Case Digest (G.R. No. L-23727)
Facts:
Gracia R. Joven v. Court of Appeals, Hon. Manuel A. Patron, Roberto Paguia & Fernando Lasala, G.R. No. 80739, August 20, 1992, Supreme Court First Division, Cruz, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner, Gracia R. Joven, was the registered owner of three parcels of land which she mortgaged to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). After she failed to pay her loan, DBP foreclosed extrajudicially and purchased the properties at public auction; a certificate of sale was issued and annotated on the titles on November 17, 1982. When the statutory redemption period elapsed without redemption, DBP executed a deed of sale to Roberto Paguia on December 17, 1985; Fernando Lasala acted as Paguia’s representative and took possession on January 30, 1986.
Prior to the deed of sale, on December 3, 1985, the petitioner had filed an action in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City (later raffled to Branch 55) seeking annulment of the mortgage and foreclosure sale; DBP and the private respondents were named as defendants. After her application for preliminary injunction was denied, she brought a separate forcible entry complaint against Paguia and Lasala in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Lucban‑Sampaloc (Civil Case No. 155), seeking restoration of possession and a writ of mandatory injunction.
The Municipal Circuit Trial Court, through Judge Vivencio G. Lirio, initially dismissed the ejectment complaint for lack of jurisdiction in a May 14, 1986 decision. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration (May 29, 1986), which the municipal court granted in a July 11, 1986 resolution ordering immediate restoration of possession, an accounting for fruits and products, and reimbursement of costs. The RTC, Branch 59 (Presiding Judge Manuel A. Patron) reversed, holding the municipal court lacked jurisdiction because ownership was involved and concluding the municipal court’s resolution had become final and executory; that RTC decision was thereafter affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals (opinion by Kapunan, J., with Puno and Marigomen, JJ., concurring).
The petiti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Municipal Circuit Trial Court have jurisdiction to hear the forcible entry action despite the pendency of the RTC annulment suit that raised issues of ownership?
- Did the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in the municipal court suspend the period to appeal, or was that motion prohibited under Section 15(c) of the Rule on Summary Procedure?
- Were the private respondents guilty of forcible entry when they entered and too...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)