Case Digest (G.R. No. 133542)
Facts:
Francisco Dee, represented in this instrument by Fortunato T. Dee, G.R. No. 133542, January 29, 2004, the Supreme Court Second Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Dee filed an action for forcible entry with damages in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Morong, Rizal against respondent Rodolfo Tingson, alleging ownership of a 91,252 sq. m. parcel covered by TCT No. M-19409 and asserting that at about midnight of January 17, 1996 Tingson and companions clandestinely entered and occupied some 15,000 sq. m. of the eastern portion, destroyed fences, and erected his own. The complaint recounted prior barangay confrontations and an agreement to have the area surveyed and to maintain the status quo pending resolution.
Tingson answered that the fenced parcels were Lots 6717 and 6107 (parts of Plan M-126276) embraced by OCT No. M-6898 in his name, that he had cultivated them for years and had applied to the DENR for a free patent; he disputed the claimed contiguity and objected to using the petitioner’s technical description in any resurvey. The MTC framed four issues (ownership/possession, existence of barangay agreement, damages, nature of the land), received affidavits and position papers, and ordered respondent to furnish the original technical description of Cadastre Lot 393. The court found petitioner’s affidavits credible, found defendant’s proof wanting, and on July 11, 1997 rendered judgment for petitioner ordering removal of improvements, monthly use-and-occupation, attorney’s fees, and costs.
On appeal the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTC and ordered further proceedings and a survey to determine the extent of petitioner’s property, reasoning that the parties had been unsure of the property boundaries and that a survey was necessary even in summary ejectment to determine the truth. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC on January 23, 1998.
Petitioner sought a petition for review in the Court of Appeals (CA), assigning errors including that the RTC exceeded jurisdiction by ordering a survey in summary proceedings. The CA (Fourth Division) dismissed the petition for noncompliance with Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, finding petitioner failed to attach clearly legible certified duplicate copies of the lower courts’ decisions and that the Certificate Against Forum Shopping was executed only by counsel and not by petitioner. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration to the CA was denied. Thereafter petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing the CA erred in dismissing the petition on technical grounds and asking the Court to resolve whether under Section 10 of the Rules on Summary Procedure a trial court may allow a survey despite the parties’ agreement to submit the case for decision...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals properly dismiss petitioner’s Rule 42 petition for failure to comply with Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court?
- May the trial court order a survey of the disputed property in an action for forcible entry under the Rules on Summary Procedure (Section 10), despite the parties’ agreement to submit the case for decision without a survey?
- Was the Regional Trial Court’s order for a survey and further proceedings a final, appealable judgment, and w...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)