Case Summary (G.R. No. L-13708)
Factual Background
The petitioner alleged that he owned a parcel of land of 91,252 square meters located at Sitio Bayukan, Brgy. Sampaloc, Tanay, Rizal, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. M-19409 and that on the midnight of January 17, 1996 the respondent and his family forcibly and clandestinely entered and occupied an eastern portion of approximately 15,000 square meters. The petitioner averred that existing barbed wire fences were destroyed and appropriated and that the respondent erected his own fences on the contested portion. The petitioner further alleged prior complaints before the barangay and an agreement to have the area surveyed with a status quo understanding pending resolution.
Respondent's Claim and Answer
The respondent denied unlawful entry to the petitioner's titled land and averred that the fenced parcels were Lots 6717 and 6107, portions of Plan M-126276, and that Lot 6103 adjoined them and was embraced by Original Certificate of Title No. M-6898 in his name. The respondent asserted long occupation, cultivation, and an application for free patent with the Bureau of Lands/DENR. He contended that the petitioner's lot adjoined a different lot (Plan M-139665) and that no survey was conducted because the parties disagreed on which technical description to use.
Pretrial and Issues Framed
The Municipal Trial Court limited the issues in its Pre-Trial Order to: ownership and actual possession of the disputed parcel; whether the parties had an agreement with the barangay prior to the alleged unlawful entry; whether the plaintiff suffered damages; and the nature of the disputed parcel. The MTC ordered the parties to submit documents, set clarificatory questions, and required the respondent to produce the original technical description of Cadastre Lot 393, Case No. 6 as approved by the Director of Lands.
Municipal Trial Court Proceedings and Decision
After affidavits and position papers, and the submission of requested documents, the MTC rendered judgment on July 11, 1997 in favor of the petitioner. The court ordered the defendant to remove fences and improvements at his expense, to surrender possession to the plaintiff, to pay PHP 1,000 a month for use and occupation until vacated, to pay PHP 20,000 as attorney's fees plus PHP 1,000 per court hearing, and costs. The MTC synthesized evidence and credited the petitioner’s affidavits showing prior possession by the petitioner’s caretaker and construction of fences and cultivation in August 1995, while finding the defendant’s proof of actual possession unconvincing and noting that an application for a homestead patent did not establish possession.
Regional Trial Court Proceedings and Rationale
On appeal the Regional Trial Court reversed the MTC and ordered further proceedings to determine the extent of the petitioner’s property, specifically directing that the case be transmitted back for a survey to ascertain boundaries. The RTC explained that a survey was important because the petitioner was uncertain of the extent of his property, evidenced by his agreement to have the property resurveyed but refusal to use a particular technical description, and that requiring further proceedings to determine the plaintiff’s property did not contravene the summary nature of an ejectment case. The RTC denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration by Order dated January 23, 1998.
Court of Appeals Proceedings and Dismissal
The petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. The CA, in a Resolution dated February 18, 1998, dismissed the petition for failure to comply with Section 2(d), Rule 42, Rules of Court by not filing clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments and portions of the record. The CA further denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on the additional ground that the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping was executed only by counsel and not by the petitioner himself, as required by the last paragraph of Section 2, Rule 42.
Issues Presented in the Petition to the Supreme Court
The petition to the Supreme Court challenged the CA dismissal on technical grounds and sought resolution on the merits. The petitioner contended substantial compliance with Section 2, Rule 42, including a certification against forum shopping signed by him in the petition, and explained the difficulty in obtaining clear photocopies in Tanay, Rizal. Substantively, the petitioner maintained that the RTC committed grave abuse by ordering a survey and further proceedings in violation of the Rules on Summary Procedure, and that the ejectment appeal should be decided on the pleadings and the evidence without resort to a survey.
