Case Digest (G.R. No. 168156)
Facts:
Heirs of Rosendo Lasam v. Vicenta Umengan, G.R. No. 168156, December 06, 2006, Supreme Court First Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court. The petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 assails the Court of Appeals Decision dated February 16, 2005 in CA‑G.R. SP No. 80032 and its Resolution of May 17, 2005; the petitioners are the Heirs of Rosendo Lasam, represented by Rogelio M. Lasam and Atty. Edward P. Llonillo, and the respondent is Vicenta Umengan.The disputed property is the eastern half of Lots Nos. 5427 and 990 in Tuguegarao City (total ~554 sq. m.), originally under OCT Nos. 196 and 1032 in the names of Pedro Cuntapay and Leona Bunagan. The family executed a 1979 Partition Agreement allocating the eastern half to the heirs of Isabel Cuntapay. Isabel had four children by her first husband (Abdon, Sado (deceased), Rufo, Maria) and two by her second husband (Trinidad and Rosendo Lasam). Petitioners are heirs of Rosendo Lasam.
In January 2001 petitioners sued respondent in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch III, Tuguegarao City, for unlawful detainer, alleging petitioner‑ownership (through Rosendo) and that respondent occupied the lot only by tolerance since about 1955 and refused to vacate after demand. Respondent answered and counterclaimed, asserting she and predecessors acquired pro indiviso shares by deed of sale (1961 and 1975) and donation (1961), and claiming possession since 1955.
The MTCC ruled for petitioners, giving weight to a purported newly discovered Testamento Abierto of Isabel Cuntapay bequeathing a 1/5 share to Rosendo, and ordered ejectment, rent and attorney’s fees. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 1, affirmed the MTCC decision. Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, while agreeing that the MTCC had jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer action, reversed the RTC and MTCC on the merits: it found the purported will failed formal requisites under the law on wills, had not been probated, and possibly spurious; in contrast respondent’s deeds and long...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the MTCC have jurisdiction to hear the unlawful detainer complaint?
- Could the Court of Appeals properly examine the validity and probative effect of the purported last will and testament in resolving an unlawful detainer suit?
- Did the purported unprobated Testamento Abierto of Isabel Cuntapay give petitioners a better right to possession than respondent’s asserted conveyances and long possession?
- Does the RTC’s dismissal of respondent’s partition action (Civil Case No. 4917) operate as res judicata against respondent’s relianc...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)