G.R. No. 195956 - ABS-CBN Corporation vs. Gozon

On October 1, 2010, Teresita de los Santos (petitioner Teresita) and spouses Analyn de los Santos-Lopez and Raphael Lopez (petitioner spouses) filed a Complaint for Ejectment/Unlawful Detainer with Damages before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of BiAan, Laguna, docketed as Civil Case No. 4086, against respondent Joel Lucenio (respondent Joel) and all persons claiming rights under him.
Petitioner Teresita lent her name and credit standing to enable her daughter and son-in-law (petitioner spouses) to purchase a property from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) through a Deed of Assignment dated August 31, 2010.
GSIS issued a Notice of Approval on January 19, 2010, approving petitioner Teresita’s application to purchase the property located at Block 8, Lot 14, Juana I Complex, BiAan, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-129136 issued under GSIS’s name.
Petitioner spouses paid a deposit of P87,255.00 and a front end service fee of P7,852.97.
On May 12, 2010, GSIS executed a Deed of Conditional Sale over the subject property in favor of petitioner Teresita.
Despite demand, respondent Joel refused to vacate the property; an amicable settlement through Barangay Lupong Tagapamayapa failed.

Respondent Joel alleged his sister previously obtained a housing loan from GSIS in 1995 and had ownership over the property.
In 2005, his sister executed a Deed of Transfer of Rights in favor of respondent Joel.
Respondent Joel availed condonation/amnesty offered by GSIS and paid a 10% down payment but could not pay amortizations due to GSIS's failure to correctly compute the loan balance.
The GSIS’s Deed of Conditional Sale in favor of petitioner Teresita was void for lacking due process and GSIS did not foreclose the property.

The MTC ruled in favor of petitioners, recognizing their inchoate ownership rights and ordered respondent Joel to vacate the property, pay P5,000/month as reasonable compensation starting May 16, 2010, attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTC decision, holding petitioners had legal possession and noting respondent Joel failed to pay delinquencies since the 2005 Deed of Transfer of Rights.
The RTC denied respondent Joel’s motion for reconsideration and granted petitioners' motions for immediate execution and break open order.

Respondent Joel appealed to the CA and for the first time raised an issue regarding GSIS's alleged failure to comply with Republic Act No. 6552 (Maceda Law), alleging the contract was never cancelled nor was the cash surrender value refunded to his sister.
On September 29, 2014, the CA reversed the RTC ruling and dismissed petitioners' complaint for unlawful detainer for GSIS’s failure to issue a notarized notice of cancellation and refund the cash surrender value.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, contesting the CA's acceptance of respondent Joel’s new theory and submitting evidence of cancellation.
The CA denied the motion for reconsideration on December 1, 2014.

Petitioners filed a petition before the Supreme Court raising grave abuse of discretion by the CA in allowing respondent Joel to change his theory on appeal, the improper application of the Maceda Law, and failure to consider evidence.
Petitioners argued the new defense was not raised before the trial courts, violating their right to due process.
Respondent Joel contended the Maceda Law should apply and that GSIS’s sale in favor of petitioners was void due to failure to return the cash surrender value.

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion by allowing respondent Joel to raise a new theory on appeal regarding GSIS’s non-compliance with the Maceda Law.
Whether the Maceda Law applies to the parties involved considering both are buyers of the subject property from GSIS, not seller and buyer.
Whether petitioner Teresita and spouses have better right to possession of the subject property over respondent Joel.