Case Digest (G.R. No. L-8327)
Facts:
Edgar M. Rico v. Ernie "Toto" Castillo, Pifiano Jumo, Gerry Villegas, Alfrance Alicante, Felix Yagao, John Does, and Marilou Lopez a.k.a. Ma. Loreto V. Abella-Lopez, G.R. No. 215166, July 23, 2024, First Division, Marquez, J., writing for the Court. The petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court assailed the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution that reversed the Regional Trial Court’s affirmation of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities’ judgment ordering respondents to vacate a parcel in Barangay Matina, Davao City (Lot 1957).Petitioner Edgar M. Rico filed a Complaint for forcible entry on January 30, 2006, alleging prior physical possession of an 11,015 sq. m. portion of Lot 1957 (as a Free Patent applicant) and claiming that on October 11, 2005 members of the City demolition team and police, acting on instructions of Marilou Lopez (representing owner Milagros Villa‑Abrille), forcibly entered the property, destroyed a steel gate and demolished structures. Villa‑Abrille, represented by Lopez, countered that Lot 1957 is titled in her name (TCT No. T‑19416) and that Rico had been a lessee of a 1,500 sq. m. portion under a two‑year lease which he failed to vacate after expiration; she had filed an unlawful detainer action (MTCC Civil Case No. 10,033‑C‑D‑01) and obtained a decision ordering Rico to vacate, later affirmed up to the Supreme Court.
On November 8, 2006 the MTCC granted Rico’s forcible entry complaint and ordered defendants to vacate, pay monthly use and occupation, attorney’s fees, and costs. The RTC, exercising appellate jurisdiction, affirmed the MTCC in a May 9, 2007 Decision. Respondents Castillo et al. (members of the PNP, city demolition team and others) filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the RTC decision; the CA initially dismissed for wrong remedy but later reinstated the petition and consolidated it with other petitions (CA‑G.R. SP Nos. 01883‑MIN, 02060‑MIN, 02079‑MIN, and 02215‑MIN). The CA granted the Rule 65 petitions, reversed and set aside the MTCC decisions in some consolidated matters, and directed private respondents to vacate the subject properties. The CA relied on (a) what it described as the “questionable nature” of Rico’s possession given his lease and Free Patent application, (b) res judicata effect of the prior unlawful detai...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Court of Appeals’ reception and disposition of respondents’ petition under Rule 65 proper when the RTC acted in its appellate jurisdiction (i.e., was Rule 65 the proper remedy)?
- Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the MTCC’s forcible entry judgment such that certiorari was warranted?
- Could respondents lawfully effect forcible removal/demolition based on (a) the prior unlawful detainer judgment in favor of Villa‑Abrille and (b) identification und...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)