Fairland Knitcraft vs. Po.digest

1991 RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE

FAIRLAND KNITCRAFT CORPORATION,  Petitioner, vs. ARTURO LOO PO, Respondent. PO,  Respondent. G.R. No. 217694 Facts: Fairland was the owner of a Condominium Unit in Pasig City. City. The said unit was leased by Fairland to Po by verbal agreement, with a rental fee of P!,!!!.!! a month, to be paid by Po at the beginning of each month. From "arch !##, Po had continuously failed to pay rent. $n %anuary &!, !#, Fairland sent a formal letter to Po demanding that he pay the amount of P!,!!!.!!, representing the rental arrears, and that he vacate the leased premises within fifteen '#() days from the receipt of the letter. letter. *espite receipt of the demand letter and the lapse of the said #(+day period to comply, Po neither tendered payment for the unpaid rent nor vacated the premises. Thus, on *ecember # , !#, Fairland filed a complaint for unlawful detainer before the "eTC. Po had until %anuary , !#& to file his answer but he failed to do so. -ence, on February , !#&, Fairland filed a motion to render /udgment. $n "arch #, !#&, Po0s counsel filed his 1ntry of 2ppearance with "otion for 3eave of Court to file Comment4$pposition Comment4$pposition to "otion to Render %udgment. -e denied the allegations against him and commented that there was no supporting document that would show that Fairland owned the property5 that there was no lease contract between them5 that there were no documents attached to the complaint which would show that previous demands had been made and received by him5 that the alleged unpaid rental was P!,!!!.!!, but the amount of damages being prayed for was P66!,!!!.!!5 that the issue in the case was one of ownership5 and that it was the RTC which had /urisdiction over the case. The "eTC treated the comment4opposition as Po0s answer to the complaint. Considering, however, that the case fell under the Rules of 7ummary Procedure, the same was deemed filed out of time. -ence, the motion was denied. 8n its "arch #, !#& *ecision, the "eTC dismissed the complaint for lac9 of merit due to Fairland0s failure to prove its claim by preponderance of evidence. The "eTC eplained that although the complaint sufficiently sufficiently alleged a ca use of action, Fairland failed to prove that it was entitled to the possession of the sub/ect property. property. There was no evidence presented to support its claim against Po either. either. Fairland filed its appeal before the RTC under Rule 6! and argued that an unlawful detainer case was a special civil action governed by summary procedure. 8n cases where a defendant failed to file his answer, there was no need for a declaration of default. Fairland claimed that the Rules stated that in such cases,  /udgment should be based based on the ;facts alleged in the complaint,< complaint,< and that there was was no re=uirement that that  /udgment must be based based on facts proved by by preponderance of evidence. evidence. $n 7eptember #, !#&, the RTC affirmed affirmed the "eTC ruling and agreed that Fairland failed to establish its case by preponderance of evidence. Fairland appealed to the Court of 2ppeals. The C2 dismissed the petition and ruled that an action for unlawful detainer would not lie against Po. >otwithstanding the abbreviated proceeding it ordained and the limited pleadings it allowed, the Rules on 7ummary Procedure did not rela the rules on evidence. 8n order for an action for recovery of possession to prosper, it was indispensable that he who brought the action should prove not only his ownership but also the identity of the property claimed. The C2 concluded, however, that Fairland failed to discharge such bounden duty. duty. 8ssue: ?hether the e/ectment case was correctly dismissed for lac9 of preponderance of evidence

Ruling:

