G.R. No. 118328 - Serdoncillo vs. Spouses Benolirao

Case Summary (G.R. No. 118328)

Factual Background

The subject property formed part of a larger estate of H. V. Ongsiako, subdivided by United Complex Realty and Trading Corporation (UCRTC) into fourteen lots, including Lots 666-H and 666-I. Lot 666-H comprised a residential portion of 112 square meters purchased by the Benoliraos and a separate portion constituting a right of way benefiting Lot 666-I, the latter purchased by Meliton Carisima. Petitioner occupied the western end and front portions of the subdivided lots and declined to purchase when the lots were offered. Petitioner paid rent to Mrs. Rosario de Jesus and later instituted Civil Case No. 5456 for consignation of rentals after collection ceased.

Prior Litigation and Conveyances

UCRTC annotated a deed of absolute sale transferring Lot 666-H to the SPOUSES FIDEL AND EVELYN BENOLIRAO on May 5, 1989. After demand letters proved unavailing, UCRTC sued petitioner in Civil Case No. 6652 for recovery of possession, but the Regional Trial Court, Branch 114, dismissed that complaint on July 15, 1990 for lack of authorization and because the situation did not call for enforcement of an easement of right of way; UCRTC did not appeal and that decision became final. Petitioner thereafter pursued Civil Case No. 7749 on November 20, 1989, asserting preferential rights of first refusal to annul the sale; that action was dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on July 9, 1992.

Complaint in Civil Case No. 7785 and Petitioner’s Answer

On December 13, 1990 the Benoliraos and Carisima filed Civil Case No. 7785 in the RTC, alleging ownership of Lots 666-H and 666-I and of the annotated right of way, asserting that since 1982 petitioner had built a residence and pig pen on the plaintiffs’ right of way and on the front portions of their properties thereby obstructing ingress and egress, and recounting repeated verbal and written demands to vacate. Petitioner answered that she had been a legitimate tenant since 1956, that her family occupied some four hundred square meters before subdivision, that she paid rent first to Ongsiako and later to his heirs and to UCRTC, and that she therefore possessed a leasehold right.

Trial Court Proceedings and Ocular Inspection

Trial ensued and the RTC conducted an ocular inspection. The ocular inspection report described the defendant’s two-storey house and ancillary structures occupying the width of the right of way, a coconut tree, a shanty used as pigpens, and a narrow informal passageway of about 0.5 meter used to access plaintiffs’ property; it noted monuments partially missing and estimated an encroachment of approximately 4.1 meters by petitioner’s improvements. On June 30, 1992 the trial court found preponderance of evidence for plaintiffs and ordered petitioner to demolish and remove the illegal structures on the front portions and right of way, to vacate and return possession to plaintiffs, and to pay costs of suit, denying damages and attorneys’ fees for lack of proof of bad faith or fraud.

Issues Raised on Appeal and in the Petition for Review

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals and subsequently filed this petition for review to the Supreme Court. Her primary contention was that the RTC and the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of jurisdiction by treating the action as an accion publiciana rather than an ejectment or unlawful detainer case, which she argued fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the municipal or metropolitan trial court when filed within one year from demand. Petitioner also argued that Civil Case No. 7785 was barred by res judicata in light of Civil Case No. 6652 and that the RTC should have dismissed for lack of cause of action with respect to enforcement of the right of way; she further invoked the prior consignation judgment in Civil Case No. 5456 to assert conclusiveness on tenancy under Section 49 (now Section 47), Rule 39.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC on July 14, 1994. The appellate court held that the complaint in Civil Case No. 7785 alleged ownership and sought recovery of possession of plaintiffs’ property encroached upon by petitioner, and that the relief sought and the allegations were consistent with an accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria rather than a summary ejectment or unlawful detainer. The appellate court deemed any technical misnaming of the action immaterial where plaintiffs asserted title and the right to immediate use of the right of way, and it sustained the RTC’s exercise of jurisdiction.

Legal Framework and Doctrinal Principles Applied

The Supreme Court summarized the controlling remedial distinctions. It reiterated that jurisdiction depends on the nature of the action as pleaded in the complaint and that the character of relief and the averments determine whether the action is an accion interdictal (forcible entry or unlawful detainer), an accion publiciana (plenary action for recovery of the right to possess), or an accion reivindicatoria (action for recovery of ownership including jus possidendi). The Court cited the rule that complaints invoking forcible entry or unlawful detainer must allege on the face of the complaint the specific means of dispossession enumerated in Section 1, Rule 70, Rules of Court or the date of last demand for unlawful detainer, because those remedies are summary and the jurisdictional facts must appear from the complaint.

