View full case

EVERSLEY CHILDS SANITARIUM v. SPS. ANASTACIO

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute between the Spouses Anastacio and Perla Barbarona (respondents) and Eversley Childs Sanitarium (petitioner) over a property in Mandaue City, Cebu. The respondents filed a complaint for the recovery of possession of the property, claiming ownership and prior possession. The Municipal Trial Court ruled in favor of the respondents, and this decision was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court. The petitioner argued that the respondents' complaint should have been a case for accion publiciana instead of unlawful detainer, and that the nullification of the respondents' title should have invalidated their right of possession. The Court of Appeals denied the petitioner's appeal, stating that the allegations in the complaint were for the recovery of physical possession and thus a case of unlawful detainer properly filed in the Municipal Trial Court.

During the pendency of the petitioner's motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals, the respondents' certificate of title was cancelled by the Court of Appeals for lack of notice to the owners of the adjoining properties and occupants. The petitioner filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, arguing that the nullification of the respondents' title should have affected their right to possess the property.

However, before the Supreme Court could resolve the substantive issues, it first needed to determine whether the petitioner violated the rule on non-forum shopping. The petitioner had filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court despite a pending motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals. The rule on forum shopping is explained as the act of a party who institutes multiple suits in different courts for the same or related causes, in the expectation that one court would rule favorably. Compliance with the rule requires attaching a certification against forum shopping to the initiating pleadings, stating the absence of other similar actions or pending claims. Failure to comply can result in the dismissal of the case. The Office of the Solicitor General, representing the petitioner, is alleged to have violated the rule on non-forum shopping by filing the petition for review with the Supreme Court while a motion for reconsideration was pending with the Court of Appeals.

The Solicitor General explains that the mistaken filing of a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals was a result of different solicitors handling the case. They filed a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review with the Supreme Court, but a different set of solicitors mistakenly filed a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals. To rectify the mistake, the Solicitor General filed a manifestation and motion to withdraw the motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals can suspend the effectivity of its own rules.

  2. Whether or not the petitioner committed a fatal procedural error in filing its Motion for Reconsideration.

  3. Whether or not an ejectment case only resolves the issue of who has the better right of possession over the property.

  4. Whether the reconstitution of Decree No. 699021 is valid.

  5. Whether the cancellation of TCT No. 53698 is proper.

  6. Whether the petitioner's occupation of the property was by virtue of law or merely through the tolerance of the registered owner.

  7. Whether the proper remedy should have been an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria instead of an ejectment case.

  8. Whether or not the order dated May 13, 2011 should be made permanent.

  9. Whether or not the respondent should be held liable for the alleged violation of the petitioner's rights.

RULING:

  1. No, the Court of Appeals cannot suspend the effectivity of its own rules. Only the Supreme Court has the power to suspend the effectivity of any provision in its Internal Rules.

  2. No, the petitioner did not commit a fatal procedural error in filing its Motion for Reconsideration. The Court of Appeals' Resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration has no legal effect because the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was deemed abandoned when it filed a Motion for Extension of Time before the Supreme Court.

  3. Yes, an ejectment case only resolves the issue of who has the better right of possession over the property. The right of possession in an ejectment case refers to actual possession, not legal possession.

  4. The Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 01503 found that the trial court reconstituted Decree No. 699021 without giving notice and conducting an initial hearing to the actual occupants. Thus, the Court set aside the reconstitution of the decree, rendering all proceedings void.

  5. The cancellation of TCT No. 53698 is proper since it was based on the Court of Appeals' decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 01503, which found that the reconstitution of Decree No. 699021 was invalid.

  6. The petitioner's occupation of the property was by virtue of law, and not merely through the tolerance of the registered owner. The portions occupied by the petitioner were reserved by law and cannot be affected by the issuance of a Torrens title. The petitioner's right of possession shall remain unencumbered subject to the final disposition on the issue of the property's ownership.

  7. The proper remedy should have been an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria instead of an ejectment case. The Municipal Trial Court had no jurisdiction over the case since the respondents' cause of action was for accion publiciana and not ejectment. The lack of proof that the petitioner's possession was initially lawful, as well as the failure to establish acts of tolerance by the registered owner, render an ejectment case an improper remedy. The appropriate actions to assert their right of possession or ownership are accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria.

  8. The order dated May 13, 2011 is made permanent.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Forum shopping is committed when a litigant files multiple actions involving the same issue in different forums, with the intention of securing a favorable judgment from one and disregarding the unfavorable judgment from the other.

  • Compliance with the certifications against forum shopping is mandatory and its disregard can lead to the dismissal of the case.

  • The mere filing of a motion to withdraw does not automatically withdraw a motion for reconsideration. The original motion must be acted upon by the court before it can be considered as withdrawn.

  • The Court of Appeals' failure to apply its own Internal Rules does not excuse a party from forum shopping.

  • Law recognizes the distinction between possession and ownership, and in an ejectment case, the purpose of the law is to protect the person who has actual possession.

  • In an ejectment case, the issue of ownership is only provisionally resolved if it cannot be separated from the issue of possession.

  • A registered owner has a right of possession over the property, but the owner cannot simply take possession from the actual occupant without resorting to the proper judicial remedy.

  • Ejectment cases are summary proceedings designed to provide expeditious means to protect actual possession or the right to possession of the property involved. The question resolved in ejectment proceedings is who is entitled to the physical possession of the premises, regardless of the party's title to the property.

  • A certificate of title is conclusive evidence of ownership, but it does not vest ownership. It simply recognizes and documents ownership (Torrens system).

  • A title under the Torrens system is always issued subject to the annotated liens or encumbrances or what the law warrants or reserves.

  • Under the Torrens system of registration, the government is required to issue an official certificate of title to attest to the fact that the person named is the owner of the property described therein, subject to such liens, encumbrances, or what the law warrants or reserves.

  • The portions of a property reserved by law cannot be affected by the issuance of a Torrens title.

  • Occupancy of a property by virtue of law is not considered as occupation under mere tolerance of the registered owner.

  • Three remedies are available to one who has been dispossessed of property: (1) an action for ejectment, whether for unlawful detainer or forcible entry; (2) accion publiciana or accion plenaria de posesion to recover the right of possession; and (3) accion reivindicatoria to recover ownership.

  • Ejectment cases must be filed within one year from the date of dispossession, while accion publiciana must be filed when the dispossession lasts for more than a year. Ejectment cases are filed with the Municipal Trial Courts, while accion publiciana can only be taken cognizance by the Regional Trial Courts.

  • Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by the allegations stated in the complaint. If the complaint alleges that possession is by mere tolerance, the acts of tolerance must be proved. A bare allegation of tolerance will not suffice; there must be overt acts indicative of permission to occupy the property.

  • To establish a valid cause of action in an unlawful detainer case, it must be shown that possession was initially lawful and turned unlawful upon the expiration of the right to possess. The basis of such lawful possession must be established.

  • The pronouncement of ownership in an ejectment case should be regarded as provisional and would not bar or prejudice an action involving title to the land.

  • The improper filing of a case before the Municipal Trial Court, when the proper remedy is accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria, renders the judgment of the court and subsequent judgments void.

  • The court has the authority to issue permanent orders when necessary.

  • The court may hold a party liable for the violation of another party's rights.