign thereat, effectively

dispossessing Teodoro Teodoro of the property beDueathed to him by &etra.

 After Teodoro Teodoro)s demand for respondents to vacate the sub-ect property went unheeded, he filed thecomplaint for forcible entry against respondents

1n their Answer, respondents asserted their own ownership and possession of the sub-ect property.

":. Ehile it is true that the dilapidated ancestral house in the sub-ect property was demolishedB however, the

said act, as suggested by HTeodoro TeodoroI was allowed by HrespondentsI who had their respective houses

built in the same lot where the same is constructed/ in order to have the same be partitioned among themselves.

 As HTeodoro TeodoroI was constantly complaining that the property left to him and his siblings is less than the

sub-ect property given to the HrespondentsI in area, they agreed verbally that if the ancestral house will be

demolished, a surveyor would be at ease in surveying the same and determine if indeed the area is more than

that allotted to HTeodoro TeodoroI, which in that case, as per agreement, the e*cess, if any will suffice the lac< in

area of HTeodoro TeodoroI. 1t was however found out that the area of the sub-ect property was less than the area

that should be allocated and apportioned as shares of HrespondentsI, hence they HintimatedI the same to

HTeodoro TeodoroI, who got mad and threatenHedI to get the sub-ect property from them.

";. There is no truth, as what HTeodoro TeodoroI claimed in his complaint that he was ousted and prevented from

entering the sub-ect property by HrespondentsI, because in the first place he could not be ousted thereat, as he is

not in possession of the said property.= +mphasis theirs/.

 After trial, the MTC dismissed the complaint, ruling on the issue of ownership and ultimately resolving the issue

of who between Teodoro Teodoro and respondents had a better right to possess the sub-ect property>

* * * HTeodoro Teodoro)sI claim of ownership over the sub-ect lot stemmed from the approved and duly probated

?olographic Eill of &etra Teodoro. Although it its undisputed that &etra Teodoro was in actual possession of the

sub-ect lot prior to her demise and that she left a ?olographic Eill wherein the sub-ect lot was beDueathed to

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_189248_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_189248_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_189248_2014.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_189248_2014.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_189248_2014.html#fnt6

8/19/2019 Rule 70 Cases

6/22

HTeodoro TeodoroI, the probate of her last will has not finally settled the Duestion of ownership over the sub-ect

lot. Clearly, the sub-ect lot still forms part of the estate of the late Genaro Teodoro. 1n the absence of an actual

and approved partition plan among his heirs, the sub-ect lot remains part of the Genaro Teodoro)s estate. Since

his children Santiago, Maria, &etra, Maraino and Ana are all deceased, their children or grandchildren by right of

representation have the right to inherit from their ancestor.

 A person who claims that he has a better right to real property must prove his ownership of the same * * *.

Clearly, HTeodoro TeodoroI has failed to prove his ownership over the property or that of his devisee &etra

Teodoro. Thus, the court is convinced that the possession of HrespondentsI over the sub-ect lot should not be

disturbed, until and unless the Duestion of ownership over the same shall have been finally resolved before the

appropriate court.

* * * *

E?+R+3'R+, -udgment is hereby rendered dismissing the complaint and the counterclaim interposed in

relation thereto, without pronouncement as to costs.

The RTC, in its appellate -urisdiction over forcible entry cases, acting on Teodoro Teodoro)s appeal, adopted the

factual findings of the MTC, but reversed the ruling, ruled in favor of Teodoro Teodoro and ordered the e-ectmentof respondents from the sub-ect property. 1t pithily ruled, thus>

(ut the bottom line for resolution in this case is who has the prior physical possession of the sub-ect parcel.The

late &etra Teodoro)s share to the inheritance of his father Genaro is admittedly the old ancestral house and the

lot over which it stands.

HTeodoro TeodoroI claims right to possession only over said portion now the vacant space * * * not the entire lot

#= until he was displaced therefrom by the HrespondentsI through force/. ?e has ac

8/19/2019 Rule 70 Cases

7/22

This Court disagrees with the said ruling applying the plethora of cases decisive of the issue and consistent with

the established -urisprudence that the lower court cannot dispose with finality the issue of ownershipsuch issue

being inutile in an e-ectment suit e*cept to throw light on the Duestion of possession.

Given the foregoing, HTeodoro TeodoroI has established a valid claim to institute the eviction suit against

HrespondentsI over the disputed area or vacant portion of 4ot #= and for him to be restored therein.

Respondents then appealed the RTC)s decision to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court reversed the RTC,

li

"/ never had physical possession of the sub-ect property, not having lived there at anytime, whether

while &etra was alive nor after her deathB

/ cannot tac< his alleged possession of the sub-ect property to that of &etra Teodoro simply by virtue of

the latter)s holographic will, leading to the issue of ownership which is insignificant in forcible entry

cases.

 Appellate court found that Teodoro Teodoro substituted by his heirs 0elson and Rolando Teodoro at that -uncture/ 2failed to discharge the burden of proof that he had prior actual physical possession of the sub-ect

HpropertyI before it was barricaded by HrespondentsI to warrant the institution of the forcible entry suit.2 The

appellate court disposed of the case, thus>

?ence, this appeal by certiorari filed by the heirs of Teodoro Teodoro raising the following errors in the appellate

court)s dismissal of the complaint>

Issue: Ehether or not the act of respondents in barricading the frontage of the portion of 4ot 0o. #= on whichstood the ancestral house occupied by &etra amounted to Teodoro Teodoro)s unlawful dispossession thereof

through the forcible entry of respondents.

The ground rules in forcible entry cases>""

"/ 'ne employs force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth to deprive another of physical possession

of real property.

#/ &laintiff Teodoro Teodoro/ must allege and prove prior physical possession of the property in

litigation until deprived thereof by the defendant herein respondents/. This reDuirement implies that the

possession of the disputed land by the latter was unlawful from the beginning.

:/ The sole Duestion for resolution hinges on the physical or material possession possession de facto/

of the property. 0either a claim of -uridical possession possession de -ure/ nor an averment of

ownership by the defendant can, at the outset, preclude the court from ta

8/19/2019 Rule 70 Cases

8/22

Respondents assert possession li respondents received 4ot 0o. #= which encompasses herein sub-ect

property, while Teodoro Teodoro and his siblings received a different property, 2a == residential lot at (ambang,

(ulacan, (ulacan.2

 Also, respondents aver that they paid for 4ot 0o. #=)s realty ta*es. Respondents counter that the sub-ect

property was not solely beDueathed to Teodoro Teodoro as it is part of &etra)s estate for disposition to her

legitimate heirs, including herein respondents.

Given both parties respective claims of ownership over the sub-ect property via succession from their

ascendants Maria, &etra and Mariano Teodoro, who are all compulsory heirs of Genaro in whose name the

sub-ect property is still registered, the MTC ruled that respondents cannot be disturbed in their possession of the

sub-ect property 2until and unless the Duestion of ownership over the same HisI finally resolved before theappropriate court.2

1n contrast, the RTC, without categorically resolving the issue of ownership of 4ot 0o. #=, ruled that on the

portion of 4ot 0o. #= where the ancestral house used to stand, Teodoro did establish his prior physical

possession over the sub-ect property resulting in his right to institute the e-ectment suit against respondents.

Significantly, the RTC confirmed respondents) physical possession of, and residency at, 4ot 0o. #=.

There would yet be another turn of events. The appellate court, albeit refusing to touch and rule on the issue of

ownership, declared that there lac

 AnalyJing the facts of the case, the lower HcourtI concluded that the sub-ect parcel is a part of the estate of the

late Genaro Teodoro and in the absence of an approved partition among the heirs, remains a community

property over which the legal heirs of Genaro Teodoro have the right to inherit. All therefore are entitled to

e*ercise the right of dominion including the right of possession." +mphasis supplied/.

The RTC)s comment that it 2disagrees with the said ruling2 only meant that 2the lower court cannot dispose with

finality the issue of ownership2 since such ownership issue is 2inutile in an e-ectment suit e*cept to throw light on

the Duestion of possession.2" And so the RTC ruled that Teodoro Teodoro should be restored in the lawful

possession of the disputed area of 4ot 0o. #= in light of the finding of the MTC that the sub-ect lot still forms

part of the estate of the late Genaro Teodoro. 1t is from this same fact that the MTC reached the contrary

conclusion that Teodoro Teodoro)s complaint should be dismissed because he has 2failed to prove his

ownership.2"%

1n the sense that Teodoro Teodoro has not proven e*clusive ownership, the MTC was right. 1âwphi1 (ut e*clusive

ownership of 4ot 0o. #= or a portion thereof is not in this case reDuired of Teodoro Teodoro for him to beentitled to possession. Coownership, the finding of both the MTC at first instance and by the RTC on appeal, is

sufficient. The pertinent provisions of the Civil Code state>

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_189248_2014.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_189248_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_189248_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_189248_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_189248_2014.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_189248_2014.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_189248_2014.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_189248_2014.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_189248_2014.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_189248_2014.html#fnt19

8/19/2019 Rule 70 Cases

9/22

 Art. . There is coownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different

persons.

