Case Digest (G.R. No. 169380)
Facts:
Fiorello R. Jose v. Roberto Alfuerto, et al., G.R. No. 169380, November 26, 2012, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Fiorello R. Jose sought to eject numerous occupants of a parcel in Barangay San Dionisio, Parañaque City registered in the name of Rodolfo Chua Sing (TCT No. 52594). In April 1999 Chua Sing executed an unnotarized, unregistered lease in favor of petitioner for a five‑year term; the respondents were already occupying the lot before that lease. On April 28, 1999 petitioner sent written demands that the occupants vacate within 30 days and pay P1,000 monthly until vacating; they refused.Petitioner filed an ejectment case in the Paranaque MeTC (Civil Case No. 11344) on October 20, 1999; a barangay conciliation resulted in a Certification to File Action dated March 1, 2000, and petitioner filed an amended complaint on March 17, 2000 alleging the respondents’ occupancy was by mere tolerance of the registered owner and thus subject to unlawful detainer. The respondents answered, contending they had possessed the land long before Chua Sing’s 1991 acquisition and asserting title/ownership issues (including a Deed of Assignment dated February 13, 2000). They also pleaded lack of jurisdiction and counterclaimed for damages.
The MeTC ruled for petitioner in a decision dated January 27, 2003, finding respondents’ possession was by tolerance and ordering vacatur, monthly payments, costs and attorney’s fees. The RTC, Branch 257, affirmed by decision dated October 8, 2003, holding the action was one for unlawful detainer and was timely filed within one year from the alleged unlawful withholding after demand. On appeal the Court of Appeals, in a decision dated March 14, 2005 (and denial of reconsideration in a resolution dated August 22, 2005), reversed and dismissed the complaint, reasoning the amended complaint alleged unlawful possession from the outset (not tolerance), thus the action was actually for recovery of possession (accion publiciana/accion reivindicatoria) and could not be prosecuted as unlawful detainer. Petitioner brought a Rule 45 petition for review ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the complaint’s cause of action is not for unlawful detainer but for recovery of possession (accion publiciana/accion reivindicatoria) and is therefore dismissible.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in deciding the case on the basis of a material change of theory by respondents that deprived petitioner of due process.
- Whether the Supreme Court may decide the case on the merits as an accion publiciana or accion rei...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)