1991 RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE

>$. The Court agrees with Fairland0s position. The summons, together with the complaint and its annees, was served upon Po on *ecember @, !#. This presupposes that the "eTC found n o ground to dismiss the action for unlawful detainer. >evertheless, Po failed to file h is answer on time and the "eTC had the option to render  /udgment motu proprio or on motion of the plaintiff. 8n relation thereto, 7ections ( and  of the Rules on 7ummary Procedure provide: 7ec. (. 2nswer. A ?ithin ten '#!) days from service of summons, the defendant shall file his answer to the complaint and serve a copy thereof on the plaintiff. 2ffirmative and negative defenses not pleaded therein shall be deemed waived, ecept for lac9 of /urisdiction over the sub/ect matter. Cross+claims and compulsory counterclaims not asserted in the answer shall b e considered barred. The answer to counterclaims or cross+claims shall be filed and served within ten '#!) days from service of the answer in which they are pleaded. 7ec. . 1ffect of failure to answer. A 7hould the defendant fail to answer the complaint within the period above provided, the court, motu proprio or on motion of the plaintiff, shall rener !"#$en% as $a& 'e (arran%e '& %he )a*%s alle#e +n %he *o$la+n% an l+$+%e %o (ha% +s ra&e )or %here+n. The court may in its discretion reduce the amount of damages and attorney0s fees claimed for being ecessive or otherwise unconscionable, without pre/udice to the applicability of 7ection 6, Rule #@ of the Rules of Court, if there are two or more defendants. 7ection  is clear that in case the defendant failed to file his answer, the court shall render /udgment, either motu proprio or upon plaintiff0s motion, 'ase solel& on %he )a*%s alle#e +n %he *o$la+n% an l+$+%e %o (ha% +s ra&e )or. The failure of the defendant to timely file his answer and to controvert the claim against him constitutes his ac=uiescence to every allegation stated in the complaint. 3ogically, there is nothing to be done in this situation ecept to render /udgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint. 7imilarly, under 7ection , Rule ! of the Rules of Court, which governs the rules for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, if the defendant fails to answer the complaint within the period provided, the court has no authority to declare the defendant in default. 8nstead, the court, motu proprio or on motion of the plaintiff, shall render /udgment as may be warranted by the )a*%s alle#e +n %he *o$la+n% and limited to what is prayed for. 8n this case, Po failed to file his answer to the complaint despite proper service of summons. -e also failed to provide a sufficient /ustification to ecuse his lapses. Thus, as no answer was filed, /udgment must be rendered by the court as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint. The lower courts erroneously dismissed the complaint of Fairland simply on the ground that it failed to establish by preponderance of evidence its ownership over the sub/ect property. 2s can be gleaned above, the rules do not compel the plaintiff to attach his e vidence to the complaint because, at this inception stage, he only has to file his complaint to establish his cause of action. -ere, the court was only tas9ed to determine whether the complaint of Fairland alleged a sufficient cause of action and to render  /udgment thereon. These specific provisions under the Rules of 7ummary Procedure which are also reflected in Rule ! of the Rules of Court, serve their purpose to immediately settle e/ectment proceedings. ;Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases are summary proceedings designed to provide for an epeditious means of protecting actual possession or the right to possession of the property involved. 8t does not admit of a delay in the determination thereof. 8t is a Btime procedure0 designed to remedy the situation. Thus, as a conse=uence of the defendant0s failure to file an answer, the court is simply tas9ed to render /udgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for therein. -/R/FOR/, the petition is GRANT/D. The $ctober &#, !#6 *ecision and the "arch , !#( Resolution of the Court of 2ppeals in C2. R. 7P >o. #&6!# are hereby R/0/R/D and /T

1991 RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE

AID/. Respondent 2rturo 3oo Po is ORD/R/D TO 0ACAT/ Condominium Unit >o. !( located in Cedar "ansion 88 on "a. 1scriba 7treet, Pasig City. Respondent Po is further ORD/R/D TO PA the rentals+in+arrears, as well as the rentals accruing in the interim until he vacates the property. The unpaid rentals shall incur a legal interest of si percent 'D) per annum from %anuary &!, !#, when the demand to pay and to vacate was made, up to the finality of this decision. Thereafter, an interest of si percent 'D) per annum shall be imposed on the total amount due until full payment is made.