Ejectment ,statute of frauds, formalities of contracts For purposes of legal research, readers may find useful the discussions/citations in the position paper below that I have prepared in an ejectment case which involved the issues of stature of frauds and formalities of contracts.
POSIIO! P"P#$ FO$ %# P&"I!IFF THE PLAINTIFF, by counsel, respectfully states: I. P!PET" IN#!L# IN# !L#E$. E$. he property subject matter of the instant ejectment case is the residential house and lot located at '''., ''' Subd., ''', ''' (ity, with an area of )*+ s. m. and covered by ( !o. ''' registered in the name of ", plaintiff in the instant ejectment case. "ttached as "nne' -" hereof is a certified true copy of of the said ( !o. ''' to prove the ownership in fee simple by plaintiff " of the subject property. property.01
II. #2#(3#! (O3P&"I! T%e &erified complaint for ejectment 'unla(ful detainer) filed by t%e %erein plaintiff A *, t%ru %er former %er former counsel, Atty. Xxx Xxx,, prayed for a jud+ment in fa&or of t%e said plaintiff and a+ainst t%e defendants , et. al. directin+ t%e latter to (a) Vacate the aforesaid residential house and lot and to peacefully surrender the same to herein plaintiff; (b) Pay the plaintiff in the amount of Forty Eiht !housand Pesos (Php "#,$$$.$$) "#,$$ $.$$) for actual damaes damaes sustained sustained as a resu result lt of loss of employment in %apan and for the monthly rent for the to&nhouse unit; (c) Pay the plaintiff in such amounts representin for the payment of moral and exemplary damaes, as this 'onorable ourt, in its &ise and sound discretion, may determine; (d) Pay the plaintiff in the amount of Php*,$$$.$$ and Php,$$$.$$ per court appearance as Attorney+s fees; and (e) Pay the cost of the suit. he allegations of the ultimate facts of the instant ejectment complaint are uoted hereinbelow4
- . /. T%at plaintiff is of le+al a+e, Filipino and a resident of 0treet, 0treet, 1ni 1nitt ,, 0ubdi&is 0ubdi&ision ion,, 2ity (%ere s%e may be ser&ed (it% summons and ot%er processes of t%is Honorable 2ourt3 4. T%at defendants defendants are all of le+al a+e and are presen presently tly unla(fully residin+ at A&enue, A&enue, 0ubdi&ision, II, 2ity and may ser&ed (it% summons and ot%e ot %err le le+al +al pr proc ocess esses es t% t%ere erein in by t% t%is is Ho Hono norab rable le 2ourt3
5. Pl Plain aintif tifff is t% t%ee la la(f (ful ul o( o(ne nerr of a pa parc rcel el of la land nd situated in t%e 6unicipality of , Pro&ince of e&idenced by Transcript of 2ertificated of Title No. issued by t%e e+ister of $eeds of 2ity, 6etro 6anila and more particularly described as: 7 . 8. It (as solely out of t%e compassion and tolerance of t%e plaintiff, A (%ic% enabled all of t%e defendants to temporarily reside at %er parap%ernal property located at A&en enue ue,, 0u 0ubd bdi& i&is isio ion, n, 2i 2ity ty.. As members of t%e same family, complainant (illin+ly allo( all o(ed ed t% t%ee de defe fend ndan ants ts to br brie iefly fly res resid idee t% t%ere erein in to+et%er (it% %er minor c%ild, 9 and eldest son, # (%ile plaintiff continued %er employment at apan3 ;. It (as t%eir understandin+ t%en t%at t%ey (ere to reside t%erein by tolerance and rentfree, rentfree , but as soon as t%e time comes t%at t%e plaintiff (ould need a residen residential tial unit for %er or %er immediate family
, 4??=, plaintiff< f. T%at by reason of t%e persistence of t%e defendants, t%ey t% ey co conf nfro ront nted ed t% t%ee pl plain ainti tiff< ff
(as forcibly ased 'by t%e defendants) to lea&e %er property3 C. Plaintiff initially made an attempt to settle t%e matter amicably by filin+ a -0umbon+D '2omplaint) before t%e aran+ay Pamplona $os aran+ay 2ouncil a+ainst t%e defendants for unla(fully depri&in+ %er of t%e peaceful possession and enjoyment of %er residential %ouse and lot. 0%e sou+%t t%eir assistance to peacefully lead a(ay t%e said defendants and for t%e plaintiff to +et bac t%e p%ysical possession of t%e %ouse and lot ri+%tfully belon+in+ to %er. 7 . /?. Ho(e&er, no amicable settlement (as reac%ed upon by t%e parties. In fact, t%ey disre+arded t%e initial notice sent by t%e aran+ay and e&en i+nored t%e sc%eduled meetin+sdialo+ues before t%e Lupon. !n a mediation proceedin+s on t%e matter, defendants un(a&erin+ly manifested t%eir refusal to &acate t%e premises before t%e Honorable aran+ay 2aptain omualda #illalon (%o mediated t%e parties3 //. T%us, on '/> No&ember 4??=), t%e Tan++apan n+ 9apitan n+ aran+ay issued a 2ertification '9atibayan 1pan+ 6aadulo+ sa Huuman) aut%oriin+ t%e plaintiff to file t%e appropriate action unto t%is Honorable 2ourt statin+ t%at -(alan+ na+a(an+ pa+aayos o pa+aasundo sa m+a partidoD (as reac%ed. . /4. !n an effort to settle t%e matter, plaintiff t%rou+% t%e undersi+ned counsel transmitted t%rou+% re+istered mail (it% return card a -Final $emand Letter to #acateD dated 4/ No&ember 4??= addressed to all of t%e defendants to &acate t%e premises (it%in FIFTEEN '/;) days from receipt of t%e demand letter (%ic% defendants recei&ed on 45 No&ember 4??=. . /5. !n 4B No&ember 4??=, t%e undersi+ned counsel recei&ed a letter in response to t%e demand letter transmitted to t%e defendants. As a reply, t%e claimed counsel of t%e defendants (it% muc% re+ret informed t%e undersi+ned counsel t%at %is clients cannot comply (it% t%e final demand to &acate t%e property located at No. A&enue, 0ubdi&ision, 2ity. 7 . /8. y reason of t%e defendant
stay at t%e P%ilippines for a period of time and as a result (ould necessarily lose %er employment. Plaintiff normally recei&es F!T" TH!10AN$ 'P%p8?,???.??) a mont% as salary from %er employment. Lie(ise as a result of t%e unla(ful possession of t%e residential %ouse and lot, plaintiff (as constrained to rent a residential to(n%ouse unit at 0ubdi&ision for (%ic% t%e plaintiff is constrained to pay at a mont% rental of EIGHT TH!10AN$ 'P%p B,???.??) pesos a mont%3 /;. $efendants, (%o %a&e been unla(fully possessin+ and occupyin+ t%e subject parcel of land, and despite due notice and demand to &acate t%e same, unjustifiably failed and refused and continue to fail and refuse to &acated t%e said premises. T%us, due to defendant
of the due execution and authenticity of any written/documented or oral contract or agreement to positively prove and substantiate the alleged transaction. Further, the defendants 5, et. al. in the instant ejectment case cited the pendency of the case of -5 vs. " before the $egional rial (ourt, 5ranch ''', of ''' (ity, for specific performance and damages, doc6eted as (ivil (ase !o. '''. In the said $(7level civil complaint, 5 8plaintiff in the said $(7level case9 prayed in her "mended (omplaint as follows4
7 . HEEF!E, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed t%at after due %earin+ jud+ment be rendered as to t%e principal cause of action: a) !rderin+ defendant A to eecute t%e deed of sale in fa&or of t%e plaintiff o&er t%e %ouse and lot located at No. A&enue, 0ubdi&ision, 2ity and co&ered by t%e Transfer 2ertificate of Title No. of t%e re+istry of $eeds of 2ity3 b) !rderin+ defendant A to pay plaintiff t%e follo(in+ amount: i) P5??,???.??, as moral dama+es3 ii) P4??,???.??, as eemplary dama+es3 iii) P/??,???.??, as attorney
