G.R. No. 215166 - Rico vs. Castillo

Case Summary (G.R. No. 215166)

Factual Background

Petitioner Rico alleged that he was a Free Patent applicant and prior physical possessor of an 11,015-square meter portion of Lot 1957, Cad. 102, Barangay Matina, Davao City, and that on October 11, 2005 members of the City demolition team and other respondents forcibly entered the parcel by destroying a steel gate and demolishing structures. Respondent Milagros Villa-Abrille, represented by Marilou Lopez, asserted ownership of Lot 1957 under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-19416 and averred that she had leased a 1,500-square meter portion of that lot to Rico under a duly notarized two-year Contract of Lease at a monthly rent of PHP 20,000.00, which lease allegedly expired and precipitated an unlawful detainer action, Civil Case No. 10,033-C-D-01, filed by Villa-Abrille. Rico filed an application for Free Patent with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources on January 9, 2001; the DENR denied the application by final action dated August 8, 2003. A local Resolution (Resolution No. 20, Series of 2004) identified Rico among occupants characterized as members of alleged squatting syndicates.

MTCC and RTC Proceedings

The MTCC, in Civil Case No. 18,988-C-D-06, found that the elements of forcible entry were present and, in its November 8, 2006 Decision, ordered defendants and persons acting in their stead to vacate the premises, restore physical possession to plaintiff, pay PHP 20,000.00 monthly from October 11, 2005 until vacatur, pay PHP 20,000.00 as attorney’s fees, and costs. The RTC affirmed the MTCC in its May 9, 2007 Decision, dismissing the appeal of defendants-appellants.

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Ruling

Respondents Castillo et al. filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, Rules of Court, attacking the RTC Decision. The CA initially dismissed the petition as the wrong remedy but later reinstated it and consolidated it with other petitions. On the merits the CA granted the petition in part and reversed and set aside the MTCC Decisions, directing private respondents to vacate the subject properties. The CA grounded its reversal on two principal considerations: first, the existence and finality of the unlawful detainer judgment in Civil Case No. 10,033-C-D-01 which, in the CA’s view, rendered Rico’s possession unlawful and res judicata as to possession; and second, the CA concluded that the demolition and eviction had been effected pursuant to Sec. 27, Republic Act No. 7279, after identification of alleged professional squatters and squatting syndicates by the relevant local agencies.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court identified primary procedural and substantive issues: whether the CA properly entertained a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to review an RTC decision rendered in its appellate capacity instead of requiring a petition for review under Rule 42; and whether the lower courts correctly adjudicated the forcible entry complaint, including whether prior physical possession was proven and whether an existing unlawful detainer judgment or the application of Sec. 27, R.A. No. 7279 justified the forcible removal and demolition.

Parties' Contentions on Review

Rico contended that respondents pursued the wrong remedy since the proper avenue to assail an RTC decision rendered in appellate jurisdiction was a petition for review under Rule 42, and that the CA erred by entertaining a Rule 65 petition and by substituting its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the trial courts without finding grave abuse of discretion. Rico also maintained that the writ of execution in the unlawful detainer case had in fact been issued and implemented and that the property involved in that writ was geographically distinct from the parcel in the forcible entry case. Castillo et al. countered that Rico was an illegal occupant who had been convicted of falsification in relation to his Free Patent application and that Rico engaged in forum shopping by filing related petitions before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Procedural Analysis

The Court held that the CA erred in giving due course to a Rule 65 petition because the RTC acted in its appellate capacity and the appropriate remedy was a verified petition for review to the CA under Rule 42, sec. 1, Rules of Court. The Court reiterated the general principle that certiorari under Rule 65 will not lie where an ordinary remedy of appeal or review is available, and that a writ of certiorari is limited to questions of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The Court cited controlling precedents, including Guzman v. Guzman, to show that alleged errors in the exercise of judgment by an appellate court are correctible by appeal and do not warrant relief under Rule 65 unless grave abuse of discretion is shown. The Court observed that none of the recognized exceptions permitting a Rule 65 petition in lieu of an appeal were present in this case.