 Art. "$. Ehen there are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the decedent is, before its partition, owned in

common by such heirs, sub-ect to the payment of debts of the deceased.

Certainly, and as found by the trial courts, the whole of 4ot 0o. #= including the portion now litigated is, owing

to the fact that it has remained registered in the name of Genaro who is the common ancestor of both parties

herein, coowned property. All, or both Teodoro Teodoro and respondents are entitled to e*ercise the right of

possession as coowners.

0either party can e*clude the other from possession. Although the property remains unpartitioned, the

respondents in fact possess specific areas. Teodoro Teodoro can li

8/19/2019 Rule 70 Cases

10/22

LO'RDES 4. FERRER a%d PROSPERIDAD 5. ARANDE, Complainants, vs. &'DGE RO5EO A. RA4ACA,5et"$*$+ita% T"ia+ C$u"t, 4"a%c! 67, 5a%i+a, Respondent.

This administrative case charges ?on. Romeo A. Rabaca, then the &residing !udge of (ranch #; of the

Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila MeTC/, with ignorance of the law, disregard of the law, dereliction of duty,

a/ to vacate the premises located at Ground 3loor, 7MCA, "" Gen. 4una St., +rmita, ManilaB and

surrender possession thereof to plaintiffB

b/ to pay plaintiff the sum of &hp;,#"".$ representing his arrears in rentals from 3ebruary #$$: to

!uly #$$: at &hp,;:;.:$ a month plus the further sum of &hp,;:;.:$ a month as reasonable value forthe continued use and occupation of the premises starting August #$$: until the same is finally vacated

and possession thereof is turnover to plaintiffB

c/ to pay the plaintiff the sum of &hp#$,$$$ as attorney)s feesB and

d/ to pay the costs of suit.

S' 'R9+R+9.

The plaintiff)s counsel filed a motion for immediate e*ecution, praying that a writ of e*ecution be issued 2for the

immediate e*ecution of the aforesaid !udgment.2 The plaintiff cited Section "%, Rule $ of the Rules of Court asbasis for its motion.# 

Respondent !udge denied the motion for immediate e*ecution,: stating>

 A 0otice of Appeal having been seasonably filed by counsel for the defendant, let the records of the above

captioned case be, as it is hereby ordered, elevated to the Regional Trial Court of Manila for appropriate

proceedings and disposition.

 According to the complainants, their counsel tal

Considering that the Court has already given due course to the appeal of the defendant which was perfected

within the reglementary period, no more action will be ta

8/19/2019 Rule 70 Cases

11/22

Respondent !udge denied the charges. ?e e*plained that he had honestly thought that his court had lost

 -urisdiction over the case pursuant to the provision of Section %, Rule " of the Rules of Court which provides

that 2in appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses -urisdiction over the case upon the perfection of the appeals

filed in due time and the e*piration of the time to appeal of the other parties2/ once he had given due course to

the defendant)s notice of appeal. ?e claimed that he had issued the orders in good faith and with no malice after

a fair and impartial evaluation of the facts, applicable rules, and -urisprudenceB and that if he had thereby

committed lapses in the issuance of the orders, his doing so should be considered as error of -udgment on his

part.

1n their reply, complainants contended that respondent !udge e*hibited his ignorance of the law and procedure

in relying on Section %, Rule " of the Rules of Court which referred to appeals from the Regional Trial CourtB

that Rule $, which contained provisions on appeal from the Municipal Trial Courts to the Regional Trial Courts,

and which provided in its Section that the perfection of the appeal and the effect of such perfection should be

governed by the provisions of Section % of Rule ", concerned appeals by notice of appeal in generalB and that

instead, the applicable rule should be Section "%, Rule $ of the Rules of Court.

