Case Summary (G.R. No. 190512)
Petitioner
Enriquez alleged she was in possession by tolerance of Engracia Macaraya and that Macaraya’s purported sale to Tigle could at most concern an undivided 1/7 share as one of the heirs of Felix Moncal; she contended that an unidentified 1/7 share could not form the proper subject of ejectment under Article 434 of the Civil Code.
Respondent
Tigle alleged she bought the parcel from Macaraya on December 14, 1994, that Enriquez had been occupying the lot only by Macaraya’s tolerance, that Enriquez had refused an option to buy, and that Enriquez refused to vacate after demand; she sought physical ejection and related reliefs.
Key Dates
Complaint for unlawful detainer filed: February 29, 1996 (MCTC Civil Case No. 1062). MCTC decision in favor of Tigle: June 2, 1997. RTC directive to file memoranda: February 16, 1998. RTC dismissal of appeal for failure to file memorandum: October 6, 1998; RTC denial of reconsideration: October 30, 1998. CA decision affirming RTC: July 20, 1999; CA denial of reconsideration: September 24, 1999. Supreme Court disposition: petition denied and CA decision affirmed.
Applicable Law and Procedural Rules
Primary procedural rule applied: Rule 40, Section 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — subsections (b) and (c) governing the duty of the appellant to submit a memorandum within 15 days and the RTC’s authority to decide on the entire record and memoranda filed. Article 434 of the Civil Code (identification of property in actions to recover). The Court relied on the mandatory phrasing (“shall”) of Rule 40, Sec. 7(b), and on prior authorities and commentary cited in the record concerning the mandatory nature of procedural duties and the limits on appellate courts considering errors not properly assigned.
Background Facts
Tigle purchased the parcel allegedly occupied by Enriquez from Macaraya. Enriquez had been residing on the land by Macaraya’s tolerance and declined an option to purchase. After Tigle’s demand to vacate, Enriquez refused. MCTC found Tigle to be in actual, physical and prior possession of the described sub‑lot and granted ejectment and other reliefs, dismissed counterclaims, and awarded litigation expenses and attorney’s fees while deeming compensation waived by failure to plead and excluding moral and exemplary damages in ejectment cases.
MCTC Judgment
The MCTC adjudged Tigle to be in prior possession of the identified sub‑lot (179 sq. meters, Sub‑Lot No. 2‑A), ordered Enriquez and persons acting for her to vacate and to remove constructions, awarded P3,000 litigation expenses and P10,000 attorney’s fees to Tigle, deemed reasonable compensation waived, denied moral/exemplary damages as unavailable in ejectment, and dismissed Enriquez’s counterclaims for lack of sufficient basis.
RTC Proceedings and Dismissal
On appeal to the RTC, counsel for Enriquez was directed to submit a memorandum within 15 days pursuant to Rule 40, Sec. 7(b). Counsel failed to file the memorandum. The RTC dismissed the appeal for failure to file and remanded the case for execution of judgment. Enriquez’s motion for reconsideration asserting adoption of her MCTC position paper as her memorandum was denied by the RTC on the ground that the records did not show such a manifestation.
Court of Appeals Decision
The CA treated the principal issue as procedural: whether the RTC properly dismissed the appeal for failure to file the required memorandum. The CA affirmed the RTC, holding that under Rule 40, Section 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure the appellant’s filing of a memorandum is a mandatory duty and that failure to file is a ground for dismissal. The CA emphasized that the appellant’s memorandum is vital because only errors specifically assigned and argued in the brief/memorandum are considered on appeal (except jurisdictional or plain/clerical errors), and that failure to file a memorandum manifests lack of interest in pursuing the appeal.
Issues Raised Before the Supreme Court
Enriquez alleged that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion and that the RTC should have decided the appeal on the record of the MCTC proceedings under Rule 40, Sec. 7(c) — i.e., that the RTC could have decided the case on the basis of the record without an appellant’s memorandum. She sought reversal of the dismissals and a dismissal of the underlying complaint with costs, and sought to have her monetary counterclaims enforced.
