Case Digest (G.R. No. L-11093)
Facts:
Leonardo Enage Labajo, et al. v. Ciriaco Enriquez, G.R. No. L-11093, January 27, 1958, the Supreme Court En Banc, Montemayor, J., writing for the Court.
The plaintiffs (co-owners) sued defendant Ciriaco Enriquez in the Court of First Instance of Leyte on February 16, 1954, alleging ownership of Lot No. 676 under Original Certificate of Title No. 10552 and alleging that because they were absent from Tacloban from May 1945 to June 1950 they had neglected or abandoned the lot. They alleged that Enriquez, without their knowledge or consent, administered the lot by leasing it to tenants and collected rentals totaling P2,552, and they demanded reimbursement of that sum plus P200 as damages.
Enriquez answered, denying bad faith and asserting that the lot had been abandoned since 1932; that when he purchased adjacent Lot No. 2059 he reasonably (and in good faith) believed Lot No. 676 was included in his purchase, so he had occupied and rented it; that rentals collected did not reach P2,552; and that he had been paying real estate taxes on the lot. Relying on Articles 526, 527, 528 and 544 of the New Civil Code, he claimed status as a possessor in good faith entitled to the fruits. Enriquez also filed a counterclaim: he alleged the plaintiffs had filed fabricated estafa charges against him in the Municipal Court of Tacloban (September 16, 1953), which charges were dismissed October 30, 1953, and sought P5,000 in damages plus P500 counsel fees for humiliation and legal costs.
The plaintiffs admitted filing the criminal complaint and its dismissal but stated they intended to revive it in the Court of First Instance; they further said they had no objection to a judgment on the pleadings so long as the defendant was understood to admit the plaintiffs' material allegations (including that he had received the rentals and refused to pay). The trial court acted on the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and, applying the cited Civil Code provisions, dismissed both the plaintiffs’ complaint and the defendant’s counterclaim.
The plaintiffs appealed, stating ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court properly render judgment on the pleadings and dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint for recovery of rentals collected by defendant Enriquez?
- Did the trial court properly dismiss defendant Enriquez’s counterclaim for damages arising from the criminal charges fil...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)