ii) P/,???,???.?? representin+ reimbursement to t%e plaintiff for t%e support of defendant A eldest son, %erein defendant #: iii) P4,/?;,???.??, representin+ rentals payments from Au+ust 4??/ to !ctober 4??= for t%e business Enterprise, (%ic% (as set up by t%e plaintiff for defendant #, plus le+al interest t%ereof from t%e filin+ of t%e complaint: i&) P/??,???.??, as attorney
7. /. $efendants deny t%e alle+ations stated in para+rap% = of t%e complaint. T%e trut% of t%e matter bein+ t%at no (ritten nor oral arran+ement (as e&er reac%ed by t%e parties (it% respect to t%e sale or transfer of t%e paraphernal %ouse and lot re+istered under t%e name of t%e $efendant A before s%e contracted marria+e (it% defendant 93 4. $efendants resolutely maintain t%at no earnest efforts to(ards an amicable settlement (ere conducted bet(een t%e parties. 0%e (as surprised to find out t%at t%e instant case (as filed by t%e plaintiff and t%at inappropriate and dis%onest measures (ere undertaen (%ic% e&idently s%o(ed %er un+ratefulness and +reediness to(ards %er sister, defendant A. 5. Plaintiff %as no le+al ri+%t o&er t%e property of t%e defendant. Plaintiff (as permitted by tolerance to stay at t%e property of t%e defendant as a mere transient. It is solely by reason of t%e compassion of t%e defendant to(ards %er sister, t%e plaintiff %erein and %er brot%ers t%at t%ey (ere permitted to stay at %er paraphernal %ouse and lot located at No. A&enue, 0ubdi&ision, 2ity. Alon+ (it% t%em t%en (as t%eir biolo+ical mot%er, 2 (%o %ad predeceased t%is contro&ersy and %er un+rateful c%ildren, , and 2. $efendant
c%ildren of t%e defendant (%ic% is selfser&in+ in nature and cannot be substantiated by t%e plaintiff by e&idence oral or documentary3 8. $efendant belies t%e alle+ation of t%e plaintiff t%at t%e former (as re@uired to stay at apan most of t%e time %a&in+ t%e resident status t%erein and bein+ married to a apanese national. To pro&e t%e contrary, defendant incorporates %er P%ilippine Passports issued on 6arc% /, 4??=, February /8, 4??/ and February =, 4??= respecti&ely .. T%e annotations t%erein (ill s%o( t%at defendant (as at constant connections (it% %er c%ildren, %er mot%er, 2 and %er parap%ernal property3 ;. t%at defendant (as ne&er in default in meetin+ (it% %er obli+ations as (ell as t%at of %er c%ildren. 0%e (as a fre@uent &acationer %ere in t%e P%ilippines (%o at all times %a&e s%ouldered t%e necessary payments for t%e obli+ations enumerated by t%e plaintiff upon %er return and t%rou+% %er money transfers from apan in order to pay t%ese obli+ations3 =. T%is is t%e primary reason (%y t%e &arious receipts '&arious attac%ments supplied by t%e plaintiff in %er complaint) are issued under t%e name of t%e defendant and si+nificantly not under t%e name of t%e plaintiff precisely because t%ese (ere in fact paid by t%e defendant or by t%e defendant. Furt%er, no contract epress or implied (ould indicate t%e claimed alle+ation of t%e plaintiff t%at s%e (as to permanently reside on t%e property of t%e defendant and introduce impro&ements t%ereon, pay t%e le+al taes due, and support t%e defendant
recei/ed &ithout the &ritin or as secondary e/idence of its contents2 (b) A special promise to ans&er for the debt, default, or miscarriae of another. (e) An areement for the leasin for a loner period than one year, or for the sale of real property or of an interest therein3. X x x. /?. Furt%ermore, t%e complaint merely alle+es t%at defendant is liable to pay plaintiff for moral and eemplary dama+es. T%e operati&e or constructi&e facts main+ up t%e pleaded cause of action for dama+es (ere not stated in t%e complaint for (%ic% no credit s%ould lie(ise be +i&en t%ereto3 . 'end of @uote) In their same (ivil (ase !o. ''', " and her spouse ; raised the following counterclaim4
7 . y (ay of 2!1NTE2LAI6, t%e fore+oin+ para+rap%s are %erein repleaded and reproduced insofar as t%ey are %erein rele&ant, material and si+nificant3 //. As a result of t%is present contro&ersy, defendant (as compelled to stay at t%e P%ilippines for a period of time and as a result lost %er employment in apan. $efendant recei&es a mont%ly e@ui&alent of Forty T%ousand Pesos 'P%p 8?,???.??) a mont% as salary from %er employment for (%ic% t%e plaintiff must be re@uired to pay by (ay of actual dama+es. A copy of t%e 2ertificate of Possible 0alary Payment, t%e it%%oldin+ Eemption 2ertificate of earned Income, and t%e Incumbency 2ertificate of t%e defendant are %erein attac%ed and made an inte+ral part of t%is Ans(er (it% 2ounter2laim . /4. Lie(ise and as a result of t%e unla(ful possession by t%e plaintiff of t%e residential %ouse and lot of t%e defendant, t%e latter (as constrained to rent a residential to(n%ouse unit at 0ubdi&ision for (%ic% t%e defendant (as constrained to pay a mont%ly rental of EIGHT TH!10AN$ 'P%p B,???.??) pesos a mont% for (%ic% once a+ain t%e plaintiff must be compelled to pay by (ay of actual dama+es. 7 . /5. y reason of t%is baseless complaint, defendant, A suffered and continuously suffers sleepless ni+%ts, serious aniety and ot%er similar sufferin+s from (%ic% entitles %er to t%e reco&ery of dama+es in suc% amount as t%is Honorable 2ourt, in its (ise and sound discretion, may determine3
/8. Also, by (ay of eample or correction for t%e public +ood, in addition to t%e moral dama+es, defendants %erein are duly entitled for t%e payment of eemplary dama+es in suc% amount, as t%is Honorable 2ourt, in its (ise discretion, may determine3 /;. Lastly and by reason of t%e baseless and unfounded complaint, defendant (as constrained to liti+ate t%is case and in order to protect t%eir ri+%ts and interests (as constrained to en+a+e t%e ser&ices of counsel (%om s%e (as obli+ated to pay t%e amount of Fifty T%ousand Pesos 'P%p ;?,???.??). 7 . 'end of @uote) Furt%er, in t%e said 2i&il 2ase No. , A and %er spouse 9 'defendants t%erein) prayed for t%e follo(in+ reliefs in t%eir ori+inal Ans(er: 7 . HEEF!E, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed unto t%is Honorable 2ourt to dismiss t%e instant complaint, as to t%e counterclaim, after due %earin+ be ordered to pay t%e defendant, t%e follo(in+ amounts: •
Forty T%ousand Pesos 'P%p 8?,???.??) respectin+ t%e mont%ly income lost by t%e defendant from %er employment in apan3
•
6ont%ly rentals of Ei+%t T%ousand Pesos 'P%p B,???.??) incurred and continually incurred by t%e defendant as a result of t%e refusal of t%e plaintiff to surrender t%e peaceful possession of t%e defendant
•
6oral and Eemplary dama+es in suc% amount as determined by t%is Honorable 2ourt3
•
Attorney
Other reliefs just and euitable are li6ewise prayed for. : ' '. (end of quote)
For t%e record, t%e %erein plaintiff A %ereby adopts into t%is Position Paper, by incorporation and reference, all %er fore+oin+ alle+ations, counterclaims and prayers as stated in %er ori+inal Ans(er in t%e said 2i&il 2ase No. .
