Case Summary (G.R. No. 215659)
Petition for Review on Certiorari
Petitioners assail the CA’s September 29, 2014 Decision and December 1, 2014 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 130384 by which the CA reversed the RTC and dismissed the ejectment complaint for alleged non-compliance by GSIS with RA 6552 (Maceda Law). They invoke Rule 45, arguing that the CA lacked jurisdiction to resolve issues not raised below and that the CA misapplied the Maceda Law.
Factual Antecedents
In December 2009 petitioner Teresita lent her name to spouses Lopez as accommodation party, enabling them to bid on GSIS-owned property. GSIS approved her purchase on January 19, 2010. Spouses Lopez paid the required deposit and fees, and on May 12, 2010 GSIS executed a Deed of Conditional Sale in Teresita’s favor. Upon their demand to vacate, respondent Joel, who had entered the property by virtue of a prior Deed of Transfer of Rights from his sister, refused to surrender possession, prompting petitioners’ ejectment complaint before the MTC.
Municipal Trial Court Decision
By Decision of March 20, 2012, the MTC found that petitioners held an inchoate right of ownership under the Deed of Conditional Sale and thus superior possessory right. The court ordered respondent Joel to vacate, pay monthly compensation of ₱5,000 from May 16, 2010 until actual turnover, attorney’s fees of ₱20,000, and costs.
Regional Trial Court Decision
On appeal, the RTC affirmed the MTC on February 4, 2013, emphasizing that respondent never paid delinquent amortizations after the January 20, 2005 Deed of Transfer of Rights and that petitioners, as GSIS successors-in-interest, were entitled to possession. A motion for reconsideration was denied on May 20, 2013, and execution orders were issued.
Court of Appeals Proceedings and Decision
Respondent Joel elevated the case via Rule 42 petition, for the first time alleging GSIS’s failure to comply with RA 6552—specifically, non-issuance of notarized cancellation notice and non-refund of cash surrender value to his sister. On September 29, 2014, the CA granted relief, dismissed the ejectment complaint for Maceda Law non-compliance, and denied petitioners’ reconsideration motion on December 1, 2014.
Assignments of Error in the Petition
Petitioners contend that the CA:
- Committed grave abuse of discretion by allowing respondent to change his theory on appeal;
- Misapplied the Maceda Law, which pertains only to seller-buyer relations and not to competing buyers from GSIS;
- Disregarded petitioners’ documentary evidence demonstrating GSIS’s compliance (notarized cancellation and inapplicability of cash surrender payment until retirement).
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners emphasize that issues not pleaded in the answer or raised at trial cannot be entertained on appeal without violating fair play and due process. They note that GSIS’s cancellation was duly notarized and that cash surrender value is payable only upon retirement. Respondents argue that trial courts should have applied the Maceda Law sua sponte and that the prior conditional sale remains valid abs
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 215659)
Facts
- In December 2009, petitioner Teresita de los Santos lent her name and credit standing to her daughter and son-in-law (petitioners) via an August 31, 2010 Deed of Assignment to enable them to purchase a GSIS-owned property.
- On January 19, 2010, GSIS issued a Notice of Approval for petitioner Teresita’s application to buy the property at Block 8, Lot 14, Juana I Complex, Biñan, Laguna (TCT No. T-129136).
- Petitioners paid P87,255.00 as deposit and P7,852.97 as front-end service fee on March 5, 2010; GSIS executed a Deed of Conditional Sale in their favor on May 12, 2010.
- Despite demand, respondent Joel Lucenio refused to vacate the premises; an amicable settlement before the barangay failed.
Respondent’s Defense
- Respondent Joel claimed his sister acquired the property under a 1995 GSIS housing loan, executed a Deed of Transfer of Rights in his favor in 2005, and availed of GSIS’s amnesty program by paying a 10% down payment.
- He alleged GSIS never recomputed his sister’s total payments, deprived him of due process by entering into a new Deed of Conditional Sale without acting on his purchase offer, and could not unilaterally terminate the prior conditional sale.
Ruling of the Municipal Trial Court
- The MTC (March 20, 2012) held that petitioners, as successors-in-interest under the Deed of Conditional Sale, had a superior right to possession.
- Ordered respondent Joel and all claiming under him to vacate; awarded P5,000.00 monthly compen