The complainants pointed out that respondent !udge apparently did not

8/19/2019 Rule 70 Cases

12/22

Regional Trial Court RTC/. The (ranch Cler< of Court however failed to forward the records to the RTC. This

fact is clear from !udge Rabaca)s 'rder dated # !uly #$$ wherein he directed the (ranch Cler< of Court to

forward the records of the case to the Manila Regional Trial Court immediately.

3rom the foregoing, it is clear that when the complainant moved for the immediate e*ecution of !udge Rabaca)s

decision, the latter still had -urisdiction over the case. ?e therefore clearly erred when he refused to act on the

Motion for +*ecution. The relevant Duestion that we should resolve however is whether such error is an error of

 -udgment or an error amounting to incompetence that calls for administrative discipline.

!udge Rabaca claims that he refused to act on the complainant)s Motion for e*ecution because he honestly

thought that when he gave due course to the defendant)s appeal which was seasonably filed, and ordered the

elevation of the records to the appellate court, his court already lost -urisdiction over the case.. 1n ma

8/19/2019 Rule 70 Cases

13/22

Court. 1n the absence of a contract, he shall deposit with the Regional Trial Court the reasonable value of the

use and occupation of the premises for the preceding month or period at the rate determined by the -udgment of

the lower court on or before the tenth day of each succeeding month or period. The supersedeas bond shall be

transmitted by the Municipal Trial Court, with the other papers, to the cler< of the Regional Trial Court to which

the action is appealed.

***

Respondent !udge)s e*cuse, that he had lost -urisdiction over the case by virtue of the defendant)s appeal, was

unacceptable in light of the clear and e*plicit te*t of the aforeDuoted rule. To begin with, the perfection of the

appeal by the defendant did not forbid the favorable action on the plaintiff)s motion for immediate e*ecution. The

e*ecution of the decision could not be stayed by the mere ta

8/19/2019 Rule 70 Cases

14/22

ignorance of the law and procedure, a serious offense under Section , Rule "$, of the Rules of Court, as

amended, the fact that the complainants did not establish that malice or bad faith impelled his omission to act, or 

that fraud, dishonesty, or a corrupt motive attended his omission to act demands a downgrading of the liability. 1n

the absence of any showing that he had been held guilty of any other administrative offense, % and without our

attention being called to other circumstances that might demonstrate respondent !udge)s dar< motives for his

inaction, we should find and consider the recommended penalty of &;,$$$.$$ with warning that a repetition of

the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely to be commensurate to the offense."$

89EREFORE, we find respondent &'DGE RO5EO A. RA4ACA, &residing !udge of (ranch #;, MetropolitanTrial Court, in Manila guilty of ignorance of the law and procedure, and, accordingly, impose upon him a fine of

&;,$$$.$$ with warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.

S' 'R9+R+9.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/am_mtj-05-1580_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/am_mtj-05-1580_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/am_mtj-05-1580_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/am_mtj-05-1580_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/am_mtj-05-1580_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/am_mtj-05-1580_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/am_mtj-05-1580_2010.html#fnt10

8/19/2019 Rule 70 Cases

15/22

G.R. N$. ; A*"i+ 6;, 6

8/19/2019 Rule 70 Cases

16/22

and destroyed and the materials ta

2Art. ;:%. +very possessor has a right to be respected in his possessionB and should he be disturbed therein he

shall be protected in or restored to said possession by the means established by the laws and rules of the

Court.2% 8nderscoring supplied/ and praying for the following reliefs>

"/ 'rdering the defendant to pay plaintiff CGR Corporation the sum of at least &%$$,$$$.$$ and to

plaintiffs ?erman and Alberto (enedicto, the sum of at least &:$$,$$$.$$ each by way of actual

damages and such other amounts as proved during the trialB

#/ 'rdering the defendant to pay the plaintiffs the sum of &"$$,$$$.$$ each as moral damagesB

:/ 'rdering the defendant to pay the plaintiffs the sum of &"$$,$$$.$$ each as e*emplary damagesB

/ 'rdering the defendant to pay the plaintiffs the sum of $$,$$$.$$ as attorney)s fees, and to

reimburse plaintiffs with all such sums paid to their counsel by way of appearance fees."$ 8nderscoring

supplied/

Respondent filed a Motion to 9ismiss"" petitioners) complaint for damages on three grounds 5 litis pendentia, res

 -udicata and forum shopping.