III. #
In addition to t%e aforementioned Title of t%e %erein plaintiff 'T2T No. , mared as Anne -AD %ereof, supra), t%e plaintiff respectfully submits to t%is Honorable 2ourt t%e follo(in+ documentary e&idence in support of %er ejectment complaint a+ainst t%e defendants: /. Anne -D Letter 're: Final $emand Letter To #acate), dated No&ember 4/, 4??=, addressed to si+ned by Atty. 7, former counsel for A. 4. Anne -2D J Letter, dated No&ember B, 4??=, addressed to Herrera, et. al., and all persons claimin+ possession of t%e subject property o(ned by A, si+ned by Atty. 7. Tafalla, former counsel for A. It pro&es t%e jurisdictional demand made by t%e plaintiff to t%e defendants to &acate t%e subject property under ule >? and t%e earnest efforts of t%e plaintiff to e%aust all remedies before commencin+ t%e instant court action. 5. Anne -$D Letter dated No&ember 48, 4??=, addressed to Atty. 7, former counsel for A, si+ned by Atty. 7 of La( !ffices, counsel for , et. al., denyin+ and rejectin+ t%e demand of plaintiff to &acate t%e subject property. It pro&es t%e recalcitrance of t%e defendants in i+norin+ and rejectin+ t%e etrajudicial demands of t%e plaintiff. 8. Anne -ED J -Pata(a+D issued by aran+ay Pamplona II, dated No&ember /5, 4??=, addressed to A and , et. al.. 'Alt%ou+% defendant 6aria (as not named t%erein, s%e %ad actual and constructi&e no(led+e t%ereof, bein+ an actual resident of t%e property under t%e control and subsidy of 3 but 6aria c%ose not to &oluntarily participate t%erein) ;. Anne -FD J -9atibayan 1pan+ 6aadulo+ sa HuumanD, dated No&ember />, 4??=, issued by t%e said aran+ay addressed to A and , et. Al.. It s%o(s t%e failure of t%e defendants to settle (it% t%e plaintiff t%e instant ejectment contro&ersy, t%us, compellin+ t%e plaintiff to see judicial redress. =. Anne -GD J -En+a+ement 2ontractD, dated 0eptember 4=, 4??=, addressed to A, si+ned by %er former Atty. 7, s%o(in+ t%e epenses for professional fees incurred by t%e plaintiff in %irin+ t%e ser&ices of Atty. 7 to protect %er ri+%ts a+ainst t%e unjust acts of t%e defendants. >. Anne -HD J Letter, dated April /;, 4??>, addressed to Atty. 7, re: Notice of Termination of La(yer2lient elations%ip and Le+al 0er&ices, si+ned by A and 9. B. Anne -ID J Letter, dated April 5, 4??>, addressed to A and 9 t%ru N re: Attorney, si+ned by N and t%e Laserna 2ue&a6ercader La( !ffices, t%ru Atty. 6anuel Laserna, r., s%o(in+ t%e liti+ation epenses incurred by A in %irin+ t%e le+al ser&ices of t%e said la( firm to protect %er ri+%ts a+ainst t%e unjust acts of defendants , et. al.
/?. Anne -9D J 0pecial Po(er of Attorney in fa&or of t%e Laserna 2ue&a 6ercader La( !ffices actin+ t%ru Atty. 6anuel . Laserna r. andor Atty. 6yrna 2. 6ercader, dated April //, 4??>, si+ned by A and 9 and aut%enticated by t%e P%ilippine 2onsulate in Toyo, apan. //. Anne -LD 0pecial Po(er of Attorney in fa&or of # dated anuary /4, 4??>, issued by A and notaried by Atty. 7 in 2ity. /4. Anne -6D '(it% submarin+s) -Appraisal eportD, dated !ctober 4>, 4??=, on t%e subject property, issued by t%e 2o., Inc., (it% supportin+ documents, s%o(in+ t%e fair marer &alue of t%e subject property and t%e impro&ements t%ereon. It pro&es t%e %u+e economic opportunity losses t%e plaintiff and %er c%ildren are incurrin+ by reason of t%e unjust act of t%e defendants in dispossessin+ t%e plaintiff of %er subject property, (%ic% t%e plaintiff o(ns in fee simple as its la(ful and re+istered o(ner. /5. Anne -ND -2ontract of LeaseD, dated 0eptember /=, 4??= of t%e son of t%e plaintiff, #, (%o (as %arassed by defendants , et. al. to mo&e out of t%e subject property o(ned by %is mot%er '%erein plaintiff) A, t%us, constrainin+ %im to lease a property in 2ity, at PB,???.??mont%, (%ere %e and %is (ife could reside and (%ere %is mot%er could reside (%ene&er s%e returns to t%e P%ilippines for &acations. /8. Anne -!D '(it% submarin+s) #arious proofs of payments caused to be paidremitted by plaintiff A eit%er directly or t%ru %er duly aut%oried representati&es, e.+. %is son #, et. al., for t%e premiums of t%e fire insurance policies of t%e subject property, t%e &arious mont%ly dues, c%ar+es and fees caused to be paid by t%e plaintiff to t%e /;. Homeo(ners Association as a member in +ood standin+ of t%e Association bein+ a %omeo(ner t%erein, and t%e &arious annual local real estate taes caused to be paid by t%e plaintiff to t%e local +o&ernment of 2ity, T%ey dispro&e t%e claim of t%at s%e (as t%e one (%o %ad spent for all suc% epenses. /=. Anne -PD '(it% submarin+s) Employment records of t%e plaintiff A as an employee in apan, e.+., Incumbency 2ertificate, s%o(in+ %er incomessalaries and financial capacity as suc%, as (ell as t%e apanbased incomes t%at s%e %ad lost(ai&ed for attendin+ to t%e liti+ation of t%e pendin+ cases in&ol&in+ %er property in t%e P%ilippines. />. Anne -KD '(it% submarin+s) J Proofs of &arious dollar remittances t%e plaintiff A %ad made from apan to %er son # and t%e defendant for t%e support, sustenance, personal businesses and ot%er epenses and costs of li&in+ of t%e son of t%e plaintiff, #, t%e burial of anot%er son of t%e plaintiff, 9, t%e upeep and maintenance of t%e subject property, and all ot%er related necessary epenses relati&e to t%e c%ildren of t%e plaintiff and to t%e subject property. T%ey dispro&e t%e claim of t%e defendant t%at s%e (as t%e one financially supportin+ t%e li&in+ epenses, education, businesses, etc. of t%e c%ildren of t%e plaintiff or t%at s%e (as t%e one
