Case Digest (G.R. No. 193075)
Facts:
Emmanuel Reyes, Sr. and Mutya M. Reyes v. Heirs of Deogracias Forlales, G.R. No. 193075, June 20, 2016, Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners Emmanuel and Mutya Reyes occupied a portion of land (the disputed portion) that formed part of the estate of Deogracias Forlales adjudicated to Mercedes Forlales Bautista (Mercedes). The Heirs of Deogracias Forlales (respondents) sued the Reyes spouses for ejectment, alleging the Reyes occupation was by mere tolerance and therefore subject to termination.The factual record shows the petitioners admitted their initial occupancy was permissive in an affidavit dated September 18, 1988; Mutya also wrote Mercedes in January 1989 asking to stay longer “for the sake of convenience.” Independencia Forlales Fetalvero, the estate administrator, formally demanded the petitioners vacate on May 28, 1993. The respondents first filed an ejectment complaint on August 28, 1997 (Civil Case No. OD‑229), which was dismissed on September 29, 1997 for being filed more than one year after the May 28, 1993 demand; that dismissal became final on October 15, 1997.
After observing new construction by the petitioners in December 2004 and receiving a building‑official notice of illegal construction, the respondents renewed efforts: a barangay ejectment complaint (May 16, 2005), a formal demand dated May 27, 2005, and finally an ejectment complaint filed October 27, 2005 in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Odiongan–Ferrol, docketed Civil Case No. O3‑288. The MCTC in a July 20, 2007 decision found the Reyes spouses were occupying respondents’ lot by mere tolerance, ordered vacation, removal of improvements, and payment of fair rental value (P800 per month from May 27, 2005). The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 82, Odiongan, affirmed the MCTC in its September 2, 2008 decision, holding that the petitioners’ possession from May 28, 1993 to May 27, 2005 was by mere tolerance and that the one‑year prescriptive period runs from the last demand to vacate.
The petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) by petition for review under Rule 42; the CA in an October 27, 2009 decision (and July 9, 2010 resolution denying reconsideration) affirmed the RTC and MCTC rulings. The petitioners then filed a peti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- In a Rule 45 petition, may the Supreme Court reexamine the lower courts’ factual findings or is review limited to questions of law?
- Was the complaint filed by the respondents an action for forcible entry or for unlawful detainer?
- Was the October 27, 2005 ejectment complaint filed within the one‑year prescriptive period applicable to the proper summary action?
- Does the dismissal of the earlier ejectment complaint operate as re...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)