Supreme Court's Substantive Analysis on Forcible Entry

On the merits the Court reiterated settled principles governing forcible entry actions: the cause of action arises when a person is deprived of physical possession by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth; the issue is prior physical possession de facto; and the plaintiff must prove prior physical possession, deprivation by the enumerated means, and that the action was filed within one year of learning of the deprivation. The Court emphasized that ownership or validity of title is generally irrelevant to a forcible entry action except where resolution of legal title is essential to determine who had the better right of possession. Both the MTCC and RTC had found that Rico proved the essential requisites of forcible entry, and the Supreme Court found no showing of grave abuse of discretion by those courts.

Court's Rejection of CA's Grounds for Reversal

The Court concluded that the CA improperly substituted its factual and legal assessment for that of the courts a quo. The CA’s reliance on the prior unlawful detainer judgment as res judicata to justify summary forcible ejection was erroneous because enforcement of judicial judgments must proceed through proper writs of execution under Rule 39, Rules of Court, and a favorable unlawful detainer judgment did not license self-help by force. The Court found the CA’s conclusion that the unlawful detainer judgment "was never enforced" to be questionable in light of the MTCC’s May 7, 2008 Order indicating that a writ of execution had been

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 215166)

Parties and Posture

Edgar M. Rico was the petitioner below and plaintiff in the complaint for forcible entry alleging prior physical possession of a portion of Lot 1957, Cad. 102 in Barangay Matina, Davao City.
Ernie "Toto" Castillo, Pifiano Jumo, Gerry Villegas, Alfrance Alicante, Felix Yagao, John Does, and Marilou Lopez a.k.a. Ma. Loreto V. Abella-Lopez were respondents and defendants in the forcible entry case.
The case reached the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution that reversed the Regional Trial Court's affirmance of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities.
The dispositive relief originally granted by the MTCC ordered respondents to vacate the disputed parcel and awarded possession and damages to Rico.

Key Factual Allegations

Rico asserted that he was the Free Patent applicant of an 11,015-square meter portion of Lot 1957 and that respondents forcibly entered his portion on October 11, 2005 by destroying a steel gate and demolishing structures.
Milagros Villa-Abrille, represented by Lopez, claimed title to Lot 1957 under TCT No. T-19416 and alleged that she leased 1,500 square meters of the lot to Rico under a notarized lease for PHP 20,000.00 monthly.
Villa-Abrille filed and prevailed in an unlawful detainer action against Rico, which was later affirmed up to the Supreme Court, and a writ of execution was issued and returned implemented according to the MTCC records.
Rico had filed an application for Free Patent with the DENR on January 9, 2001 over the parcel he previously rented, and the DENR denied the request on August 8, 2003.

Procedural History

The Municipal Trial Court in Cities rendered a Decision on November 8, 2006 granting Rico's forcible entry complaint and ordering restoration of possession, monthly damages, attorney's fees, and costs.
The Regional Trial Court affirmed the MTCC's Decision in its May 9, 2007 Decision and dismissed defendants-appellants' appeal.
Respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, which initially dismissed it as the wrong remedy but later reinstated the petition and consolidated it with other petitions involving Villa-Abrille.
The Court of Appeals granted the petition, reversed and set aside the MTCC Decisions in the consolidated matters, and directed vacatur of the subject properties, and its denial of reconsideration prompted the present petition.

Issues Presented

Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy to assail an RTC decision rendered in its appellate jurisdiction instead of a petition for review under Rule 42.
Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the factual findings of the MTCC and RTC that Rico proved the elements of forcible entry.
Whether the prior unlawful detainer judgment and alleged identification of Rico as a professional squatter under Section 27 of Republic Act No. 7279 justified respondents' forcible removal of Rico.

Parties' Contentions

Rico contended that respondents pursued the wrong remedy by filing a Rule 65 petition instead of a Rule 42 petition and that the CA improperly substituted its appreciation of evidence for that of the trial courts without finding grave abuse of discretion.
Rico also maintained that the property he occupied was distinct and located hundreds of meters from the property claimed in the unlawful detainer case and that the writ of execution in the unlawful detainer case was duly implemented.
Respondents asserted that Rico illegally occupied the disputed property, had been convicted for falsification related to his Free Patent ap