spendin+ for t%e maintenance of t%e subject property or t%at s%e (as t%e one (%o funded t%e burial of t%e deceased 9. /B. Anne -D '(it% submarin+s) #arious business records of - EnterpriseD o(ned by t%e son of t%e plaintiff, #, (%ic% t%e plaintiff %ad %elped fund and or+anie. T%ey s%o( t%e financial capacity of # to support %imself, %is (ife, %is businessrelated transactions, and %is costs of li&in+ epenses, contrary to t%e claim of defendant t%at s%e (as t%e one (%o %ad funded t%e same. /C. Anne -0D T%e passports of # s%o(in+ %is business tra&els abroad. T%ey s%o( t%e financial capacity, personal maturity, and business acumen of # as a businessman, contrary to t%e claim of defendant t%at s%e (as t%e one (%o (as supportin+ t%e personal maintenance and business operations of #. 4?. Anne -TD '(it% submarin+s) usiness records of Enterprise and yyy 2ollection 're+istered in t%e names of defendants and ), (%ic% t%e plaintiff A, as (e (ellearnin+ apanbased employee, %ad %elped put up and fund at a time (%en t%e said and (ere basically penniless or under financial straits. Please note t%at t%e business names and yyy (ere patterned after t%e names of t%e c%ildren of t%e plaintiff. 4/. Anne -1D '(it% submarin+s) J ecords of t%e c%ecin+ account of # in Hon+on+ and 0%an+%ai an 'H02), s%o(in+ t%at %e %ad paid %is business loans t%ru %is said account, contrary to t%e claim of t%e defendant t%at s%e (as t%e s%e (%o paid suc% business loans of #. 44. Anne -#D '(it% submarin+s) usiness and financial records of 6ana+ement Inc., re: t%e purc%ase and full payment of a 6itsubis%i Lancer &e%icle made by t%e said corporation, (%ose major stoc%olders are t%e 2lan. T%e natural fat%er of # belon+ed to t%e said 2lan. T%e said records s%o( t%at t%e amortiations for t%e said car (ere made and paid by t%e said 2orporation and 2lan for t%e benefit of t%e latter and t%at t%e payments (ere made t%ru t%e account of t%e said corporation in PI Family an, contrary to t%e claim of defendant t%at s%e (as t%e one (%o %ad paid for t%e said car. 45. Anne -D '(it% submarin+s) J ecords of t%e amicable settlement of 2i&il 2ase No. 'T2 ranc% , 2ity), entitled -0ps. N &. A 'represented by %er lateM mot%er 2)D, in&ol&in+ t%e subject property. T%ey pro&e t%at plaintiff A %ad paid for all t%e e penses 'taes, re+istration fees, etc.) related to t%e $eed of Ec%an+e, t%e 2ompromise A+reement, and t%e re+istration of t%e titles in&ol&ed t%erein, contrary to t%e claim of defendant t%at s%e (as t%e one (%o paid for all suc% epenses. 48. Anne -7D '(it% submarin+s) J ecords of t%e amicable settlement of 2i&il 2ase 'T2, ranc% , 2ity) (%ic% A filed a+ainst t%e 1ni&ersity of Perpetual Help Hospital and its attendin+ doctors to see dama+es for t%e deat% of 9, a son of t%e plaintiff A. T%e records s%o( t%at
t%e defendant , as attorney in fact of A, recei&ed P=??,???.?? from t%e 1ni&ersity of Perpetual Help Hospital, et. al. as settlement money for t%e deat% of 9 'son of A) and s%o(in+ t%at Atty. 7, counsel for in t%e instant ejectment case, recei&ed /? t%ereof as %is fees. T%e said amount (as used by to reno&ateimpro&e and maintain t%e epenses for t%e subject property andor ot%er epenses relati&e to t%e c%ildren of A and to defray some of t%e liti+ation epenses of t%e said ci&il case. made it appear claimed t%at t%e funds s%e used for t%e said purposes came from %er o(n pocets. 4;. Anne -"D '(it% submarin+s) J Passports of A and %er %usband 9, s%o(in+ t%eir &arious tra&els to t%e P%ilippines to care for and super&ise A
". S"># OF F$">=S T%e alle+ed contract of sale unenforceable and cannot be instant ejectment case, t%at eisted, an alle+ation (%ic% false, untrue and fabricated.
bet(een t%e plaintiff A and t%e defendant is raised as a &alid le+al and factual defense in t%e is, assumin+ t%at suc% an a+reement actually is &e%emently denied by t%e plaintiff for bein+
1nder Art. /8?5, 2i&il 2ode, t%e follo(in+ contracts are unenforceable, unless t%ey are ratified: '/) T%ose entered into in t%e name of anot%er person by one (%o %as been +i&en no aut%ority or le+al representation, or (%o %as acted beyond %is po(ers3 '4) T%ose t%at do not comply (it% t%e 0tatute of Fraud as set fort% in t%is number. In t%e follo(in+ cases an a+reement %ereafter made s%all be unenforceable by action, unless t%e same, or some note or memorandum t%ereof, be in (ritin+, and subscribed by t%e party c%ar+e, or by %is a+ent3 e&idence, t%erefore, of t%e a+reement cannot be recei&ed (it%out t%e (ritin+, or a secondary e&idence of its contents: 'a) An a+reement t%at by its terms is not to be performed (it%in a year from t%e main+ t%ereof3 'b) A special promise to ans(er for t%e debt, default, or miscarria+e of anot%er3 'c) An a+reement made in consideration of marria+e, ot%er t%an a mutual promise to marry3 'd) An A+reement for t%e sale of +oods, c%attels or t%in+s in action, at a price not less t%at fi&e %undred pesos unless t%e buyer accept and recei&e part of suc% +oods and c%attels, or t%e e&idences, or some of t%em, of suc% t%in+s in action, or pay at t%e time some part of t%e purc%ase money3 but (%en a sale is made by auction and entry is made by t%e auctioneer in %is sales boo, at t%e time of t%e sale, of t%e
amount and ind of property sold, terms of sale, price, names of t%e purc%asers and person on (%ose account t%e sale is made, it is a sufficient memorandum3 'e) An a+reement for t%e leasin+ for a lon+er period t%an one year, or for t%e sale of real property or of an interest t%erein3 'f) A representation as to t%e credit of a t%ird person. T%e 0tatute of Frauds (as enacted for t%e purpose of pre&entin+ frauds. 1nder t%e 0tatute of Frauds, t%e only formality re@uired is t%at t%e contract or a+reement -must be in (ritin+ and subscribed by party c%ar+ed or by %is a+entD. For eample, a tele+ram ad&isin+ a person to (%om a &erbal promise for t%e sale of land %ad been pre&iously made to come at once in order to complete t%e purc%ase, but (%ic% tele+ram neit%er describes t%e property nor states t%e purc%ase price, and (%ic% is not si+ned by any person %a&in+ aut%ority to bind t%e seller, is not a sufficient memorandum of sale to satisfy t%e re@uirement of t%e statue. 2ontracts infrin+in+ t%e 0tatute of Frauds are susceptible of ratification. Accordin+ to Art. /8?; of t%e 2i&il 2ode, suc% contracts may be ratified eit%er '/) by t%e failure to object to t%e presentation of oral e&idence to pro&e t%e same, or '4) by t%e acceptance of benefits under t%em. Art. /8?; pro&ides t%at contracts infrin+in+ t%e 0tatute of Frauds, referred to in No. 4 of article /8?5, are -ratified by t%e failure to object to t%e presentation of oral e&idence to pro&e t%e same, or by t%e acceptance of benefits under t%emD< (%ile Art. /8?= pro&ides t%at (%en a contract is enforceable under t%e 0tatute of Frauds, and a public document is necessary for its re+istration in t%e e+istry of $eeds, t%e parties may a&ail t%emsel&es of t%e ri+%t under article /5;>. T%e primordial aim of t%e pro&isions is to pre&ent fraud and perjury in t%e enforcement of obli+ations dependin+ for t%eir e&idence upon t%e unassisted memory of (itnesses '4hoema5er /s. 6a !onde7a, =B P%il. 48). Alt%ou+% t%e said pro&isions simply pro&ides for t%e form or met%od by (%ic% contracts comin+ (it%in its terms may be pro&ed, nonet%eless, t%e claimant must first pro&e t%e eistence and due eecution of suc% a contract, not(it%standin+ its formal defects, if any. ' onlu /. Araneta, /; P%il. 5B>3 8allemit /. !abiliran, 4? P%il. 48/3 9uen:ler 4treff /. %ionco, 44 P%il. ///3 8ome: /. 4alcedo, 4= P%il. 8B;M3 /3 >aalona /. Paratcim ;C P%il. ;85). Alt%ou+% t%e 0upreme 2ourt %as %eld in many cases t%at no particular form or lan+ua+e or instrument is necessary to constitute a memorandum or note in (ritin+ under t%e statute of frauds, nonet%eless, suc% memorandum of note s%ould be in t%e form of a document or (ritin+, formal or informal, (%ic% %ad been (ritten eit%er for t%e purpose of furnis%in+ e&idence of t%e contract or for anot%er purpose (%ic% satisfies all t%e statute
