Case Summary (G.R. No. 150755)
Petitioner
Nineteen private individuals (e.g., Rene Ganila, Eduardo Dumada-Og Sr., Rafael Ganila, et al.) jointly seek relief from the Regional Trial Court’s and Court of Appeals’ orders affirming summary ejectment by the Municipal Circuit Trial Court.
Respondent
Violeta C. Herrera, the registered owner of Lot 1227, instituted 21 summary ejectment actions against the occupants for unlawful detainer after terminating her tolerance and demanding vacation of the property.
Property Involved
Lot 1227 of the Cadastral Survey of Jordan, Guimaras, measuring approximately 43,210 sq. m., originally a shoreline, later converted to residential use by the petitioners.
Key Dates
- March 19, 1997: Herrera files 21 ejectment complaints before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC).
- February 19, 1999: MCTC terminates preliminary conference and renders judgment ordering all defendants to vacate Lot 1227, pay monthly compensation and attorney’s fees.
- [Late 1999]: RTC, Branch 65, affirms the MCTC decision as to nineteen petitioners, dismissing cases against two.
- March 30, 2001: Court of Appeals denies the petition for certiorari.
- October 18, 2001: Court of Appeals denies motion for reconsideration.
- June 28, 2005: Supreme Court decision on the petition for review.
Applicable Law
1987 Philippine Constitution; Rule 70, Sections 1–8 of the Rules of Court governing summary ejectment (unlawful detainer and forcible entry).
Procedural History
- MCTC: Held a preliminary conference; petitioners neither objected to termination nor filed position papers and affidavits within the prescribed period; rendered judgment for unlawful detainer.
- RTC: Affirmed MCTC’s judgment for nineteen petitioners, dismissed two cases where houses marginally encroached the lot.
- Court of Appeals: Denied the petition for certiorari and motion for reconsideration, upholding factual findings and legal conclusions of the lower courts.
- Supreme Court: Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari, alleging errors in jurisdiction, remedy selection, due process, and factual findings.
Issues for Review
- Whether the MCTC properly exercised jurisdiction over the summary ejectment actions.
- Whether private respondent chose the correct remedy (unlawful detainer) instead of a plenary action for recovery of possession de jure.
- Whether petitioners were denied due process by termination of the preliminary conference and lack of a conference order.
- Whether evidence sufficiently established respondent’s superior right of possession.
Analysis on Jurisdiction and Remedy
Rule 70 expressly vests municipal trial courts with jurisdiction over unlawful detainer suits. Prior actual possession by the plaintiff is not a prerequisite; it suffices that she has a better right to possession. The Complaints alleged ownership, tolerance-based occupancy, withdrawal of tolerance, demand to vacate, and refusal to comply—constituting a valid cause of action for unlawful detainer within one year from the demand.
Analysis on Due Process
Petitioners failed to raise any objection to the preliminary conference order or to file mandatory position papers and affidavits within the court-fixed period, thereby waiving any due process claim. Their reliance on Bayubay v. Court of Appeals is inapplicable, as that decision addressed a total absence of a conference order, whereas here the
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 150755)
Facts
- On March 19, 1997, Violeta C. Herrera filed 21 ejectment complaints in the 16th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Jordan, Guimaras, alleging ownership of Lot 1227 (43,210 sq. m.) inherited from her parents
- Herrera tolerated petitioners’ construction of residential houses on portions of Lot 1227 without charging rent, then in September or October 1996 demanded that they vacate and remove improvements
- Petitioners refused to vacate despite offers of financial assistance; barangay conciliation failed, prompting Herrera’s complaints for unlawful detainer
- In their answers, eight petitioners claimed the area was a developed shoreline; eight asserted their houses stood on adjacent Lot 1229; three contended Lot 1227 was a social forest area
- At preliminary conference, the parties appointed two geodetic engineers to relocate Lot 1227 and identify which petitioners’ houses lay within its boundaries
- The commissioners reported that 19 petitioners’ houses were inside Lot 1227, while those of Henry Gabasa and Ludovico Amatorio lay almost or partially outside
Procedural History
- Petitioners failed to comment on Herrera’s manifestation seeking termination of the preliminary conference; the MCTC then terminated the conference
- Petitioners’ counsel did not file position papers or affidavits, even after a 30-day extension was granted
- The MCTC rendered judgment ordering all defendants to vacate Lot 1227, pay ₱200 per month from October 1996, and ₱2,000 as attorney’s fees
- Petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 65, Jordan, Guimaras
- The RTC affirmed the MCTC decisions as to 19 petitioners, set aside two others, and dismissed those two cases based on the sketch plan showing minimal intrusion by Gabasa and Amatorio
- Nineteen petitioners filed a joint petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which denied both the petition and the subsequent motion for reconsideration
- Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari