Case Digest (G.R. No. 109032)
Facts:
Dennis Del Rosario v. Hon. Court of Appeals and Jose Luna, G.R. No. 109032, February 21, 1995, Supreme Court Second Division, Puno, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Dennis del Rosario (attorney‑in‑fact for his parents, Oseas and Loreta del Rosario) was in possession by tolerance of a two‑storey house and lot at No. 42 Scout Chuatoco Street, Quezon City (TCT No. 84801). On October 9, 1984 the spouses del Rosario, through petitioner, hypothecated the property in favor of private respondent Jose Luna for P250,000.00; when they defaulted, petitioner (as attorney‑in‑fact) executed a Deed of Sale on May 26, 1987 conveying the property to Luna for P450,000.00. Title was cancelled and a new title (TCT No. 384106) was issued in Luna’s name on June 7, 1988.
After sale, petitioner was allowed temporary occupancy but sought extensions to vacate by letters of January 3, 1989 and March 31, 1989. On November 15, 1989 Luna demanded surrender within five days; petitioner did not vacate. Conciliation at the barangay level failed and Luna filed an ejectment complaint (Civil Case No. 2476) before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Quezon City, Branch 39. Petitioner answered alleging the sale documents were fraudulent and claiming that his father had an action for quieting of title (Civil Case No. Q‑89‑3742) pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing this divested the MTC of jurisdiction.
The MTC treated the case under the summary procedure and, after affidavits and position papers, ordered petitioner and those claiming under him to vacate and to pay P1,500.00 per month as reasonable compensation from filing until vacation; attorney’s fees and moral damages were denied. Petitioner appealed to the RTC, Branch 99, which affirmed in toto. Petitioner then sought relief from the Court of Appeals; its Third Division dismissed his petition with costs, and denied reconsideration on February 16, 1993.
Petitioner filed a petition for review with this Court (Rule 45) with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, contending (1) the Court of Appeals erred by not conducting a hearing to resolve factual...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Metropolitan Trial Court have jurisdiction over the ejectment suit despite the pending quieting of title before the Regional Trial Court?
- Was the MTC (and the appellate courts) required to conduct an oral hearing and receive testimonial evidence instead of deciding the ejectment on affidavits and position papers under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure and Section 9...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)