accountant (%o claimed '(it%out establis%in+) t%at %e (as t%e &endor= P%il. ;=B). T%e settled rule is t%at t%e statute applies only to eecutory ' Factoran /s. 6aban, B/ P%il. ;/43 oc@in /s. 6ibo, C/ P%il. >>>), t%at is, a contract t%at %as not been completed or eecuted yet. Performance, (%et%er total or partial, taes a contact out of t%e operation of t%e statute. ' Arroyo /. A:ur, >= P%il. 8C53 'ernande: /. Adal, >B P%il. /C=3 Almirol /s. >onserrat, 8B P%il. ;/43 ?obles /s. 6i:arraa 'ermanos, ;? P%il. 5B>3 acalibo, I>8 P%il. >?3 =arcelona /s. =arcelona, ;5 !.G. 5>53 arbonnel /. Poncio, ;; !.G. 48/;). Performance must be duly pro&ed. Eamples of -performanceD include: 'a) a sale of real property (%ic% %as been consummated by t%e -deli&ery of t%e property to t%e &endeeD ' 4oriano /. 'eirs of >aali, L/;/55, uly 5/, /C=53 acalibo, supra )3 'b) or (%ic% %as been -partially eecuted by payment of a part of t%e priceD to t%e &endors -and t%e deli&eryD of t%e land to t%e &endees ' Almirol /s. 6i:arraa 'ermanos, ;? P%il. 5B>). In one case, it (as %eld t%at t%e transaction is not taen out of t%e co&era+e of t%e statute of frauds by t%e -mere alle+ation t%at plaintiff %ad taen possession of t%e land as a tenant and t%at %e %ad made substantial impro&ements t%ereonD, suc% alle+ation bein+ an -insufficient basis for pro&in+ t%e oral contract %ad been eecuted or performedD. T%ere must be an alle+ation to t%e effect t%at %e %ad taen possession of t%e land in &ie( of a supposed &erbal contract %e %ad (it% t%e defendant to purc%ase it, or t%at %e %as made impro&ements t%ereon because and as a conse@uence of said supposed contract to sell ' Pascual /s. realty 1n/estment, 1nc. C/ P%il. 4;>). Partial performance does not of itself eclude t%e application of t%e 0tatute of Frauds. Firstly, in order t%at a contract not to be performed (it%in one year may be taen out of t%e operation of t%e statue, it must appear clearly t%at full or complete performance %as been made by one party3 not%in+ less (ill suffice, and if anyt%in+ remains to be done after t%e epiration of t%e year besides t%e mere payment of money, t%e statute (ould apply ' =abao /s. Pere:, ;8 !.G. 4BBB). T%e doctrine of partial performance -cannot be in&oed a+ainst t%e statute (%ere t%e contract is &a+ue, ambi+uous and uncertainD in its terms and as to subject matter. For, ob&iously, t%ere can be no partial performance until t%ere is a -definite and complete a+reement bet(een t%e partiesD. For t%e doctrine to be a&ailed of, t%e parol a+reement relied upon must be -certain, definite, clear, unambi+uous, and une@ui&ocalD in t%is terms and as to subject matter, aside from bein+ fair, reasonable, and just in t%is pro&isions. T%is is so because -t%e doctrine is based on e@uity, and it (ould be ine@uitable to enforce an a+reement t%at does not satisfy t%e abo&e re@uirementsD ' =abao /s. Pere:, =abao /. Pere:, *" 8 ###). . Forms of 2ontracts T%e defense of t%e defendants t%at plaintiff A %ad alle+edly sold t%e subject property to defendant fails to meet and comply (it% t%e strict procedural and e&identiary
re@uirements set fort% in Articles /5;B, et. se@. of t%e 2i&il 2ode as to t%e forms or formalities of a contract or an a+reement. 1nder Art. /5;B, 2i&il 2ode, t%e follo(in+ must appear in a public instrument: '/) Acts and contracts (%ic% %a&e for t%eir object t%e creation, transmission, modification or etin+uis%ment of real ri+%ts o&er immo&able property3 sales of real property or of an interest t%erein are +o&erned by articles /8?5, No. 4, and /8?;3 '4) T%e cession, repudiation or enunciation of %ereditary ri+%ts or of t%ose of t%e conju+al partners%ip of +ains3 8?9 he power to administer property, or any other power which has for its object an act appearing or which should appear in a public document, or should prejudice a third person@
'8) T%e cession of actions or ri+%ts proceedin+ from an act appearin+ in a public document. Alt%ou+%, as a +eneral rule, contracts %all be obli+atory, in (%ate&er from t%ey may %a&e been entered into, yet t%ere are certain contracts fallin+ (it%in t%e pur&ie( or scope of t%is rule (%ic%, by reason of t%eir importance, s%ould be eecuted in accordance (it% certain formalities in order to insure t%eir efficacy and to protect t%e interests of t%e contractin+ parties as (ell as t%at of t%ird persons. T%e 2i&il 2ode, reco+niin+ t%is necessity, enumerates in Art. /5;B t%e different classes of contracts (%ic% must appear eit%er in a public or in a pri&ate document, and +rants in Art. /5;> a coerci&e po(er to t%e contractin+ parties by (%ic% t%ey can reciprocally compel t%e obser&ance of t%e re@uired form.
1nder Art. /5;C, 2i&il 2ode, (%en, t%ere %a&in+ been a meetin+ of t%e minds of t%e parties to a contract, t%eir true intention is not epressed in t%e instrument purportin+ to embody t%e a+reement, by reason of mistae, fraud, ine@uitable conduct or accident, one of t%e parties may as for t%e reformation of t%e instrument to t%e end t%at suc% true intention may be epressed. If mistae, fraud, ine@uitable conduct, or accident %as pre&ented a meetin+ of t%e minds of t%e parties, t%e proper remedy is not reformation of t%e instrument but annulment of t%e contract. 2. EE2T6ENT LA AN$ 2A0E0 T%e instant ejectment complaint fully complies (it% tec%nical and substanti&e re@uirements of ule >? of t%e ules of 2ourt and (it% t%e rele&ant jurisprudence applicable t%ereto. T%us, considerin+ t%e summary nature of t%e instant ejectment suit, t%e same s%ould be resol&ed by t%e Honorable 2ourt on t%e merits in fa&or of t%e plaintiff A 0ei(a, re+ardless of t%e pendency of t%e T2le&el case filed by .
