FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 204621. October 6, 2021.]
ALMA C. DANGDANG-DAVID, petitioner,vs. ARNIE CANTILLA ALBA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 6, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 204621 (Alma C. Dangdang-David v. Arnie Cantilla Alba). — On October 13, 2009, Spouses Arturo Alba Sr. and Norma Alba (Spouses Alba) filed against Alma Dangdang-David (Alma) an Action for Recovery of Ownership and Cancellation of Title before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Roxas City, Branch 16 docketed as Civil Case No. V-48-09. 1 Spouses Alba alleged that they are the owners of a parcel of land known as Lot No. 278 and registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-2097. However, the Register of Deeds cancelled TCT No. T-2097 and issued TCT No. T-56839 in Alma's name based on a Deed of Sale dated December 15, 2008. Spouses Alba claimed that the contract was forged and absolutely simulated. 2
Meanwhile, Alma filed on March 16, 2010 a Complaint 3 for Unlawful Detainer against Spouses Alba's daughter Arnie Cantilla Alba (Arnie) before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) docketed as Civil Case No. V-2811. Alma claimed that she is the owner of Lot No. 278 registered under TCT No. T-56839 and the two-story commercial building constructed thereon. Alma purchased the lot and the building on December 15, 2008 from Spouses Alba. Thereafter, Alma tolerated Arnie's possession of the second floor of the building on the condition that she will vacate the premises upon demand. 4 In her answer, Arnie countered that TCT No. T-56839 is a product of Forgery and pointed out that her parents had filed an Action for Recovery of Ownership and Cancellation of Title against Alma before the RTC. Arnie argued that the real action involving ownership pending in the RTC covers the issue of material possession in the Unlawful Detainer case. 5
On July 5, 2011, the MTCC submitted the Unlawful Detainer case for Decision after the parties filed their position papers. 6 On July 26, 2011, however, the MTCC held the case in abeyance until the Resolution of Civil Case No. V-48-09 in the RTC Branch 16, 7 thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Order dated July 5, 2011 is accordingly RECALLED and the resolution of the instant case is hereby HELD in ABEYANCE pending the resolution of Civil Case No. V-48-09 entitled Arturo P. Alba, Sr. and Norma C. Alba, plaintiffs vs. Alma C. Dangdang, et al., by the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Branch 16. The parties are directed to inform this Court once a Decision has already been rendered by the Honorable Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Branch 16, which is hereby most respectfully requested to furnish this Court a copy of its Decision in the aforementioned case once the same has been issued.
Send copies of this Order to all the parties, including the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Branch 16.
SO ORDERED. 8 (Emphases in the original.)
Aggrieved, Alma filed a Petition for Certiorari before the RTC Branch 19 docketed as Special Civil Action No. SCA-08-11. Alma contended that the MTCC committed Grave Abuse of Discretion in suspending the unlawful detainer case. 9 On August 3, 2012, the RTC Branch 19 dismissed the Petition for lack of merit explaining that it is within the MTCC's authority to suspend the proceedings based on "strong case of equity." The RTC held that the defense of Forgery in the unlawful detainer case must be determined in the action for recovery of ownership and cancellation of title, 10 to wit: ASEcHI
Private respondent alleged that the title of the petitioner was based on the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by her parents in favor of the petitioner. The Deed of Absolute Sale was a falsified document and a product of [F]orgery, hence, the issuance of the title in the name of the petitioner is void. On this aspect, the Court finds the existence of a "strong case of equity" which would justify the suspension of the proceedings in the Municipal Trial Court for Unlawful Detainer.
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, finding no [G]rave [A]buse of [D]iscretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 11 (Emphases supplied.)
Alma sought Reconsideration but was denied. 12 Hence, this direct recourse through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Alma maintains that the RTC erred in affirming the MTCC's Order which indefinitely suspended the proceedings for unlawful detainer despite the absence of any legal or equitable reason. Moreover, the order of suspension is contrary to applicable jurisprudence. 13
The Petition is meritorious.
