Title
Samonte vs. Domingo
Case
G.R. No. 237720
Decision Date
Feb 5, 2020
A dispute over possession of a Manila property arose after a Deed of Sale was declared null and void, rendering the claimant’s right to possession invalid.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 237720)

Factual Background

The dispute centers on a residential property, measuring 58.5 square meters, situated at New Antipolo Street, Tondo II-B, Manila. Demetria N. Domingo filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against Alvin F. Samonte, claiming she purchased the property through a Deed of Sale executed on July 8, 2011. Samonte denied the sale, asserting he only took out a loan from Domingo for which he signed a document under the belief it was a mortgage contract. He claimed that Domingo took advantage of his financial distress.

MeTC Ruling

The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) rendered a judgment on May 15, 2013, dismissing Domingo's complaint for Unlawful Detainer. The MeTC ruled Domingo failed to prove a lease contract existed between the parties or that a demand letter had been sent to Samonte. Thus, the case was dismissed for lack of cause of action.

RTC Ruling

Upon appeal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 24, the MeTC ruling was reversed. The RTC found the MeTC made errors in dismissing the unlawful detainer action. It ruled that any person could file for unlawful detainer against someone holding possession without a legal right, thereby establishing Domingo's right of possession based on the claimed Deed of Sale. The RTC ordered Samonte to vacate the property.

CA Ruling

Samonte’s subsequent petition for review to the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision. The CA concluded that Domingo presented sufficient evidence supporting her claim of possessory rights and maintained that the ruling regarding possession was provisional, focused solely on the issue at hand.

Subsequent Developments

While the appeal was pending, Samonte initiated a separate action for the annulment of the Deed of Sale, leading to RTC Branch 32 declaring the deed void, reasoning that the transaction constituted an equitable mortgage. The CA subsequently affirmed this judgment, which became final on September 15, 2017.

Final Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Cour

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.