T%e only issue in forcible entry and detainer cases is t%e p%ysical possession of real property J possession de facto and not possession de @ure '8utierre: /s. >aat, BC 4?A B). T%e subject matter t%ereof merely is t%e material possession or possession de facto o&er t%e real property. T%e @uestions to be resol&ed simply are t%ese: First, (%o %ad actual possession o&er t%e piece of real propertyO 0econd, (as t%e possessor ousted t%erefrom (it%in one year from t%e filin+ of t%e complaint by force, t%reat, strate+y, or stealt%O And lastly, does %e as for t%e restoration of %is possessionO Any contro&ersy o&er o(ners%ip ri+%ts s%ould be settled after t%e party (%o %ad t%e prior, peaceful and actual possession is returned to t%e property ' nder Sec. ? of $ule A+, an ejectment case is a summary procedure, and that all actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered, shall be governed by the summary procedure hereunder provided. >nder Sec. 0C of $ule A+, when the defendant raises the defense of ownership in his pleadings and the uestion of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession. >nder Sec. 0D of the $ule, the judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or detainer shall be conclusive with respect to the possession only and shall in no wise bind the title or affect the ownership of the land or building. Such judgment shall not bar an action between the same parties respecting title to the land or building.
Sec. 0A of the $ule provides that if after trial the court finds that the allegations of the complaint are true, it shall render judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the restitution of the premises, the sum justly due as arrears of rent or as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises, attorneyEs fees and costs. If it finds that said allegations are not true, it shall render judgment for the defendant to recover his costs. If a counterclaim is established, the court shall render judgment for the sum found in arrears from either party and award costs as justice reuires. In view of the summary nature of an ejectment suit, Sec. 0 of $ule A+ provides that if judgment is rendered against the defendant, e'ecution shall issue immediately upon motion, unless an appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay e'ecution files a sufficient supersedeas bond, approved by the 3unicipal rial (ourt and e'ecuted in favor of the plaintiff to pay the rents, damages, and costs accruing down to the time of the judgment appealed from, and unless, during the pendency of the appeal, he deposits with the appellate court the amount of rent due from time to time under the contract, if any, as determined by the judgment of the 3unicipal rial (ourt. In the absence of a contract, he shall deposit with the $egional rial (ourt the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises for the preceding month or period at the rate determined by the judgment of the lower court on or before the tenth day of each succeeding month or period. he supersedeas bond shall be transmitted by the 3unicipal rial (ourt, with the other papers, to the cler6 of the $egional rial (ourt to which the action is appealed. >nder Sec. )0 of the $ule, the judgment of the $egional rial (ourt against the defendant shall be immediately e'ecutory, without prejudice to a further appeal that may be ta6en therefrom.
T%e action for unla(ful detainer is summary in nature '$e&esa &s. 6ontecillo, 4> 02A B443 0arona &s. #ille+as, 44 02A /4;=). As suc%, it is inade@uate for t%e &entilation of issues in&ol&in+ title or o(ners%ip of contro&erted real property. In an unla(ful detainer case suit, (%ile t%e court cannot adjudicate on t%e issue of o(ners%ip, it may recei&e e&idence on possession de @ure to determine t%e nature of possession (onsin /s. %amandre, B" 4?A -) . It is fundamental principle in t%e la( +o&ernin+ unla(ful detainer cases t%at -a mere plea of title or o(ners%ip o&er t%e disputed land by t%e defendant cannot be used as a sound basis for dismissin+ an action for reco&ery of possessionD because an action for reco&ery of possession can be maintained e&en a+ainst t%e &ery o(ner of t%e property ' Prado /s. alpo, et. al., 8.?. o. 6-DCD, April $, -DB", cited in 4pouses medina and =ernal /s. Valdellon, B 4?A C# ). In actions of forcible entry and detainer, t%e main issue is possession de facto, independently of any claim of o(ners%ip or possession de @ure t%at eit%er party may se fort% in %is pleadin+. As incidents of t%e main issue of possession de facto, t%e inferior court can decide t%e @uestions of 'a) (%et%er or not t%e relations%ip bet(een t%e parties is one of landlord and tenant3 'b) (%et%er or not t%ere is a lease contract bet(een t%e parties, t%e period of suc% lease contract and (%et%er or not t%e lease contract %as already epired3 'c) t%e just and reasonable amount of t%e rent and t%e date (%en it (ill tae effect3 'd) t%e ri+%t of t%e tenant to eep t%e premises a+ainst t%e (ill of t%e landlord3 and 'e) if t%e defendant %as built on t%e land a substantial and &aluable buildin+ and t%ere is no dispute bet(een t%e parties as to t%e o(ners%ip of t%e land and t%e buildin+, t%eir ri+%ts accordin+ to t%e 2i&il 2ode. $efendants< claim
of o(ners%ip of t%e property from (%ic% plaintiff sees to eject %im is not sufficient to di&est t%e inferior detainer. (Al/ir /s. Vera, -$ 4?A *C). An unla(ful detainer is t%e act of unla(fully (it%%oldin+ t%e possession of t%e land or buildin+ a+ainst or from a landlord, &endor or &endee or ot%er person after t%e epiration or termination of t%e detainerirasol, DD Phil. -*$ (-D*B); Pardo de !a/era /s. Encarnacion, et. al., 4?A B (-DB#). An unla(ful detainer action %as an entirely different subject from t%at of an action for recon&eyance of title. %at is in&ol&ed in unla(ful detainer case is merely t%e issue of material possession or possession de facto; (%ereas in an action for recon&eyance, o(ners%ip is t%e issue. 0o muc% so t%at t%e pendency of an action for recon&eyance of title o&er t%e same property does not di&est t%e city or municipal court of its jurisdiction to try t%e forcible entry or unla(ful detainer case, nor (ill it preclude or bar eecution of jud+ment in t%e ejectment case (%ere t%e only issue in&ol&ed is material possession or possession de facto ' ?amire: /s. =le:a, 6"*B"$, %uly $, -D#-, -$B 4?A -#C) . T%is is so because t%e jud+ment rendered in an action for forcible entry or detainer s%all be effecti&e (it% respect to t%e possession only and in no case bind t%e title or affect t%e o(ners%ip of t%e land or buildin+. 0uc% jud+ment s%all not bar an action bet(een t%e same parties respectin+ title to t%e land or buildin+ nor s%all it be %eld conclusi&e of t%e facts t%erein found in a case of action not in&ol&in+ possession. T%e rationale is t%at forcible entry and unla(ful detainer cases are summary proceedin+s desi+ned to pro&ide for an epeditious means of protectin+ actual possession or t%e ri+%t to possession of t%e property in&ol&ed ' ?epublic /s. 8uarin, #- 4?A BD). It does not admit of a delay in t%e determination t%ereof. It is -time procedureD desi+ned to remedy t%e situation ' >abalot /s. >adela, %r. -- 4?A "C).Procedural tec%nicality is t%erefore ob&iated and reliance t%ereon to stay e&iction from t%e property s%ould not be tolerated and cannot o&erride substantial justice ' acalala, #4?A *"; astro /s. delos ?eyes, -$D Phil. B") . E&en (%ere defendant in a detainer or forcible entry -alle+es title to t%e propertyD in %is ans(er, it is declared in a +reat number of cases t%at t%e trial court (ill not be di&ested of its jurisdiction by suc% alle+ations alone (4a/inada /. !uason, et. al., 8.?. o. 6-, >ay $, -D"D; 6oo 4oo /. sorio, ?.8. o. 6-B", >ay $, -D*-; ru: /. 6unsan, 8.?. o. 6, ctober ", -D*D; ediran V. Villanue/a, C Phil. C*) .
