Case Digest (G.R. No. 176995)
Facts:
The case involves Pablo D. Acaylar, Jr. as the petitioner and Danilo G. Harayo as the respondent. The events leading to the case began when Harayo filed a complaint against Acaylar in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Dapitan City, seeking possession of a parcel of land designated as Lot 741-B-1, located in Tolon, Potungan, Dapitan City, with an area of 30,000 square meters. Harayo claimed to have acquired the property from the spouses Pablo Acaylar, Sr. and Zoila Dangcalan Acaylar through a Deed of Sale executed on September 14, 2004. Following the sale, Harayo took possession of the property. However, on September 19, 2004, Acaylar allegedly entered the property without permission, cut tall grasses, gathered coconuts, and pastured his animals there.
In his answer, Acaylar contended that the property was part of a larger estate owned by his parents, totaling 59,775 square meters, and that he had been in possession of the entire property since 1979 as its admin...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 176995)
Facts:
Background of the Case
- The case involves a dispute over a parcel of land designated as Lot 741-B-1, located in Tolon, Potungan, Dapitan City, with an area of 30,000 square meters.
- Respondent Danilo G. Harayo claimed to have acquired the property from the spouses Pablo Acaylar, Sr., and Zoila Dangcalan Acaylar through a Deed of Sale executed on September 14, 2004.
- Respondent alleged that he took immediate possession of the property after the sale but was ousted by petitioner Pablo D. Acaylar, Jr., who entered the property on September 19, 2004, and began cutting grasses, gathering coconuts, and pasturing animals.
Petitioner’s Defense
- Petitioner countered that the property in question is part of a larger property owned by his parents, the spouses Acaylar, with a total area of 59,775 square meters.
- He claimed to have been in possession of the entire property since 1979 as its administrator, having built his house and farmed the land.
- Petitioner argued that the portion sold to respondent was not clearly delineated, and he, along with his sisters, had filed a case for annulment of the Deed of Sale, which was pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Procedural History
- The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) ruled in favor of respondent, awarding him possession of the property and ordering petitioner to vacate.
- The RTC affirmed the MTCC’s decision, holding that the sale of the property vested ownership and possession in respondent, and petitioner’s actions constituted forcible entry.
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it on technical grounds, including failure to pay the correct docket fees and failure to state material dates.
- The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, prompting him to file the present Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
- Technicalities in Appeals: The Court ruled that procedural lapses, such as failure to pay the correct docket fees or state material dates, are excusable when substantial justice is at stake. The Court opted to resolve the case on its merits rather than dismiss it on technical grounds.
- Prior Physical Possession: The Court found that petitioner had been in physical possession of the property since 1979, even if his possession was merely tolerated by his parents. Respondent failed to prove that he took actual possession of the property after the sale, making his claim of forcible entry untenable.
- Nature of Ejectment Cases: The Court reiterated that ejectment cases (forcible entry or unlawful detainer) are limited to determining who has the right to physical possession. Ownership or legal possession is irrelevant in such cases.
- Demand to Vacate: The Court noted that a demand to vacate is a jurisdictional requirement in unlawful detainer cases. Since no such demand was made, respondent’s action could not be treated as one for unlawful detainer.
The Court dismissed respondent’s Complaint without prejudice to his filing the appropriate remedy to acquire possession of the property and to the resolution of the pending annulment case.