G.R. No. 169380 - Jose vs. Alfuerto

Case Digest (G.R. No. 169380)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Background of the Property and Parties

The subject property is a parcel of land consisting of 1,919 square meters, registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 52594 in the name of Rodolfo Chua Sing.
Chua Sing acquired the land in 1991, and it became the legal basis for subsequent legal actions.
The respondents had been occupying the property even before the lease contract was executed.

Lease Contract and Its Provisions

On April 1, 1999, Chua Sing leased the subject property to petitioner Fiorello R. Jose.
The lease contract was not notarized nor registered with the ParaAaque City Registry of Deeds.
The contract contained a provision granting the lessee the right to evict occupants:

The term of the lease was five (5) years, with an option to renew upon mutual agreement.
It provided that the lessor transferred to the lessee the prerogative to evict any occupant, who was to bear all expenses incurred in such eviction.
The lessor expressly waived any claims for damages recoverable from the occupants.

Petitioner’s Demand and Immediate Actions

On April 28, 1999, shortly after the lease was signed, the petitioner demanded in writing that the respondents vacate the property within 30 days.
The petitioner also demanded that the respondents pay a monthly rental of P1,000.00 until they vacated.
The respondents refused both the demand to vacate and the payment of rent.

Initiation of the Ejectment Case

On October 20, 1999, the petitioner filed an ejectment case before Branch 77 of the ParaAaque City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), docketed as Civil Case No. 11344.
In the initial complaint, the petitioner did not refer to any proceedings before the barangay.
Subsequently, the petitioner brought the dispute before the barangay for conciliation which resulted in:

A Certification to File Action issued by the barangay on March 1, 2000.
An amended complaint subsequently filed on March 17, 2000, incorporating the barangay proceedings and detailing the petitioner’s claim as a lessee, alleging that:

The respondents were occupying the property unlawfully.
They had erected houses on the lot without any contractual or legal basis and without the necessary building permit.
The petitioner’s written demand had been ignored without any legal justification.

Relief Sought by the Petitioner

The petitioner prayed that the respondents be ordered to:

Vacate the premises.
Pay not less than P41,000.00 per month from May 30, 1999, until they vacated.
Pay attorney’s fees of no less than P50,000.00, in addition to the costs of suit.

Respondents’ Defense and Counterclaims

The respondents contended that:

They had been in possession of the property since before Chua Sing acquired it in 1991.
The lease contract between Chua Sing and the petitioner did not affect their right to possess the land.

They presented a Deed of Assignment dated February 13, 2000, purportedly transferring rights in their favor.
They argued that:

The Metropolitan Trial Court did not have jurisdiction because the issues involved ownership of the land.
The petitioner’s claim lacked a proper cause of action.
They counterclaimed for actual and moral damages, alleging that the suit was baseless and malicious.

Lower Courts’ Decisions

The MeTC, in its decision dated January 27, 2003, ruled in favor of the petitioner by holding that:

The respondents had no right to possess the land, as their occupation was by mere tolerance of the owner.
The respondents’ claim of ownership was barred since a previous case had upheld the validity of Chua Sing’s title.
The respondents were ordered to vacate the premises, remove any structures, pay a monthly rental of P500.00, as well as the costs and attorney’s fees.

The RTC, on October 8, 2003, affirmed the MeTC decision, reiterating that:

An ejectment case was proper since the petitioner, as a lessee, had the right to file the complaint.
The respondents’ occupation was deemed unlawful upon the petitioner's demand to vacate despite their earlier tolerance.
The petition was timely filed within one year after the alleged unlawful deprivation of possession.

The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Proceedings

On March 14, 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and MeTC decisions:

It ruled that the cause of action was not one of unlawful detainer but for recovery of possession because the petitioner's allegations did not satisfy the essential requirements.
The respondents’ historical possession, which began before the petitioner’s lessor acquired the property, meant that their possession had been effective for more than a year, rendering eviction through an ejectment case impermissible.

The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied in the Court of Appeals’ resolution on August 22, 2005.
In the petition before the Supreme Court, the petitioner raised the following issues (which are detailed in the Issues section).

Issues:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the cause of action of the amended complaint is not one for unlawful detainer but rather for recovery of possession.
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in deciding the case based on the respondents’ material change of theory, which was inconsistent with the defenses they previously invoked before the municipal trial court.
Whether or not this Honorable Court may decide the case on the merits to avoid circuitous procedure in the administration of justice.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Case Digest (G.R. No. 169380) Core Legal Reasoning Model Expanded

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 169380) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Doctrine:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 169380)
Core Legal Reasoning Model

Expanded

Case Digest (G.R. No. 169380)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model