%ere t%e possession of defendant is -by toleranceD on t%e part of t%e plaintiff, or %is predecessor, t%e possession or detainer becomes ille+al from t%e time t%at t%ere is a demand to &acate (Amis /s. Araon, 6"B#", April #, -D*-). It is not necessary t%at t%ere be a formal a+reement or contract of lease before an unla(ful detainer suit may be filed a+ainst a possessor -by toleranceD. Neit%er is prior p%ysical possession of t%e property by plaintiff necessary ' Panilinan /s. Auilar, " 4?A -B; Pharma 1ndustries, 1nc. /s. Pa@arillaa, -$$ 4?A D). %en consent is (it%dra(n and o(ner demands tenants to lea&e t%e property, t%e o(nerontelibano /s. 'inaran 4uar Plantation, B Phil. CDC, #$#$). $. E2ENT EE2T6ENT 1I0P1$EN2E he plaintiff " further cites the following recent ejectment7related jurisprudence in support of her complaint. In the case of %#I$S OF 2"(O5O 5O&>S, et. al. vs. %# (O>$ OF "PP#"&S and SPO>S#S $I("$=O and G&I(#$I" 2I3#!#H, Respondents,G. $. !o. 0+A+?C, February , 0?, it was held ha on the issue of jurisdiction, the firmly settled principle is that a municipal court has jurisdiction over forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases even if the uestion of the ownership of the property is raised by the defendant. he e'ception is where the uestion of title is so involved in the ejectment case that it cannot be decided unless the title to the property is first ascertained. In the case of (O!(#P(IO! <. "3"G"!, et. al. vs. #O=O$I(O . 3"$""G, respondent G.$. !o. 0?D?AA. February )D, )+++1, it was held as a general rule, an ejectment suit cannot be abated or suspended by the mere filing before the regional trial court 8$(9 of another action raising ownership of the property as an issue. "s an e'ception, however, unlawful detainer actions may be suspended even on appeal, on considerations of euity, such as when the demolition of petitionersJ house would result from the enforcement of the municipal circuit trial court 83((9 judgment. hus4 : ' '. >nlawful detainer and forcible entry suits under $ule A+ are designed to summarily restore physical possession of a piece of land or building to one who has been illegally or forcibly deprived thereof, without prejudice to the settlement of the partiesJ opposing claims of juridical possession in appropriate proceedings. It has been held that these actions Kare intended to avoid disruption of public order by those who would ta6e the law in their hands purportedly to enforce their claimed right of possession.K [da [de !egaspi v. "venda#o, $% &'R" *, &eptember +$, %$$, per arredo, -. In these cases, the issue is
pure physical or de facto possession, and pronouncements made on uestions of ownership are provisional in nature. "s a general rule, therefore, a pending civil action involving ownership of the same property does not justify the suspension of ejectment proceedings. Khe underlying reasons for the above ruling were that the actions in the $egional rial (ourt did not involve physical or de facto possession, and, on not a few occasions, that the case in the $egional rial (ourt was merely a ploy to delay disposition of the ejectment proceeding, or that the issues presented in the former could uite as easily be set up as defenses in the ejectment action and there resolved.K [ilson "uto &upply 'orp. v. 'ourt of "ppeals, +01 &'R" 01, "pril 0, %%+, per !arvasa, (2. In this case, the (ourt also held4 K0. Injunction suits instituted in the $( by defendants in ejectment actions in the municipal trial courts or other courts of the first level (2acorda v. 3atco, $ &'R" %+0 (%44)) do not abate the latter@ and neither do proceedings on consignation of rentals (!im &i v. !im, %1 5hil. 141 (%*4), citing 5ue et al. v. 6on7ales, 1$ 5hil. 1, (%*0)). ). "n Kaccion publicianaK does not suspend an ejectment suit against the plaintiff in the former (Ramire7 v. le7a, 04 &'R" 1$ (%1)). ?. " Kwrit of possession caseK where ownership is concededly the principal issue before the $egional rial (ourt does not preclude nor bar the e'ecution of the judgment in an unlawful detainer suit where the only issue involved is the material possession or possession de facto of the premises (8eirs of 9. 6uballa &r. v. '" et al.: etc., 41 &'R" *1 (%11)). *. "n action for uieting of title to property is not a bar to an ejectment suit involving the same property(;uimpo v. de la ictoria, <4 &'R" % (%$+)). B. Suits for specific performance with damages do not affect ejectment actions 8e.g., to compel renewal of a lease contract9 (=esamito v. 'uyeg>eng, 1 &'R" 1< (%44): 5ardo de ?avera v. @ncarnacion, ++ &'R" 4+ (%41): Rosales v. '9A, *< &'R" * (%1$): 'ommander Realty, Anc. v. '", 4 &'R" +4< (%11)). C. "n action for reformation of instrument 8e.g., from deed of absolute sale to one of sale with pacto de retro9 does not suspend an ejectment suit between the same parties (-udith v. "bragan, 44 &'R" 400 (%$*)). A. "n action for reconveyance of property or Kaccion reivindicatoriaK also has no effect on ejectment suits regarding the same property (=el Rosario v. -imene7, 1 &'R" *<% (%4): &alinas v. 2avarro, +4 &'R" 4$: =e la 'ru7 v. '", &'R" *+0 (%1<): =rilon v. 6aurana, <% &'R" *+ (%1$): 'hing v. Balaya, * &'R" <+ (%1$): 5hilippine 9eeds Billing 'o., Anc. v. '", $< &'R" 01: =ante v. &ison, $< &'R" *$ (%1%):
6u7man v. '" (annulment of sale and reconveyance), $$ &'R" 40< (%1%): =emamay v. '", 14 &'R" 401 (%%0): !eopoldo &y v. '" et al., (annulment of sale and reconveyance), 6R 2o. %*11, "ug. +, %%). D. !either do suits for annulment of sale, or title, or document affecting property operate to abate ejectment actions respecting the same property(&alinas v. 2avarro, +4 &'R" 4$ (%1) C annulment of deed of sale with assumption of mortgage and/or to declare the same an equitable mortgage: "ng 5ing v. R?' , *< &'R" * (%1$) C annulment of sale and title: 'aparros v. '", $0 &'R" $*1 (%1%) C annulment of title: =ante v. &ison, $< &'R" *$ C annulment of sale with damages: 6algala v. enguet 'onsolidated, Anc. , $$ &'R" +11 (%1%) C annulment of document). In the case of ala $ealty Services (orporation v. 5anco Filipino Savings and 3ortgage 5an6 G.$. !o. 0)DDA. February 0A, )+++1, it was held that nothing is more settled than the rule that ejectment is solely concerned with the issue of physical or material possession of the subject land or building. %owever, if the issue of possession depends on the resolution of the issue of ownership which is sufficiently alleged in the complaint, the municipal trial court may resolve the latter [Refugia v. 'ourt of "ppeals, +*1 &'R" <$,44 (%%4) although the resulting judgment would be conclusive only with respect to the possession but not the ownership of the property [&ec. 1, Rule $0, %%$ Rules of 'ivil 5rocedure . In the caser of Sps. 2imeneL v. Patricia, Inc., G.$. !o. 0?*CB0. September 0D, )+++1, it was held that the rule is settled that although a uestion of jurisdiction may be raised at any time, even on appeal, the same must not result in a moc6ery of the tenets of fair play, such as where the issue was raised by petitioners for the first time only in a Petition for $eview and only after an adverse decision was rendered by the (ourt of "ppeals@ and where petitioners participated actively in the proceedings before the 3e( [ Refugia v. 'ourt of "ppeals, 6.R. 2o. 1+1<, * -uly %%4, +*1 &'R" <$, citing Rodrigue7 v. 'ourt of "ppeals, 2o. !C+%+4<, +% "ugust %4%, +% &'R" <%: 2avoa v. 'ourt of "ppeals, 6.R. 2o. *%+**, +% =ecember %%*, +* &'R" *<*. and invo6ed its jurisdiction with the filing of their answer, in see6ing affirmative relief from it, in subseuently filing a notice of appeal before the $(, and later, a Petition for $eview with the (ourt of "ppeals. hus4 : ' '. 5e that as it may, we find no error in the 3e( assuming jurisdiction over the subject matter. " complaint for unlawful detainer is sufficient if it alleges that the withholding of possession or the refusal to vacate is unlawful without necessarily employing the terminology of the law. [ &umulong v. 'ourt of "ppeals, 6.R. 2o. 011$, 0 Bay %%<, ++ &'R" $+: 5angilinan v. "guilar, 2o. !C+%+$*, -anuary %$+, < &'R" 4. "s correctly found by the appellate court, to which we agree, the allegations in the complaint sufficiently established a cause of action for unlawful detainer. he complaint clearly stated how entry was effected and how and when dispossession started 7 petitioners were able to enter the subject premises as sublessees of Purisima SalaLar who, despite the termination of her lease with respondent, continued to occupy the subject premises without any contract with it@ thus, their stay was by tolerance of respondent.