RTC dismissed petitioners) complaint on the ground of prematurity, it holding that a complaint for damages may

only be maintained 2after a final determination on the forcible entry cases has been made.2

?ence, the present petition for review.

1ssue: 8!et!e", du"i%2 t!e *e%de%c $ t!ei" se*a"ate c$/*+ai%ts $" $"cib+e e%t", *etiti$%e"s ca%i%de*e%de%t+ i%stitute a%d /ai%tai% a% acti$% $" da/a2es !ic! t!e c+ai/ a"$se "$/ i%cide%ts$ccu""i%2 ate" t!e dis*$ssessi$% b "es*$%de%t $ t!e *"e/ises.

The petition is impressed with merit.

Section ", Rule $ of the Rules of Court provides>

S+C. ". !udgment. 5 1f after trial the court finds that the allegations of the complaint are true, it shall render

 -udgment in favor of the plaintiff for the restitution of the premises, the sum -ustly due as arrears of rent or as

reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises, attorney)s fees and costs. 1f it finds that

said allegations are not true, it shall render -udgment for the defendant to recover his costs. 1f a counterclaim is

established, the court shall render -udgment for the sum found in arrears from either party and award costs as

 -ustice reDuires. +mphasis supplied/

The recoverable damages in forcible entry and detainer cases thus refer to 2rents2 or 2the reasonablecompensation for the use and occupation of the premises2 or 2fair rental value of the property2 and attorney)s

fees and costs.": 

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_170916_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_170916_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_170916_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_170916_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_170916_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_170916_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_170916_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_170916_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_170916_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_170916_2007.html#fnt13

8/19/2019 Rule 70 Cases

17/22

9umo v. +spinas" reiterates the longestablished rule that the only form of damages that may be recovered in

an action for forcible entry is the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of

the property>

4astly, we agree with the CA and the RTC that there is no basis for the MTC to award actual, moral, and

e*emplary damages in view of the settled rule that in e-ectment cases, the only damage that can be recovered is

the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property. Considering that

the only issue raised in e-ectment is that of rightful possession, damages which could be recovered are those

which the plaintiff could have sustained as a mere possessor, or those caused by the loss of the use and

occupation of the property, and not the damages which he may have suffered but which have no direct relation

to his loss of material possession. * * *"; +mphasis, underscoring and italics suppliedB citations omitted/

'ther damages must thus be claimed in an ordinary action."= 

1n asserting the negative of the issue, respondent cites the "%%% case of &rogressive 9evelopment Corporation,

1nc. v. Court of Appeals." 1n this case, &rogressive 9evelopment Corporation, 1nc. &rogressive/, as lessor,

repossessed the leased premises from the lessee allegedly pursuant to their contract of lease whereby it was

authoriJed to do so if the lessee failed to pay monthly rentals. The lessee filed a case for forcible entry with

damages against &rogressive before the Metropolitan Trial Court MeTC/ of NueJon City. 9uring the pendencyof the case, the lessee filed an action for damages before the RTC, drawing &rogressive to file a motion to

dismiss based on litis pendentia. The RTC denied the motion.

'n appeal by &rogressive, the Court of Appeals sustained the RTC order denying the motion to dismiss.

&rogressive brought the case to this Court. Citing Section ", Rule $ of the Rules of Court, this Court reversed

the lower courts) ruling, it holding that 2all cases for forcible entry or unlawful detainer shall be filed before the

Municipal Trial Court which shall include not only the plea for restoration of possession but also all claims for

damages and costs therefrom.2 1n other words, this Court held that 2no claim for damages arising out of forcible

entry or unlawful detainer may be filed separately and independently of the claim for restoration of possession.2"

8nderscoring supplied/

1n thus ruling, this Court in &rogressive made a comparative study of the therein two complaints, thus>

 A comparative study of the two #/ complaints filed by private respondent against petitioner before the two #/

trial courts shows that not only are the elements of res ad-udicata present, at least insofar as the claim for actual

and compensatory damages is concerned, but also that the claim for damages5moral and e*emplary in addition

to actual and compensatory5constitutes splitting a single cause of action. Since this runs counter to the rule

against multiplicity of suits, the dismissal of the second action becomes imperative.