At the outset, we stress that a direct recourse to this Court through a Petition for Review on Certiorari can be taken from the Decisions, Final Orders or Resolutions of the RTC. The appeal must involve only questions of law, not of fact. 14 A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. It must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence. 15 Notably, an inquiry into whether the RTC correctly affirmed the MTCC's indefinite suspension of the unlawful detainer case is legal and not factual issue. This is a pure question of law that does not require the examination of evidence. The resolution of this question rests solely on what the law or the jurisprudence provides on the given set of circumstances. Hence, direct recourse to the Court is allowed. 16
It is settled that Unlawful Detainer cases are summary in nature and only resolve the issue of physical or material possession, which is independent of any claim of ownership. However, in case the defendant raises the issue of ownership in his or her pleadings, the first level courts can decide the issue of ownership provisionally for the sole purpose of determining the issue of possession, 17 to wit:
In forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, even if the defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the lower courts and the Court of Appeals, nonetheless, have the undoubted competence to provisionally resolve the issue of ownership for the sole purpose of determining the issue of possession.
Such decision, however, does not bind the title or affect the ownership of the land nor is conclusive of the facts therein found in a case between the same parties upon a different cause of action involving possession. 18 (Emphases supplied.)
Moreover, the mere filing of another action raising ownership of the property as an issue cannot abate or suspend an Unlawful Detainer case. 19 The abatement of action for an unlawful detainer is heavily discouraged because it is contrary to the summary nature of ejectment proceedings. The Court has affirmed this rule in the following precedents: (1) Injunction suits instituted in the RTC by defendants in ejectment actions in the Municipal Trial Courts or other Courts of the First Level do not abate the latter; and neither do proceedings on consignation of rentals; 20 (2) An accion publiciana does not suspend an ejectment suit; 21 (3) A writ of possession case where ownership is concededly the principal issue before the RTC does not preclude nor bar the execution of the judgment in an unlawful detainer suit where the only issue involved is the material possession or possession de facto of the premises; 22 (4) An action for quieting of title to property is not a bar to an ejectment suit involving the same property; 23 (5) Suits for specific performance with damages do not affect ejectment actions (e.g., to compel renewal of a lease contract); 24 (6) An action for reformation of instrument (e.g., from deed of absolute sale to one of sale with pacto de retro) does not suspend an ejectment suit between the same parties; 25 (7) An action for reconveyance of property or accion reivindicatoria also has no effect on ejectment suits regarding the same property; 26 and (8) Neither do suits for annulment of sale, nor title, nor document affecting property operate to abate ejectment actions respecting the same property. 27
Only in rare instances is suspension allowed to await the outcome of a pending Civil Action. In Vda. de Legaspi v. Avendaño, 28 and Amagan v. Marayag, 29 the Court ordered the Suspension of the Ejectment Proceedings on considerations of equity. In those cases, the ejectment of petitioners would mean demolition of their house and would create confusion, disturbance, inconvenience, and expense. Needlessly, the court would be wasting much time and effort by proceeding to a stage wherein the outcome would at best be temporary but the result of enforcement would be permanent, unjust and probably irreparable. ITAaHc
Here, Alma alleged that she merely tolerated Arnie's possession of the property subject to the promise to vacate upon demand. On the other hand, Arnie contended that Alma's title over the lot is obtained through Forgery. Apparently, both the RTC and the MTCC suspended the Unlawful Detainer proceedings solely because of the Pendency of the Action for Recovery of Ownership and Cancellation of Title. Given these factual antecedents, the present case hardly falls within the exception cited in Vda. de Legaspi and Amagan as the Resolution of the Ejectment suit will not result in the demolition of the premises. Contrary to the RTC and the MTCC's Findings, Arnie failed to show "strong reasons of equity" to sustain the Suspension of the Ejectment Case. As such, the Court adheres to settled jurisprudence that suits involving ownership may not be successfully pleaded in abatement of an action for ejectment, to wit:
This rule is not without good reason. If the rule were otherwise, ejectment cases could easily be frustrated through the simple expedient of filing an action contesting the ownership over the property subject of the controversy. This would render nugatory the underlying philosophy of the summary remedy of ejectment which is to prevent criminal disorder and breaches of the peace and to discourage those who, believing themselves entitled to the possession of the property, resort to force rather than to some appropriate action in court to assert their claims. 30
On this point, we reiterate that Ejectment Suits 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 parties' opposing claims of juridical possession in appropriate proceedings. These actions are intended to avoid disruption of public order by those who would take the law in their hands purportedly to enforce their claimed right of possession. 31
FOR THESE REASONS, the Petition is GRANTED. The Regional Trial Court's Decision dated August 3, 2012 in Special Civil Action No. SCA-08-11 is REVERSED. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities' Order dated July 5, 2011 in Civil Case No. V-2811 is SET ASIDE. The MTCC is directed to resolve the Unlawful Detainer case with dispatch.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 24-25.
