SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242597. April 10, 2019.]
DANILO A. PAGADUAN, petitioner, vs.SPS. RAMIRO C. MALVAS AND NORMA ONG-MALVAS, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 April 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242597 — Danilo A. Pagaduan versus Sps. Ramiro C. Malvas and Norma Ong-Malvas
After reviewing the instant Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 dated June 27, 2018 and Resolution 2 dated October 8, 2018 in CA-G.R. CV No. 109356, the Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition for failure of petitioner Danilo A. Pagaduan (Pagaduan) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error that warrants the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
The instant Petition is unmeritorious.
Foremost, it does not escape the attention of the Court that Pagaduan failed to include in the instant Petition a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the assailed Decision of the CA, violating Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. According to Section 5 of the same Rule, such failure by Pagaduan to comply with the formal requisites of a Rule 45 petition is sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. As held time and time again, the right to appeal is not a natural right but merely a statutory privilege. A party appealing is, thus, expected to comply with the requirements of relevant rules otherwise he would lose the statutory right to appeal. 3
In any case, even if the Court dispenses with the aforesaid procedural error, the instant Petition lacks merit all the same.
As correctly held by the CA, according to Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) exercises exclusive original jurisdiction with respect to all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds P20,000.00. 4 It is not disputed by any party that the assessed value of the subject property is P33,485.40 5 based on the tax declaration issued by the Office of the Municipal Assessor of Aparri, Cagayan.
Furthermore, similarly incorrect is Pagaduan's theory that the RTC has no jurisdiction to hear the Complaint for accionpubliciana because the claim of respondents Sps. Ramiro C. Malvas (Ramiro) and Norma Ong-Malvas (Sps. Malvas) is actually an unlawful detainer complaint which is cognizable by the Municipal Trial Court and not the RTC.
In an action for unlawful detainer, the possession of the defendant must have been inceptively lawful, but eventually became illegal by reason of the termination of his right to the possession of the property under his/her contract with the plaintiff. 6 In the instant case, it was both alleged and eventually proven during trial that from the very beginning of Pagaduan's occupation of the subject property, it was invalid and without the consent of Sps. Malvas. As held by the CA, concurring with the findings of the RTC, Pagaduan's "physical possession of the subject property in 1991 was unlawful from the very beginning and without any color of right or title." 7
Pagaduan argues that there was prior lawful possession in the case at hand because there was supposedly tolerance on the part of Sps. Malvas of his possession over the subject property.
Such contention is erroneous.
It is a settled rule that in order to justify an action for unlawful detainer on the basis of the initial tolerance of possession by the defendant, the owner's tolerance must be present at the very beginning of the possession. 8 Further, the acts of tolerance must be proven showing the overt acts as to when and how the tolerance was granted; without these allegations and evidence, the bare claim regarding "tolerance" cannot be upheld. 9 In the instant case, there is no allegation and evidence whatsoever that Sps. Malvas tolerated Pagaduan's possession of the subject property at the inception of such possession. In fact, as noted by the RTC in its assailed Decision, 10 Ramiro testified that he had no knowledge at all that Pagaduan started encroaching on the subject property, and that upon discovery of Pagaduan's encroachment, he immediately acted to eject Pagaduan from the subject property. 11 Hence, Pagaduan's theory that the concept of mere tolerance of possession exists in the instant case deserves scant consideration.
Lastly, an ejectment case may only be filed within one year from the unlawful deprivation of possession of the subject property. 12 On the other hand, when the illegal deprivation of property has lasted more than one year, the proper action is one for recovery of possession or accionpubliciana, which properly falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC. 13 In the instant case, the illegal deprivation of the subject property has indisputably lasted for more than one year, making accionpubliciana the proper remedy at the disposal of Sps. Malvas.
SO ORDERED. (PERLAS-BERNABE, J., on leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 18-29. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison, with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of this Court) and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy concurring.
2.Id. at 31-32.
3.Magsino v. De Ocampo, 741 Phil. 394, 401 (2014).
4. BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129, Sec. 19 (2), as amended.
5. See CA Decision, p. 2; rollo, p. 9. Stated as P33,490.00 on page 5 of CA Decision; id. at 22.
6. See Spouses Muñoz v. Court of Appeals, 288 Phil. 1001 (1992).
7.Rollo, p. 26. Emphasis omitted.
8.Heirs of Demetrio Melchor v. Melchor, 461 Phil. 437, 445 (2003).
9.Echanes v. Sps. Hailar, 792 Phil. 724, 734 (2016).
10. See Decision dated April 11, 2017 of the RTC of Aparri, Cagayan, Branch 6 in Civil Case No. II-5674, penned by Presiding Judge Neljoe A. Cortes; rollo, pp. 44-54.
11.Rollo, p. 46.
12. RULES OF COURT, Rule 70, See. 1.
13. See Lagumen v. Abasolo, 94 Phil. 455, 456 (1954).