Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18800) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Melba Moncal Enriquez v. Hon. Court of Appeals and Victorina Tigle, G.R. No. 140473, decided on January 28, 2003, respondent Victorina Tigle sued petitioner Melba Moncal Enriquez for unlawful detainer in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Bayawan-Basay, Negros Oriental (Civil Case No. 1062). Tigle alleged that on December 14, 1994, she purchased a 179-sqm parcel (Lot No. 377) at Tinego, Bayawan from Engracia Macaraya, who had merely tolerated Enriquez’s occupation and had offered her an option to buy, which Enriquez declined. After purchase, Tigle demanded possession, but Enriquez refused to vacate. Enriquez answered with a counterclaim, arguing that Macaraya owned only an undivided one-seventh share of the lot and that the entire parcel was not yet identified for ejectment under Article 434 of the Civil Code. On June 2, 1997, the MCTC ruled in Tigle’s favor, ordering Enriquez to vacate, remove improvements, and pay litigation costs and attorney’s fees. Enriquez appe Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18800) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Unlawful detainer action in the MCTC
- On February 29, 1996, Victorina Tigle filed Civil Case No. 1062 for unlawful detainer against Melba Moncal Enriquez before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Bayawan-Basay, Negros Oriental.
- Tigle alleged that she purchased Lot No. 377 in Tinego, Bayawan on December 14, 1994 from Engracia Macaraya; Enriquez was merely a tolerated occupant and had declined an option to buy; Enriquez refused to vacate upon demand.
- Counterclaim and MCTC decision
- Enriquez counterclaimed that the property was co-owned by heirs of Felix Moncal and that Macaraya sold only her undivided 1/7 share, which was unidentified and thus not subject to ejectment (Art. 434, Civil Code).
- On June 2, 1997, the MCTC rendered judgment:
- Declared Tigle to be in actual, prior and physical possession of 179 sqm (Sub-Lot No. 2-A of Lot No. 2).
- Ordered Enriquez to vacate, remove improvements, pay P3,000 litigation expenses and P10,000 attorney’s fees.
- Denied compensation and moral/exemplary damages for lack of pleading; dismissed counterclaim.
- Proceedings in the Regional Trial Court
- Enriquez appealed to the RTC of Dumaguete City. On February 16, 1998, the RTC ordered the parties to submit memoranda within 15 days (Rule 40, Sec. 7).
- Enriquez’s counsel failed to file a memorandum. On October 6, 1998, the RTC dismissed her appeal for non-compliance and, on October 30, 1998, denied her motion for reconsideration.
- Proceedings in the Court of Appeals
- Enriquez filed CA-G.R. SP No. 50360. On July 20, 1999, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit, upholding the RTC’s dismissal.
- The CA denied reconsideration on September 24, 1999.
- Petition to the Supreme Court
- Enriquez contends that the CA and RTC gravely abused discretion by dismissing her appeal instead of deciding on the record under Rule 40, Sec. 7(c).
- She seeks to set aside all orders, dismiss the original ejectment case with costs, and grant her monetary counterclaims.
Issues:
- Procedural compliance
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion by affirming the RTC’s dismissal of Enriquez’s appeal for failure to file the required memorandum under Rule 40, Section 7(b)?
- Should the RTC have decided the appeal on the basis of the record and memoranda under Rule 40, Section 7(c) despite the appellant’s failure to submit a memorandum?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)