2.Id. at 22-30.
3.Id. at 107-109.
4.Id. at 6.
5.Id. at 31-36.
6.Id. at 63.
7.Id. at 64-69. Penned by Kristine B. Tiangco-Vinculado.
8.Id. at 69.
9.Id. at 75-96.
10.Id. at 97-101. Penned by Judge Esperanza Isabel E. Poco-Deslate.
11.Id. at 101.
12.Id. at 102.
13.Id. at 9-13.
14.Barcenas v. Tomas, 494 Phil. 565, 575-576 (2005).
15.Republic v. Malabanan, 646 Phil. 631, 637-638 (2010); citing Leoncio v. De Vera, 569 Phil. 512, 516 (2008); and Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. v. People, 721 Phil. 760, 767 (2013); citing Heirs of Cabigas v. Limbaco, 670 Phil. 274, 285 (2011). See also Vda. de Formoso v. Philippine National Bank, 665 Phil. 184, 197 (2011).
16.Central Realty and Development Corp. v. Solar Resources, Inc., G.R. No. 229408, November 9, 2020.
17.Co v. Militar, 466 Phil. 217, 224 (2004).
18.Id. at 223-224; citing Spouses Antonio and Genoveva Balanon-Anicete and Spouses Andres and Filomena Balanon-Mananquil v. Pedro Balanon, 450 Phil. 615, 621 (2003); Embrado v. Court of Appeals, 303 Phil. 344, 356 (1994); and Republic v. Court of Appeals, 305 Phil. 611, 625 (1994).
19.Wilmon Auto Supply Corporation, et al. v. Court of Appeals, 284 Phil. 217, 232 (1992).
20.Nacorda v. Yatco, 124 Phil. 345, 348 (1966); and Lim Si v. Lim, 98 Phil. 868, 872 (1956); citing Pue, et al. v. Gonzales, 87 Phil. 81, 88 (1950).
21.Ramirez v. Bleza, 193 Phil. 381, 388 (1981).
22.Heirs of F. Guballa, Sr. v. C.A., et al., 250 Phil. 519, 539 (1988).
23.Quimpo v. de la Victoria, 150-B Phil. 124, 134-135 (1972).
24.Desamito v. Cuyegkeng, 125 Phil. 318, 323 (1966); Pardo de Tavera v. Encarnacion, 130 Phil. 635, 640 (1968); Rosales v. CFI, 238 Phil. 148, 152-153 (1987); and Commander Realty, Inc. v. C.A., 161 SCRA 264 (1988).
25.Judith v. Abragan, 160-A Phil. 115, 121-122 (1975).
26.Del Rosario v. Jimenez, 118 Phil. 565, 566-567 (1963); Salinas v. Navarro, 211 Phil. 351, 355 (1983); De la Cruz v. C.A., 539 Phil. 158, 176 (2006); Drilon v. Gaurana, 149 SCRA 352 (1987); Ching v. Malaya, 237 Phil. 403, 409-410 (1987); Philippine Feeds Milling Co., Inc. v. C.A., 255 Phil. 816, 821-822 (1989); Dante v. Sison, 256 Phil. 277, 280-281 (1989); Guzman v. C.A., 177 SCRA 604 (1989); Demamay v. C.A., 264 Phil. 994, 1000-1001 (1990); Leopoldo Sy v. C.A., et al., 277 Phil. 131, 143-144 (1991).
27.Salinas v. Navarro, supra; Ang Ping v. RTC, 238, Phil. 77, 83-84 (1987); Caparros v. C.A., 252 Phil. 783, 788 (1989); Dante v. Sison, supra; Galgala v. Benguet Consolidated, Inc.,258 Phil. 77, 82-83 (1989).
28. 169 Phil. 138, 147-148 (1977).
29. 383 Phil. 486, 499 (2000).
30.Feliciano v. CA, 350 Phil. 499, 507 (1998).
31.Palattao v. Court of Appeals, 431 Phil. 438, 446-447 (2002).