Macaslang v Zamora

Dolores Macaslang v. Renato and Melba Zamora (Bersamin) 2011 Facts: 1. Mar 10, 1999: Zamora’s FILED: Unlawful detainer with MTCC, alleging among others: a. Macaslang sold to them a residential lot in Sabang, Davao City. 400sqm. Including a residential house, where Macaslang was then living. b. After the sale, Macaslang requested to be allowed to live in the house. Zamora granted the request on the reliance of Macaslang’s promise to vacate as soon as she would be able to find a new residence c. After 1 year, Zamora’s demanded upon the defendant to vacate but she failed and refused. The demand letter (Sept 1998) reads: i. “This is to give notice that since the mortgage to your property has long been expired and that since the property is already in my name, I will be taking over the occupancy of said property two (2) months from the date of this letter.” d. Zamora’s sought the help of the Lupon, but no settlement was reached as shown by certification to file. 2. Despite the due service of summons, Macaslang did not file an answer. Hence MTCC declared her in default. 3. MTC: In favor of Zamora’s, ordered Macaslang to vacate, pay atty’s fees, and rental until they shall have vacated the properties in question. 4. Macaslang appealed to the RTC alleging: a. Extrinsic Fraud b. Meritorious defense: there was no actual sake considering that the deed of absolute sale relied upon is a patent nullity as her signature therein was procured through fraud and trickery. 5. RTC: Ruled in favor of Macaslang and DISMISSED Zamora’s complaint, for failure to state a COA. The same maybe refilled in the same court by alleging a COA, if any. Zamora’s M for Execution of MTCC decision rendered moot by this judgment. 6. CA: REVERSED RTC decision for having no basis in fact and law. MTCC decision reinstated. Issues: w/n RTC in its appellate juris limited to assigned errors w/n in an action for unlawful detainer, where there was no prior demand to vacate and comply with the conditions of the lease, a valid COA exists. w/n there was a violation of the Rules on Summary procedure. Decision: 1. RTC in its appellate jurisdiction may rule upon an issue not raised on appeal. a. CA said that RTC cannot rule on issue not assigned as an error. This may have been correct if the appeal to the CA was a first appeal from RTC to CA (R41). There is an express limitation of the review to only specified in the assignment of errors. b. But HERE this is a, MTC to RTC appeal governed by a specific rule for unlawful detainer cases. R70 §18 provides that MTC judgment may be appealed to the RTC which shall decide the same on the basis of the entire record. c. This difference in procedure is traceable from BP129 §22, then in the 1991 Rules on summary procedure §21, then 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure R40 §7. (Please see code) d. Even if the rules did not differentiate in the procedure, the review on the entire case is still allowed as an exception (c) and (d). GN: Appellate court may only review errors assigned and properly argued1 EXCS: (a) When the question affects jurisdiction (b) Matters that evidently plain or clerical errors (c) Matters whose consideration is necessary for a just and complete resolution (d) Matters of record having bearing on the issue that parties failed to raise (e) Matters closely related to an error assigned (f) Matters upon which the determination of a question is dependent 2. CA Correctly delved into w/n there was a COA. a. RTC: there is no COA because there was no demand to vacate. b. CA: No, the complaint readily reveals that there was a demand to vacate. c. A complaint for Unlawful detainer is sufficient if it alleges the withholding of possession or the refusal is unlawful without necessarily employing the terminology of the law. (See Fact #1 (c)i) Demand was not only made but also alleged in the complaint. d. A complaint has sufficient COA for unlawful det. If it states the FF2: i. Initial possession by defendant was by contract or tolerance ii. Eventually possession became illegal upon notice re:termination iii. Defendant still remained in possession and deprived plaintiff of its enjoyment iv. Complaint was instituted within one year from last demand to vacate. 1 2

Comilang v. Burcena GR 146853 (2006) Cabrera v. Getaruela GR 164213 (2009)

e. TEST for sufficiency of complaint: is w/n the court can render a valid judgment based on facts alleged in complaint. f. SC: Complaint sufficiently stated a COA. Complaint complied with 1-4. BUT Fail to state and Lack of COA are different. RTC said there is failure to state COA when in fact its basis was that there was no demand to vacate. Again RTC erred in this regard, see Fact #1 (c)i. i. Golden Gate Realty Co. v. IAC: The term vacate is not a talismatic word that must be employed in all notices to vacate. 3. Ejectment was not proper due to defense of ownership. a. Zamora’s COA is based on right to posses resulting from ownership. b. BUT exhibits show that the real transaction is one of equitable mortgage not sale. NCC1602 instances where a contract may be presumed to be an equitable mortgage. i. Land was sold for P100K, when the demand letter was for a sum of P1.6M. Price inadequate. Then the vendor remained in possession of the property. Deed of sale was executed as a result or by reason of a loan. c. Nonetheless, findings favorable to Macaslang’s ownership are not finally definitive because R70 §16 provides: that when the defendant raises ownership, and the Q of possession cannot be resolved, ownership shall only be resolved to determine possession [not title]. 4. MTC committed procedural lapses. a. MTC granted M to Declare Macaslang in default for failure to file an answer. i. This motion is expressly prohibited under R70 §13 (8) ii. What MTC should have done was provided for in R70 § 7: to simply render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the comlaint and limited to what is prayed for therein. iii. Failure to file an answer under R70, results only to a judgment by default not a declaration of default. b. MTC’s reception of oral testimony is also a procedural lapse. i. R70 envisions the submission only of affidavits of the witnesses under §10 ii. §11 (2) that should the MTC need to clarify material facts, it may require parties to submit affidavits or other evidence. (note:in both sections no mention of testimony, only affidavits.) WHEREFORE GRANTED. Complaint for unlawful detainer dismissed.