Case Digest (G.R. No. 232437)
Facts:
Mario T. De Vera, Florence De Vera Sanicolas, Teresita T. De Vera, Purisima De Vera Estrada, Lourdes T. De Vera and Rosalinda De Vera Pascua, by hersef and as attorney-in-fact of her co-petitioners, petitioners, v. Virgilio A. Manzanero, Roger Manzanero, Ariel Manzanero, and all persons claiming rights under them, G.R. No. 232437, June 30, 2021, Supreme Court Third Division, Lopez, J., writing for the Court.The petitioners are the surviving children and heirs of Bernardo A. De Vera, Sr. Bernardo obtained from the National Housing Authority (NHA) the property described as Block 1‑C, Lot 13, Avocado corner Durian Street, CAA, Las Piñas City. Bernardo died in 1993 leaving unpaid obligations to the NHA; his surviving spouse was Emelie Moreno Vda. De Vera (Emelie). In the morning of September 9, 1995, respondent Virgilio Manzanero, then barangay chairman, allegedly with about twenty men, forcibly entered the subject property, destroyed structures thereon, and ousted petitioners from possession. Petitioners filed police and administrative complaints beginning in 2000 and Rosalinda pursued various complaints through 2009.
Petitioners received a Final Demand of Settlement from the NHA in August 2012 and, through Rosalinda, paid the outstanding balance on December 26, 2013. On June 19, 2014 petitioners sued respondents in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Civil‑14‑0061, seeking judgment ordering respondents and all claiming under them to vacate and return possession of the property. Respondents answered, attaching a purported Affidavit of Waiver (claiming Emelie transferred rights), and moved to dismiss for failure to comply with the barangay conciliation requirement under Section 412 of the Local Government Code; the RTC denied the motion and subsequent motions for reconsideration. After petitioners offered evidence, respondents attempted to file a supplemental motion to dismiss but the RTC denied it and deemed respondents’ presentation of evidence not availed of.
On February 15, 2016 the RTC dismissed petitioners’ complaint, holding that petitioners were co‑owners pro indiviso with Emelie and that the proper remedy was an action for judicial partition rather than an action for recovery of possession. Petitioners appealed. On March 16, 2017 the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. CV No. 106781 affirmed the RTC’s dismissal for being the wrong remedy and the CA denied reconsi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that petitioners’ remedy was an action for partition rather than an action for recovery of possession?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that respondents validly possessed the sub...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)