Case Digest (G.R. No. 255397)
Facts:
De Mesa v. Pulutan and Bundalian, G.R. No. 255397, September 12, 2022, Supreme Court Third Division, Dimaampao, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Marlene D. De Mesa filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer and Damages against respondents Rudy D. Pulutan and Medy P. Bundalian in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), San Pablo City (docketed as Civil Case No. 1890-17), alleging she was the owner of a house and lot formerly covered by TCT No. T-61656 which she purchased from Amelia D. Pulutan and on which a new title (TCT No. T-75686) was later issued in her name. Prior to issuance of the new title, petitioner and Amelia executed a contract of lease (October 2006 to September 2007), after which Amelia continued to occupy the property together with her son Rudy and his family.Petitioner alleged that Amelia failed to pay rent and, after Amelia failed to repay or repurchase the property within an agreed period (to December 30, 2009), petitioner demanded that Amelia vacate; petitioner allegedly tolerated Amelia’s continued occupation out of pity because Amelia was old and sickly. Amelia died on October 24, 2016; petitioner then demanded that Rudy vacate, but he refused, prompting petitioner to file the unlawful detainer action. Respondents countered that the transaction between petitioner and Amelia was an equitable mortgage (or a sale “akin to an equitable mortgage”) rather than an outright sale, noting Amelia’s continuous possession until death.
The MTCC (Decision dated August 30, 2018) ruled for petitioner, finding the contract to be a sale and awarding possession, attorney’s fees (P20,000), and P5,000 per month as reasonable use from January 2017 until vacation. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), San Pablo City, Branch 32 (Decision dated February 6, 2019 in Civil Case No. SP-7598 (18)), affirmed the MTCC with modification, reducing the monthly rental award to P2,000 and ordering implementation of the writ of execution because respondents failed to post a supersedeas bond; the RTC denied respondents’ motion for reconsideration. Respondents elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 159665.
The CA, in its Decision dated March 6, 2020, annulled and set aside the RTC judgment and dismissed the unlawful detainer complaint, concluding that the deed of sale was in truth an equitable mortgage under Article 1602 of the Civil Code (citing badges such as the vendor remaining in possession) and ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May petitioner introduce a new theory of ownership (based on a Deed of Redemption and new documentary annexes) for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the RTC and MTCC by ruling that the deed of sale between petitioner and Amelia was an equitable mortgage and therefore dismissing the unlawful detainer complaint for lack of proof of petitioner’s better right to possession?
- Did the CA’s provisional resolution of ownership constitute a collateral attack on petitioner’s Torrens Certificate of Title?
- Would affirmance of the CA’s dismissal amount to impermissible...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)