Case Digest (G.R. No. 118328)
Facts:
Marciana Serdoncillo v. Spouses Fidel and Evelyn Benolirao, Meliton Carisima, and Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118328, October 08, 1998, Supreme Court Second Division, Martinez, J., writing for the Court.The land involved was a parcel of 1,806 square meters formerly owned by H. V. Ongsiako that the heirs conveyed to United Complex Realty and Trading Corporation (UCRTC) and subdivided into fourteen lots (Lots 666‑H and 666‑I among them). Lot 666‑H consisted of a 112‑sq.m. residential portion (sold to the Benolirao spouses) and an access right of way benefiting Lot 666‑I (purchased by Meliton Carisima). Petitioner Marciana Serdoncillo occupied the western front portions of the subdivided area, declined UCRTC’s offer to buy, and continued to pay rent to the Ongsiako heirs until rental collection stopped. On May 5, 1989, UCRTC executed a deed of sale in favor of the Benoliraos, annotated on the title.
Prior litigation among the parties began earlier: on June 30, 1987 Serdoncillo filed Civil Case No. 5456 (consignation of rentals) in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City, which was ultimately affirmed by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 109, on October 25, 1989. On June 2, 1989 UCRTC sued Serdoncillo in Civil Case No. 6652 (RTC Branch 114) for recovery of possession; that complaint was dismissed by the RTC on July 15, 1990 and the dismissal became final when UCRTC did not appeal. Serdoncillo also filed Civil Case No. 7749 (preferential/first‑refusal rights) on November 20, 1989, seeking annulment of the sale to the Benoliraos; that suit was dismissed below and by the Court of Appeals on July 9, 1992.
After a final demand to vacate on November 20, 1990, the Benoliraos filed Civil Case No. 7785 (RTC Branch 108) on December 13, 1990, alleging ownership of Lots 666‑H and 666‑I and an annotated right of way, and praying for recovery of possession because petitioner had allegedly encroached on the right of way and on the front portions of their lots. Serdoncillo answered, asserting tenancy since 1956 and other defenses. After trial and an ocular inspection showing improvements encroaching about 4.1 meters on plaintiffs’ lot and a narrow 0.5 m passageway, the RTC rendered judgment on June 30, 1992 ordering petitioner to demolish the illegal structures, vacate the property and right of way, return possession, and pay costs.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA G.R. CV No. 39251), which, First Division (Torres, Jr., ponente), affirmed the RTC decision on July 14, 1994; a motion for reconsideration was denied on September 23, 1994. Petitioner then filed t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in exercising jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 7785 by treating the action as an accion publiciana (or accion reivindicatoria) instead of an unlawful detainer/ejectment within the exclusive jurisdiction of the municipal/metropolitan trial court?
- Does the prior final judgment in Civil Case No. 5456 (consignation of rentals) operate as res...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)