THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 220763. January 27, 2016.]
SALVADOR O. LUIS AND WIFE AUREA C. LUIS, SAMUEL C. LUIS AND EMMANUEL C. LUIS, petitioners, vs. AMADO ESCAÑO, FOR HIMSELF AND AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF JOHN PAUL Z. ESCAÑO, JULIUS Z. ESCAÑO, AND VIVENCIO E. BUNYI, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 27, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 220763(Salvador O. Luis and wife Aurea C. Luis, Samuel C. Luis and Emmanuel C. Luis v. Amado Escaño, for himself and as Attorney-in-Fact of John Paul Z. Escaño, Julius Z. Escaño, and Vivencio E. Bunyi). — For resolution is the petition for review of Resolutions dated December 11, 2014 1 and September 23, 2015 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) denying outright the petition CA-G.R. SP. No. 13814.
In its Decision dated July 8, 2013 in Civil Case No. 12-41431 for ejectment, the MeTC, Branch 43, Quezon City rendered judgment against Salvador O. Luis, Aurea C. Luis, Samuel C. Luis and Emmanuel C. Luis ordering them to vacate the disputed property and pay the costs of suit. 3 Petitioners appealed, but on October 13, 2014, the RTC Branch 92, Quezon City affirmed the MeTC decision. 4
Petitioners filed a Petition for Review 5 under Rule 42 docketed with the CA. Only Emmanuel C. Luis signed the Verification/Affidavit of Non-Forum Shopping of the said petition.
In its Resolution dated December 11, 2014, the CA dismissed outright the petition for failure to present the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) "authorizing Emmanuel C. Luis to file the instant petition and sign the Verification/Affidavit of Non-Forum Shopping on behalf of his co-petitioners Sps. Salvador and Aurea Luis, and Samuel C. Luis." Petitioners sought reconsideration submitting the required SPA signed by Aurea C. Luis and Samuel C. Luis and manifesting further the death of Salvador O. Luis. 6 On September 23, 2015, the CA denied the motion for failure to cure the infirmities observed in its earlier resolution. Hence, this petition.
The CA erred in dismissing the petition outright based solely on the failure of petitioners to present the SPA in favor of Emmanuel C. Luis. In several instances, we have held that "where the petitioners are immediate relatives, who share a common interest in the property subject of the action, the fact that only one of the petitioners executed the verification or certification of [non-]forum shopping will not deter the court from proceeding with the action." 7 Emmanuel C. Luis, the signatory of the Verification/Affidavit of Non-Forum Shopping of the petition filed before the CA, is the son of Spouses Salvador and Aurea Luis, while Samuel Luis is his brother. 8 Even without the SPA, the CA should still have ruled on the merits.
Despite petitioners' substantial compliance with the requirements of verification and non-forum shopping, however, the petition should still be denied for lack of merit. Petitioners allege that: (a) respondents' Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) to the property was acquired through fraud; (b) they had prior possession of the property, and (c) the MeTC decision is void for failure to comply with A.M. No. 04-5-19-SC. 9
Petitioners' allegation of fraud in the issuance of respondents' TCT is of no moment. In an unlawful detainer case, the only issue for resolution is physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the party litigants. Whether the petitioners have a better right to the contested area and whether fraud attended the issuance of the TCT are issues that are outside the jurisdiction and competence of a trial court in actions for unlawful detainer and forcible entry. 10 A Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked, to which an ejectment proceeding, is not an exception. 11 Moreover, the TCT under the name of Spouses Salvador and Aurea Luis has already been cancelled and replaced by the TCT under respondents' names. 12
Further, contrary to petitioners' claim, where the cause of action is unlawful detainer, prior possession is not always a condition sine qua non. 13 In an unlawful detainer, the defendant unlawfully withholds possession of the property after the expiration or termination of his right thereto under any contract, express or implied; hence, prior physical possession is not required. 14 This is especially so where a vendee seeks to obtain possession of the thing sold. 15 cAaDHT
Petitioners' allegation that the MeTC decision is void because the judge failed to comply with A.M. No. 04-5-19-SC is also without merit. The Court has held that A.M. No. 04-5-19-SC is primarily administrative. 16 It does not touch upon any jurisdictional issue and, in general, does not have any effect on the validity of the decision or resolution of either the transferred judge or the new judge. 17
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DENY the petition, SET ASIDE the Court of Appeals Resolutions dated December 11, 2014 and September 23, 2015 and AFFIRM the Metropolitan Trial Court Decision dated July 8, 2013 and Regional Trial Court Decision dated October 13, 2014.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 159.
2. Id. at 157-158.
3. Id. at 101-104.
4. Id. at 121-123.
5. Id. at 124-142.
6. Id. at 143-151.
7. Heirs of Lazaro Gallardo v. Soliman, G.R. No. 178952, April 10, 2013, 695 SCRA 453, 464, citing Heirs of Domingo Hernandez, Sr. v. Mingoa, Sr., G.R. No. 146548, December 18, 2009, 608 SCRA 394, 405-406; Traveño v. Bobongon Banana Growers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, G.R. No. 164205, September 3, 2009, 598 SCRA 27, 36; and Medado v. Heirs of the Late Antonio Consing, G.R. No. 186720, February 8, 2012, 665 SCRA 534, 545.
8. Rollo, p. 145.
9. Resolution Providing Guidelines in the Inventory and Adjudication of Cases Assigned to Judges who are Promoted or Transferred to Other Branches in the Same Court Level of the Judicial Hierarchy.
10. Heirs of Jose Maligaso, Sr. v. Encinas, G.R. No. 182716, June 20, 2012, 674 SCRA 215, 223.
11. Id.
12. Rollo, p. 36.
13. Barba v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126638, February 6, 2002, 376 SCRA 210, 218 citing Benitez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104828, January 16, 1997, 266 SCRA 242, 248-249. See also Go v. Looyuko, G.R. No. 196529, July 01, 2013, 700 SCRA 313, 321.
14. Id.
15. Id., citing Pharma Industries, Inc. v. Pajarillaga, G.R. No. L-53788, October 17, 1980, 100 SCRA 339, 345.
16. People v. Ocfemia, G.R. No. 185383, September 25, 2013, 706 SCRA 312, 327.
17. Id. at 328.