Case Digest (G.R. No. 229076)
Facts:
Ma. Luz Teves Esperal v. Ma. Luz Trompeta-Esperal and Lorenz Annel Biaoco, G.R. No. 229076, September 16, 2020, the Supreme Court Second Division, Inting, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Ma. Luz Teves Esperal filed a forcible entry (ejectment) suit over a 109-square meter parcel covered by TCT No. 125190, registered in the names of Pablo Rostata and petitioner. Petitioner and Pablo had been married but their marriage was later declared void due to Pablo’s prior marriage. While petitioner was working abroad, she discovered in September 2012 that the subject property, vacant when she left, was occupied by tenants who said they paid rent to Lorenz Annel Biaoco, nephew of Ma. Luz Trompeta-Esperal (respondent Trompeta). Petitioner confronted Biaoco, who admitted managing the property and collecting rent for his aunt; after petitioner asserted ownership, respondents voluntarily left and petitioner reentered, designated her sister Rosario Ola as administrator, changed the locks, and arranged for rent collection.
When petitioner returned to the United States, Ola reported that in the third week of October 2012 respondents forcibly reentered: they destroyed the locks with a bolt cutter, changed them, barred tenants from entering, and posted a rent sign. Ola reported the incident to the barangay on October 23, 2012; petitioner’s counsel sent a demand letter; respondents refused to vacate. Petitioner then filed a Complaint for Ejectment and Damages at the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 77, Paranaque City (Civil Case No. 2013-21). Respondents countered that petitioner was not the real party in interest, contending that Pablo executed an Affidavit of Acceptance for the Foreclosure of the Mortgage of Real Property dated March 15, 2005 declaring Trompeta as the new owner.
On October 28, 2014, the MeTC rendered judgment for petitioner, ordering respondents and those claiming under them to vacate the property, pay Php 5,000.00 per month as actual damages from the demand dated October 23, 2012, attorney’s fees of Php 20,000.00, and costs. Respondents appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 257, Paranaque City. On June 30, 2015, the RTC dismissed the appeal and affirmed the MeTC decision, reasoning that the issue of ownership could be tentatively resolved for purposes of determining possession and concluding petitioner was a co-owner entitled to bring ejectment. The RTC denied respondents’ motion for reconsideration on August 19, 2015.
Respondents then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 142161. On June 10, 2016 the CA, in a decision later memorialized by a January 5, 2017 resolution, reversed and set aside the RTC and MeTC decisions, holding that an ejectment action was not proper in view of the contrasting claims of ownership and that the parties should institute a proper action before a court of competent jurisdiction to resolve ownership conclusively. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 in the Supreme Court, alleging the CA erred in holding that the ejectment was improper because both parties claimed ownership.
Issues:
- May an ejectment (forcible entry) court resolve ownership issues provisionally when both parties assert ownership, or is an ejectment suit improper when there are contrasting claims of ownership?
- Did petitioner prove the elements of forcible entry such that she was entitled to possession and the MeTC judgment should be reinstated?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)