Case Summary (G.R. No. 187944)
Legal History and Partition of Lot No. 1907-A
The subject lot was partitioned from the original Lot No. 1907-A among heirs of Spouses Carlos and Asuncion Padilla. The partition produced five parcels, with Lot No. 1907-A-2 ostensibly allotted to the heirs of Vicente Padilla. The respondents allege their mother, Claudia, possessed the subject lot as her inheritance share, predating Carmencita's acquisition. A conflict arose when Carmencita purchased the lot purportedly from heirs of Vicente, which prompted her to demand the respondents vacate the property. The respondents disputed ownership and filed a petition to nullify the partition of Lot No. 1907-A, raising concerns about forged signatures and deed irregularities.
Nature of the Complaint and Trial Court Rulings
Carmencita filed an unlawful detainer complaint against the respondents, claiming ownership and right to possession by virtue of a valid deed of sale. Both the MTCC and RTC ruled in favor of Carmencita, ordering the respondents’ eviction, removal of improvements, and payment of attorney’s fees. The respondents appealed to the CA, asserting their possession was by ownership and not mere tolerance, and arguing that Carmencita purchased the property in bad faith despite a pending lis pendens. They also presented newly discovered evidence purporting to nullify Vicente’s interest in Lot No. 1907-A via a waiver agreement from 1957.
Legal Issues Presented for Resolution
The Supreme Court identified two principal issues: (i) whether Carmencita had sufficiently alleged and proven a cause of action for unlawful detainer, and (ii) whether the pendency of the respondents’ action for nullification of partition abates the unlawful detainer suit.
Legal Framework on Possession and Unlawful Detainer Actions
Under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, unlawful detainer lies where possession, originally lawful by contract or tolerance, becomes unlawful due to the termination of the right to possess. This summary remedy requires the plaintiff to prove (1) initial possession of the defendant was by contract or tolerance, (2) possession became unlawful upon demand or termination, and (3) failure to vacate followed by filing within one year from last demand. Forcible entry differs as possession is illegal from inception and involves force or threat.
Court of Appeals’ Legal Analysis and Decision
The CA determined that Carmencita’s complaint failed to allege critical jurisdictional facts: it did not specify when or how the respondents entered or were tolerated to occupy the subject lot. Without these factual allegations, the unlawful detainer complaint was deficient. The CA held that the case raised issues of ownership intertwined with possession, necessitating an accion reivindicatoria (action to recover ownership) before the RTC rather than a summary unlawful detainer proceeding. The possession of the respondents and predecessors was longstanding and not by mere tolerance; thus, Carmencita’s right to possession could not be summarily enforced.
Supreme Court’s Affirmation and Jurisdictional Requirements
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s ruling, emphasizing that the registered owner’s right to possession does not permit summary eviction without meeting legal requisites. The Court clarified the distinctions among available actions to recover possession: forcible entry, unlawful detainer (both summary actions before municipal or metropolitan trial courts), and accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria (plenary actions before the RTC).
The Court reiterated that a complaint for unlawful detainer must allege:
- Possession by defendant was initially lawful—by contract or tolerance of plaintiff;
- Termination of plaintiff’s consent or contract;
- Defendant’s refusal to vacate after demand; and
- Filing of the complaint within one year from last demand.
Carmencita’s complaint did not establish the initial lawful possession by tolerance or contract; it presumptively deemed respondents’ possession unlawful without factual support.
Effect of Pending Ownership Suit on the Ejectment Proceedings
The Court applied the exceptional rule from Amagan v. Marayag, recognizing that where an ejectment proceeding threatens to demolish a party’s house and an ownership case is pending involving the same property, equity favors suspension of the ejectment to avoid irreparable injury. Since the respondents’ petition for nullification of partition raised substantial questions on ownership and would determine entitlement to possession, the unlawful detainer case was appropriately dis
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 187944)
Procedural History and Parties Involved
- This case involves a petition for review challenging the decisions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 03489 dated March 19, 2009, and May 5, 2009, which granted the respondents’ petition seeking reversal of rulings by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, and the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 3, both courts in Cebu City.
- The MTCC and RTC ruled in favor of petitioner Carmencita Suarez, upholding her complaint for unlawful detainer against respondents Mr. and Mrs. Felix E. Emboy, Jr. and Marilou P. Emboy-Delantar.
- The CA reversed the lower courts’ decisions, dismissing Carmencita’s complaint for unlawful detainer.
- The case centers on possession and ownership disputes over a parcel of land designated as Lot No. 1907-A-2, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-174880 issued to Carmencita in 2005.
Facts and Property Background
- The disputed property is a 222-square meter land parcel situated in Barangay Duljo, Cebu City, formerly part of Lot No. 1907-A, a 957-square meter parcel partitioned among the heirs of Spouses Carlos Padilla and Asuncion Pacres.
- Ownership was divided into five lots, with Lot No. 1907-A-2 registered under the Heirs of Vicente Padilla, while Lot No. 1907-A-5 was registered under Claudia Padilla-Emboy, the respondents’ mother.
- Respondents claim longstanding possession of Lot No.1907-A-2 based on inheritance from Claudia, who had occupied it as her designated share and succeeded her parents’ rights.
- In 2004, the respondents were requested by the Heirs of Vicente to relocate to Lot No. 1907-A-5 but refused, maintaining their claim to Lot No. 1907-A-2.
- Subsequently, the respondents discovered possible anomalies, such as forged signatures, in the partition deeds related to Lot No. 1907-A and filed a petition to nullify the partition in RTC.
Relevant Actions and Claims
- Carmencita purchased the subject lot on February 12, 2004, from Remedios, Moreno, Veronica, and Dionesia Padilla, purported registered owners, and demanded respondents vacate.
- She filed a complaint for unlawful detainer before the MTCC in December 2004, claiming possession by tolerance and ownership of the subject lot.
- MTCC ruled for Carmencita, ordering respondents to vacate and remove improvements, and imposed attorney’s fees.
- The RTC affirmed the MTCC decision in 2008.
- Respondents appealed to the CA, which reversed the lower courts’ rulings, dismissing Carmencita’s complaint.
- Carmencita filed a motion for reconsideration before CA, which was denied.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Carmencita’s complaint adequately alleged and proved a cause of action for unlawful detainer.
- Whether the pendency of the respondents’ petition to nullify the partition and for issuance of new titles should abate Carmencita’s ejectment suit.
Legal Framework and Definitions
- Unlawful detainer and forcible entry are distinct summary act