THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230590. March 21, 2018.]
JANE C. SALERA, petitioner,vs. ANALYN VILLACERAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 21, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 230590 (Jane C. Salera, Petitioner, v. Analyn Villaceran, Respondent.) — The respondent occupied and leased a two-storey building located at Purok Paglaum, Sta. Lucia District, Pagadian City, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-19,030 in the name of Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation. In June 2009, the building was razed by fire, prompting the respondent to renovate it and to reinforce the fence with galvanized iron sheets. On November 30, 2012, the petitioner, who owned the adjoining lot, removed the fence built by the respondent and constructed her own concrete fence below the floor occupied by the respondent. Meanwhile, the petitioner obtained a building permit from the Office of the Building Official of Pagadian City for the already erected concrete fence. Thereafter, the petitioner sent to the respondent a demand to vacate a portion of property the latter was occupying.
Subsequently, the respondent filed a complaint for forcible entry against the petitioner in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Pagadian City (with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and damages). In her answer, the petitioner claimed that she and her siblings had the right to construct the concrete fence because they built it on their property; and that it was respondent who had encroached on their property.
On August 19, 2014, the MTCC rendered judgment in favor of the respondent and ordered the petitioner to remove or demolish at her expense the concrete fence constructed below the two-storey building leased by respondent; and to pay attorney's fees and cost of suit. 1
The petitioner appealed, with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ultimately ruling to dismiss the appeal for failure of the petitioner to file her appeal memorandum within the period prescribed by Section 7 (b) of Rule 40 of the Rules of Court. 2
The RTC further ruled that even if it had admitted the appeal memorandum and allowed the appeal to proceed, the petitioner's arguments would fail to persuade because, firstly, the respondent was able to prove her prior physical possession of the property, which was an important element for the grant of the right of possession in forcible entry cases; secondly, the ocular inspection showed that the concrete fence constructed by the petitioner was directly below the second floor of the building occupied by the respondent, and, as such, it encroached on the property leased by the respondent; thirdly, the petitioner could not raise the issue of ownership over the disputed property because the issue in ejectment proceedings was who between the contending parties was entitled to the physical possession of the property; and lastly, anent whether or not the complaint should have been dismissed for failure of the respondent to refer the matter to the Katarungan Pambarangay prior to the filing of the complaint in court, the case was exempt from the requirement considering that the complaint included a prayer for a provisional remedy. 3
On further appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) promulgated its assailed decision on October 7, 2016 by affirming the findings of the lower courts for being correct. 4
Hence, this appeal.
Ruling of the Court
After a judicious review, the Court RESOLVES TO DENY the petition for review on certiorari for failure of the petitioner to show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the decision of the RTC.
Anent the compliance with the requirement for barangay conciliation before the filing of the complaint, the CA correctly affirmed the resolution of the matter by the RTC in view of the complaint having included a prayer for a provisional remedy. In Administrative Circular No. 14-93, issued by the Court, relevantly provided as follows:
All disputes are subject to Barangay conciliation pursuant to the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law (formerly P.D. 1508, repealed and now replaced by Secs. 399-422, Chapter VII, Title I, Book III, and Sec. 515, Title I, Book IV, R.A. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991), and prior recourse thereto is a pre-condition before filing a complaint in court or any government offices, except in the following disputes:
xxx xxx xxx
8. Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being committed or further continued, specifically the following:
xxx xxx xxx
c. Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support during the pendency of the action; and
xxx xxx xxx
Consequently, the failure of the respondent to comply with the requirement for prior barangay conciliation was not fatal to her complaint.
The CA was also correct in holding that the respondent made out a case for forcible entry in her complaint. To maintain an action for forcible entry, the plaintiff must allege and prove: (1) that she had prior physical possession of the property; (2) that she was deprived of possession either by force intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth; and (3) that the action was filed within one year from the time the plaintiff learned of the deprivation. 5 Having alleged in her complaint and proven during trial that she had prior physical possession of the property encroached by the petitioner's fence, the respondent's action for forcible entry was properly upheld.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on October 7, 2016; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the cost of suit. (Leonen, J., on official leave.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 26-34; penned by Judge Pablito S. Pielago, Jr.
2.Id. at 40-46; penned by Judge Rolando L. Goan.
3.Id. at 45-46.
4.Id. at 61-71; penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Ronaldo B. Martin and Associate Justice Perpetua T. Atal-Paño.
5.Nenita Quality Foods Corporation v. Galabo, G.R. No. 174191, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 569.