The complaint for forcible entry contains the following pertinent allegations 5

#.$" 'n $# !anuary "%%, plaintiff entered into a contract of lease with defendant &9C over a property

designated as Ground 3loor, Seafood Mar

8/19/2019 Rule 70 Cases

18/22

:.$: 9efendants) resort to strong arms tactics to forcibly wrest possession of the Sub-ect &remises from plaintiff

and maintain possession thereof through the use of force, threat, strategy and intimidation by the use of superior 

number of men and arms amounts to the ta

. 'n May #, "%%", plaintiff and defendant &9C entered into a Contract of 4ease for a period of ten years or

from !anuary #, "%% up to April :$, "%% over a property designated as Ground 3loor, Seafood Mar

8/19/2019 Rule 70 Cases

19/22

Restated in its bare essentials, the forcible entry case has one cause of action, namely, the alleged unlawful

entry by petitioner into the leased premises out of which three :/ reliefs denominated by private respondent as

its causes of action/ arose> a/ the restoration by the lessor petitioner herein/ of the possession of the leased

premises to the lessee, b/ the claim for actual damages due to the losses suffered by private respondent such

as the deterioration of perishable foodstuffs stored inside the premises and the deprivation of the use of the

premises causing loss of e*pected profitsB and, c/ the claim for attorney)s fees and costs of suit.

'n the other hand, the complaint for damages prays for a monetary award consisting of a/ moral damages of

&;$$,$$$.$$ and e*emplary damages of another &;$$,$$$.$$B b/ actual damages of $,$$$.$$ and

compensatory damages of &",$$$,$$$.$$ representing unrealiJed profitsB and, c/ $$,$$$.$$ for attorney)s

fees and costs, all based on the alleged forcible ta

8/19/2019 Rule 70 Cases

20/22

G.R. N$. ?=6@= N$-e/be" 6, 6

* * * The court a Duo ruled that the case filed by plaintiffs respondents herein/ is unlawful detainer as shown by

the allegations of the Complaint. The ruling of the court a Duo is not accurate. It is %$t t!e a++e2ati$%s $ t!eC$/*+ai%t t!at i%a++ dete"/i%e !et!e" a case is u%+au+ detai%e", "at!e" it is t!e e-ide%ce i% t!e case.

8nlawful detainer reDuires the significant element of 2tolerance2. Tolerance of the occupation of the property

must be present right from the start of the defendants) possession. The phrase 2from the start of defendants)

possession2 is significant. 8!e% t!e"e is %$ t$+e"a%ce "i2!t "$/ t!e sta"t $ t!e *$ssessi$% s$u2!t t$ be"ec$-e"ed, t!e case $ u%+au+ detai%e" i++ %$t *"$s*e".: emphasis in the originalB underscoring supplied/

The RTC went on to rule that the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the City bars the continuation of the

unlawful detainer proceedings, and since the -udgment had already been rendered in the e*propriation

proceedings which effectively turned over the lots to the City, the MeTC has no -urisdiction to 2disregard the . . .

final -udgment and writ of possession2 due to nonpayment of -ust compensation>

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_189239_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_189239_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_189239_2010.html#fnt3

8/19/2019 Rule 70 Cases

21/22

The Erit of &ossession shows that possession over the properties sub-ect of this case had already been given to

the City of &araOaDue since !anuary "%, #$$= after they were e*propriated. It is se"i$us e""$" $" t!e c$u"t au$ t$ "u+e i% t!e u%+au+ detai%e" case t!at 5a2dia%2 Rea+t C$"*$"ati$% a%d Fi+9$/es Rea+t a%dDe-e+$*/e%t C$"*$"ati$% c$u+d sti++ be 2i-e% *$ssessi$% $ t!e *"$*e"ties !ic! e"e a+"eade*"$*"iated i% a-$" $ t!e Cit $ Pa"aHaue.