Supreme Court’s Legal Reasoning
The Court of Appeals’ construction of Rule 40, Sec. 7 was upheld. The Supreme Court reiterated tha
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 190512)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed in the Supreme Court to assail the decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 20, 1999 in CA-G.R. SP No. 50360 and the appellate court’s resolution dated September 24, 1999 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
- The Court of Appeals had affirmed the orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Dumaguete City, Branch 31, in Civil Case No. 12044, which dismissed petitioner’s appeal from the decision of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Bayawan-Basay, Negros Oriental in Civil Case No. 1062 for ejectment.
- The RTC issued an order dated October 6, 1998 dismissing petitioner’s appeal for failure to file and submit a memorandum within the reglementary period; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by RTC order dated October 30, 1998.
- The Supreme Court docketed the petition and considered whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in sustaining the RTC’s dismissal of the appeal for failure to file a memorandum.
Relevant Case Numbers, Dates, and Panels
- MCTC case: Civil Case No. 1062 (filed by Victorina Tigle on February 29, 1996).
- RTC appeal docketed as: Civil Case No. 12044.
- RTC order dismissing appeal: October 6, 1998; motion for reconsideration denied October 30, 1998.
- Court of Appeals decision: July 20, 1999 (CA-G.R. SP No. 50360); motion for reconsideration denied September 24, 1999.
- Supreme Court decision: G.R. No. 140473, January 28, 2003 (Second Division), penned by Justice Quisumbing; concurrence by Justices Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr.
Factual Background
- On December 14, 1994, respondent Victorina Tigle purchased a parcel of land known as Lot No. 377, located at Tinego, Bayawan, Negros Oriental, from Engracia Macaraya.
- Prior to the sale, petitioner Melba Moncal Enriquez was staying on the lot by mere tolerance of Macaraya and had been given an option to buy the lot, which she refused to exercise.
- After the sale to Tigle, Tigle demanded that Enriquez vacate the property; Enriquez refused, resulting in the filing of an action for unlawful detainer on February 29, 1996 (MCTC Civil Case No. 1062).
Petitioner’s Position in the MCTC (Answer with Counterclaim)
- Petitioner asserted that the subject property was owned in common by the heirs of Felix Moncal and that any sale by Macaraya (one of the heirs) could only refer to Macaraya’s undivided one-seventh (1/7) share of the lot.
- Petitioner contended that since Macaraya’s 1/7 share was still unidentified, the property could not be the subject of ejectment under Article 434 of the Civil Code, which provides: “In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant’s claim.”
- Petitioner interposed counterclaims and sought monetary reliefs in her answer with counterclaim.
MCTC Decision (June 2, 1997)
- The MCTC rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff Victorina Tigle, declaring Tigle to be in “actual, physical and prior possession” of the premises described in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, consisting of one hundred seventy-nine (179) square meters, more or less, or Sub-Lot No. 2-A of Lot No. 2 (per Exhibit aBa).
- The MCTC ordered petitioner Enriquez, her agents, representatives, and all persons acting on her behalf to immediately vacate the premises known as Sub-Lot No. 2-A of Lot No. 2, and to remove and/or demolish all works, constructions, and improvements illegally built and/or constructed on the parcel.
- The MCTC ordered petitioner to pay plaintiff P3,000.00 by way of litigation expenses and P10,000.00 by way of attorney’s fees.
- The MCTC held that petitioner had failed to allege and pray for reasonable compensation and fair rental value, and therefore that claim was deemed waived.
- The MCTC stated that moral and exemplary damages are not allowed in ejectment cases.
- The MCTC dismissed any allegations by way of counterclaim for lack of sufficient basis.
Appeal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
- Petitioner seasonably appealed the MCTC decision to the RTC of Dumaguete City, Branch 31.
- RTC order dated February 16, 1998 directed counsel for the parties to submit their respective memoranda and/or briefs within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the order.
- The RTC stated that upon expiration of the period to submit memoranda, it “shall decide the case on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings in the court of origin and/or such brief(s) as may have been filed.”
- Counsel for petitioner failed to comply with the order to file a memorandum.
- On October 6, 1998, the RTC dismissed petitioner’s appeal “for failure of defendant-appellant to file and submit a memorandum within the reglementary period as required by Rule 40, Section 7 (b).” The Clerk of Court was directed to remand the records to the lower court for execution of judgment.
- Petitioner moved for reconsideration, asserting that she was adopting her positio