Case Digest (G.R. No. 111179)
Facts:
David Odsigue, petitioner, v. Court of Appeals and Armando Angeles, respondents, G.R. No. 111179, July 04, 1994, the Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court. The petition seeks review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals' decision affirming the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Morong, Rizal, which in turn had affirmed the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) decision ordering petitioner’s ejectment.The property subject of the ejectment is covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 4050 and is situated in Lagundi, Morong, Rizal. Since 1972 petitioner occupied the parcel by the tolerance of the registered owner, Platon Espiritu Santo. Santo died in 1989; his heirs included Armando Angeles, who, as co-owner and assignee of the other heirs, on January 10, 1991 sent a written demand to petitioner to vacate the premises. The demand letter was delivered by the Barangay Captain of Lagundi, Fernando Austria, who swore that he personally attempted delivery but that petitioner refused to receive the letter.
On February 8, 1991 Angeles filed an action for unlawful detainer in the Municipal Trial Court. In his answer petitioner pleaded several affirmative defenses: (a) lack of compliance with the jurisdictional requirement of a formal demand; (b) insufficient identification of the property as required by the Civil Code; and (c) that he had been instituted as a tenant by the predecessor owner and was thus an occupant-tiller entitled to agrarian-type protections and equitable remedies, having made improvements and planted trees on the land.
On December 10, 1991 the MTC rendered judgment ordering petitioner to vacate. On appeal the RTC of Morong affirmed the MTC decision. The Court of Appeals (Special Former Seventh Division — De la Fuente, J., Chairman; Imperial, (ponente); Garcia, JJ.) thereafter affirmed the RTC. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied for lack of new matters. Petitioner filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The Supreme Court required respondents to comment; respondents filed their comment on November 11, 1993, and petitioner filed a manifestation adopting his petition as reply on March 21, 1994.
Issues:
- Was there a valid service of the demand letter on petitioner — a jurisdictional requirement in unlawful detainer proceedings?
- Was the property sought to be recovered sufficiently identified for purposes of unlawful detainer as required by the Civil Code?
- Could petitioner, who occupied the land by tolerance and claimed to be an agricultural tenant/occupant-tiller, be summarily ejected?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)