There is also another serious lapse in the ruling of the court a Duo that the case for e*propriation in the Regional

Trial Court would not bar, suspend or abate the e-ectment proceedings. The court a Duo had failed to consider

the fact that the case for e*propriation was already decided by the Regional Trial Court, (ranch "%= way bac< in

the year #$$= or # years before the court a Duo rendered its -udgment in the unlawful detainer case in the year

#$$. 1n fact, there was already a Erit of &ossession way bac< in the year "%%= sic/ issued in the e*propriation

case by the Regional Trial Court, (ranch "%=. T!e c$u"t a u$ !as %$ -a+id "eas$% t$ dis"e2a"d t!e saidi%a+ 3ud2/e%t a%d t!e "it $ *$ssessi$% a+"ead issued b t!e Re2i$%a+ T"ia+ C$u"t i% a-$" $ t!e Cit$ Pa"aHaue a%d a2ai%st 5a2dia%2 Rea+t C$"*$"ati$% a%d Fi+9$/es Rea+t De-e+$*/e%tC$"*$"ati$% a%d /ae a%$t!e" 3ud2/e%t c$%ce"%i%2 *$ssessi$% $ t!e sub3ect *"$*e"ties c$%t"a" t$t!e i%a+ 3ud2/e%t $ t!e Re2i$%a+ T"ia+ C$u"t, 4"a%c! =>. emphasis in the original/

(efore the Court of Appeals where respondents filed a petition for review, they maintained that respondents) 2act

of allowing several years to pass without reDuiring HthemI to vacate nor filing an e-ectment case against themamounts to acDuiescence or tolerance of their possession.2;

(y 9ecision of May #, #$$%,= the appellate court, noting that petitioners did not present evidence to rebut

respondents) allegation of possession by tolerance, and considering petitioners) admission that they commenced

occupation of the property without the permission of the previous owner P &ilipinas 9evelopment Corporation P

as indicium of tolerance by respondents) predecessorininterest, ruled in favor of respondents. ?eld the

appellate court>

Ehere the defendant)s entry upon the land was with plaintiff)s tolerance from the date and fact of entry, unlawful

detainer proceedings may be instituted within one year from the demand on him to vacate upon demand. The

status of such defendant is analogous to that of a tenant or lessee, the term of whose lease, has e*pired butwhose occupancy is continued by the tolerance of the lessor. The same rule applies where the defendant

purchased the house of the former lessee, who was already in arrears in the payment of rentals, and thereafter

occupied the premises without a new lease contract with the landowner.

Respecting the issuance of a writ of possession in the e*propriation proceedings, the appellate court, citing

%epublic v. :ingoyon, held the same does not signify the completion of the e*propriation proceedings. Thus it

disposed>

E?+R+3'R+, premises considered, the instant &etition is GRA0T+9. The assailed 9ecision of the Court a

Duo is R+6'Q+9 and S+T AS19+. The 9ecision of the Metropolitan Trial Court dated March :, #$$ is hereby

R+10STAT+9 with M'9131CAT1'0 HbyI deleting the award for attorney)s fees.

S' 'R9+R+9. underscoring supplied/

&etitioners) motion for reconsideration was denied by Resolution dated August #=, #$$%, hence, the filing of the

present petition for review.

The petition fails.

 As a general rule, e-ectment proceedings, due to its summary nature, are not suspended or their resolution held

in abeyance despite the pendency of a civil action regarding ownership.

Section " of Commonwealth Act 0o. ;:"$ enlightens, however>

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_189239_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_189239_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_189239_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_189239_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_189239_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_189239_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_189239_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_189239_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_189239_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_189239_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_189239_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_189239_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_189239_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_189239_2010.html#fnt10

8/19/2019 Rule 70 Cases

22/22

Section ". Ehen the Government see"

1n allowing several years to pass without reDuiring the occupant to vacate the premises nor filing an action to

e-ect him, plaintiffs have acDuiesced to defendant)s possession and use of the premises. 1t has been held that a

person who occupies the land of another at the latter)s tolerance or permission, without any contract between

them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing which a summaryaction for e-ectment is the proper remedy against them. The status of the defendant is analogous to that of a

lessee or tenant whose term of lease has e*pired but whose occupancy continued by tolerance of the owner. 1n

such a case, the unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession is to be counted from the date of the demand

to vacate. emphasis and underscoring supplied/

Respondents bought the lots from &ilipinas 9evelopment Corporation in "%:. They stepped into the shoes of

the seller with respect to its relationship with petitioners. +ven if early on respondents made no demand or filed

no action against petitioners to e-ect them from the lots, they thereby merely maintained the status Duo 5 allowed

petitioners) possession by tolerance.

89EREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED. 

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_189239_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_189239_2010.html#fnt14