Application to the Instant Complaint and Distinction from Cited Authorities

Applying these principles, the Court found that the complaint in Civil Case No. 7785 asserted plaintiffs’ title by way of transfer certificates of title and sought ejection of petitioner from an encroached portion and the right of way; the complaint did not allege forcible entry under Rule 70 nor the classic factual predicate of unlawful detainer. The Court distinguished the relied-on decisions of Bernabe v. Luna and Medina v. Court of Appeals, noting that in those cases the pleadings presented jurisdictional facts consistent with forcible entry or unlawful detainer and were filed within one year from demand, whereas in the present case the averments raised the question of title and exclusive ownership and thus were properly cognizable by the court of first instance in an ordinary plenary action.

Res Judicata, Consignation Case and Identity of Cause of Action

The Court examined petitioner’s reliance on the consignation judgment in Civil Case No. 5456 and on Section 49, Rule 39. It acknowledged identity of subject matter and that the Benoliraos succeeded to UCRTC’s interest, but held that identity of cause of action was lacking. The Court explained the test for identity of cause of action is whether the same evidence would sustain both actions; the consignation case concerned payment of rent and whether consignation was proper, whereas Civil

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 118328)

Parties and Posture

Marciana Serdoncillo was the petitioning defendant below and appellee in the consignation action and appellant in the actions for recovery of possession.
Spouses Fidel and Evelyn Benolirao and Meliton Carisima were the plaintiffs below and appellees in the present action for recovery of possession.
United Complex Realty and Trading Corporation (UCRTC) appears as predecessor seller and predecessor plaintiff in earlier litigation and as the transferor of title to the Benoliraos.
The petition seeks review of the Court of Appeals decision in CA G.R. CV No. 39251 affirming the Regional Trial Court, Branch 108, Pasay City, in Civil Case No. 7785.

Key Facts

The subject parcel was part of an 1,806-square-meter estate subdivided into Lots 555-A to 666-N through UCRTC’s subdivision.
Lot 666-H comprised 248 square meters, of which 112 square meters was sold to the Benoliraos and a 3.12-meter-wide right of way was annotated in the title for the benefit of Lot 666-I.
Serdoncillo declined purchase offers, continued occupying the western/front portions of the lots since 1956, and paid rentals to H.V. Ongsiako’s family until payments were stopped.
Serdoncillo filed Civil Case No. 5456 for consignation of rentals on June 30, 1987, which judgment was affirmed by the RTC, Branch 109.
UCRTC sold Lot 666-H to the Benoliraos by deed of absolute sale dated May 5, 1989, and that sale was annotated on the title.
An ejectment suit by UCRTC, Civil Case No. 6652, was dismissed by RTC Branch 114 on July 15, 1990, and UCRTC did not appeal.
The Benoliraos filed Civil Case No. 7785 on December 13, 1990, alleging encroachment of the right of way and front portions of their lots by Serdoncillo and seeking recovery of possession.
An ocular inspection found that Serdoncillo’s improvements encroached approximately 4.1 meters on plaintiffs’ lot and obstructed the annotated right of way.

Procedural History

RTC Branch 114 dismissed UCRTC’s Civil Case No. 6652 on July 15, 1990; no appeal was taken.
Serdoncillo initiated Civil Case No. 7749 for preferential rights of first refusal against UCRTC and the Benoliraos; that action was dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on July 9, 1992.
RTC Branch 108 rendered judgment in Civil Case No. 7785 on June 30, 1992, ordering Serdoncillo to demolish illegal structures, vacate the property and right of way, and return possession to plaintiffs.
The Court of Appeals, First Division, affirmed RTC Branch 108’s decision by judgment dated July 14, 1994 in CA G.R. CV No. 39251, and denied reconsideration on September 23, 1994.
The present petition for review to the Supreme Court followed, resulting in the appealed decision dated October 08, 1998.

Issues Presented

Whether the RTC, Branch 108, had jurisdiction to entertain Civil Case No. 7785 as an action for recovery of possession rather than as an action for unlawful detainer within the jurisdiction of the municipal/metropolitan trial courts.
Whether Civil Case No. 7785 was barred by res judicata in view of prior decisions, particularly Civil Case No. 5456 (consignation) and Civil Case No. 6652 (dismissed ejectment).
Whether the complaint in Civil Case No. 7785 pleaded jurisdictional fac