Parties' Contentions Before the Supreme Court
The respondent argued that the RTC decision was interlocutory and that the petitioner still failed to comply with Section 2, Rule 42 even if legible copies had been attached. The petitioner asserted the assailed RTC Decision was final and that the CA should have resolved the merits instead of dismissing on procedural technicalities. The petitioner urged that the Rules on Summary Procedure bar surveys in forcible entry actions or, at the least, that the summary procedure rules should govern rather than ordinary civil procedure rules.
Supreme Court's Analysis of Compliance with Rule 42
The Supreme Court examined the petition and the CA records and concluded that the petitioner substantially complied with Section 2, Rule 42, Rules of Court. The Court noted that the petition contained the required certification that the petitioner and counsel had not commenced any other action and that the appended copies of the RTC and MTC decisions and the RTC Order denying reconsideration were legible enough. The Court reiterated that rules should be liberally construed under Rule 1, Section 6, Rules of Court to secure just, speedy and inexpensive disposition and that litigations should be decided on the merits whenever possible.
Supreme Court's Ruling on Procedural Lapses and Remedy
Emphasizing the settled rule against denial
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-13708)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Francisco Dee, represented by Fortunato T. Dee in the instrument, was the plaintiff and petitioner before the Supreme Court.
- Rodolfo Tingson was the defendant and respondent in the underlying forcible entry action.
- Hon. Reynaldo G. Ros, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch 80, Regional Trial Court, Morong, Rizal, was impleaded as a respondent in the petition for certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' resolution.
- The case arose from an action for forcible entry with damages filed in the Municipal Trial Court of Morong, Rizal, and proceeded on appeal to the Regional Trial Court.
- The petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals under Rule 42, which the Court of Appeals dismissed for alleged noncompliance with Section 2, Rule 42.
- The petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking relief from the Court of Appeals' dismissal.
Key Factual Allegations
- The petitioner alleged legal ownership of a parcel of land of 91,252 square meters described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. M-19409 located at Sitio Bayukan, Barangay Sampaloc, Tanay, Rizal.
- The petitioner alleged that at about midnight of January 17, 1996, the respondent and his family surreptitiously entered and occupied the eastern portion of the petitioner's property of about 15,000 square meters.
- The petitioner alleged that the existing barbed wire fences were destroyed and appropriated and that the respondent thereafter erected his own fences on the disputed portion.
- The parties repeatedly appeared before the barangay and purportedly agreed to have the subject area surveyed and to maintain the status quo pending resolution.
- The respondent denied trespass to the petitioner's titled lot and asserted that the fenced parcels were Lots 6717 and 6107, portions of Plan M-126276 and that he held adjoining interests embraced by Original Certificate of Title No. M-6898.
Trial Court Proceedings
- The Municipal Trial Court limited the issues by pre-trial order to ownership and actual possession, existence of any barangay agreement, damages, and the nature of the disputed parcel.
- The petitioner submitted affidavits from caretakers and witnesses asserting prior physical possession and recent entry by the respondent.
- The defendant asserted an application for a homestead patent before the DENR and claimed long occupation and cultivation of the lots.
- The MTC ordered production of the original technical description of Cadastre Lot 393, Case No. 6, and the respondent submitted a required exhibit and agreed to submit the case for decision.
- The MTC rendered judgment on July 11, 1997 in favor of the petitioner ordering removal of respondent's fence, surrender of possession, payment of P1,000 per month for use and occupation until vacation, payment of P20,000 attorneys' fees plus P1,000 per hearing, and costs.
Municipal Trial Court Rationale
- The MTC found that the petitioner proved prior physical possession through sworn affidavits of caretakers and witnesses.
- The MTC found that the defendant failed to present convincing proof of actual possession as of August 1995 and that the DENR homestead application did not establish possession.
- The MTC found credible the affidavit evidence of surreptitious midnight entry by the defendant and his companions.
Regional Trial Court Decision
- The RTC reversed the MTC judgment and ordered further proceedings to determine the extent of the petitioner's property, including a survey.
- The RTC explained that a survey was necessary to determine whether the contested area was part of the petitioner's titled lot or public land claimed by the respondent.
- The RTC denied the p