7 . T%e status of petitioner spouses is ain to t%at of a lessee or a tenant (%ose term of lease %as epired but (%ose occupancy %as continued by tolerance of t%e o(ner. A person (%o occupies t%e land of anot%er at t%e latters forbearance or permission (it%out any contract bet(een t%em is necessarily bound by an implied promise t%at %e (ill &acate upon demand failin+ (%ic% a summary action for ejectment is t%e proper remedy a+ainst %im. Vda. H, (%I I&"G"!, Spouses "=O$ and #SS "5#$!" and 3"$IO &&"3"S, petitioners, vs. %# %O!O$"5&# (O>$ OF "PP#"&S MM and SPO>S#S $#!"&=O "!= H#!"I=" "!H>$#S, respondents, G.$. !o. 0+C)0*. September B, 0A1, it was held that the one7year reglamentary period under Section 0, $ule A+ for filing an unlawful detainer case is counted from the time of the Kunlawful deprivation or withholding of possessionK. Such unlawful deprivation occurs upon e'piration or termination of the right to hold possession. "nd such right legally e'pires or terminates upon receipt of the last demand to vacate [&y Dh v. 8on. 6arcia and !im 'hi v. 8on 6arcia, 1 5hil. $$$. ?husE
7 . In t%is case, alt%ou+% possession by petitioners 'ot%er t%an #illalu) lasted beyond 6arc% 5/, /CBB 't%e date t%ey (ere supposed to &acate t%e premises in accordance (it% t%e a+reement bet(een petitioner #illalu and pri&ate respondents), ne&ert%eless t%eir continued possession from April /, /CBB up to t%e time t%ey recei&ed t%e demand to &acate on February 45, /CBC, is considered as possession by tolerance. 0aid petitioners are not lessees but t%eir status is analo+ous to t%at of a lessee or tenant (%ose term of lease %as epired but (%ose occupancy continued by tolerance of t%e o(ner. T%eir ri+%t of possession of t%e said property stems from t%eir bein+ employees of petitioner #illalu (%o only allo(ed t%em to occupy t%e premises for a certain period. As suc%, t%eir possession depends upon t%e possession of petitioner #illalu. Ha&in+ merely stepped into t%e s%oes of t%e latter, said petitioners cannot ac@uire superior ri+%ts t%an t%at of petitioner #illalu. It %as been ruled, t%at Qt%e person (%o occupies t%e land of anot%er at t%e latters tolerance or permission, (it%out any contract bet(een t%em, is necessarily bound by an implied promise t%at %e (ill &acate t%e same upon demand,Q ot%er(ise t%e remedy of ejectment may be a&ailed of to oust %im from t%e premises. ?efuia /. A, *# 4?A "C (-DDB); Gu /.
Pascual, -* 4?A -"BH because it is only from that time that possession becomes illeal. # 4ee Vda. de Prieto /. ?eyes, -" 4?A "$; anaynay /. 4armiento, CD Phil. BH . Accordin+ly, since t%e complaint for ejectment (as instituted on uly /4, /CBC, or a mere four '8) mont%s from t%e time of t%e last demand to &acate, t%e same (as timely filed (it%in t%e prescripti&e period. 7 . In the case of O$O ("3 #!#$P$IS#S, I!(., petitioner, vs. (O>$ OF "PP#"&S, former Fourth =ivision and "!G#& (%"<#S, I!(., respondentsG.$. !o. 0)DA*?. !ovember ), 01, it was held that a judgment in an ejectment suit is binding not only upon the defendants in the suit but also against those not made parties thereto, if they are4 a9 trespassers, suatters or agents of the defendantfraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the judgment@
b9 guests or other occupants of the premises with the permission of the defendant@
c9 transferees pendente lite@
d9 sublessee@
e9 co7lessee@ or
f9 members of the family, relatives and other privies of the defendant. A 9loren7 =. Regalado, Remedial !aw 'ompend ium $% (%%$) he above doctrine e'pressly and properly applies to co7defendant B"RA" xxx, who is an aunt of the defendants 5, et. al. and who lives with them, who is under their direction, control, supervision, subsidy and assistance, and who had actual and constructive >nowledge of the e'istence of the mandated 5arangay conciliation and mediation proceedings but nonetheless impliedly waived her appearance thereto by not voluntarily appearing and participating therein despite such 6nowledge. he foregoing facts were not denied 8in fact, admitted sub silencio9 by the other defendants in their past pleadings in this case. <. (O!(&>SIO!
It is an establis%ed principle in la( t%at one (%o comes in e@uity must come (it% clean %ands. (!ala ?ealty 4er/ices orporation /s. =anco Filipino 4a/ins and
>ortae =an5, 8.?. o. -C*, o/ember $$, D 4?A *$B). -ne &ho see5s eIuity must do eIuity, and he &ho comes into eIuity must come &ith clean hands3. He or s%e (%o %as done ine@uity s%all not %a&e e@uity. T%e courts may deny e@uitable relief on t%e +round t%at t%e conduct and actions of a party are ine@uitable, unfair, dis%onest, or fraudulent, or deceitful. (>iller /s. >iller, 8.?. o. -"DB-*, D Auust $$B; Abacus 4ecurity /s. Ampil, 8.?. o. -B$$-B, C February $$B, "# 4?A -*.) $$#!=#$ the de facto/material possession of the subject property to the plaintiff or her duly authoriLed legal representative/s, with awards of damages, litigation e'penses, and costs of suit, as duly proved by the various documentary evidence attached to this Position Paper. &as Pinas (ity, 2anuary , )++D.
