Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 110 views

    Sps. Heber & Charlita Edillo. vs. Sps. Norberto & Desideria Dulpina G.R. No. 188360 January 21, 2010 Facts

    Uploaded by

    GLORILYN MONTEJO

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sps. Heber & Charlita Edillo. vs. Sps. Norberto & Desideria Dulpina G.R. No. 188360 January 21, 2010 Facts

    Uploaded by

    GLORILYN MONTEJO
    110 views3 pages

    Original Title

    RULE 123 SEC 19

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    110 views3 pages

    Sps. Heber & Charlita Edillo. vs. Sps. Norberto & Desideria Dulpina G.R. No. 188360 January 21, 2010 Facts

    Uploaded by

    GLORILYN MONTEJO

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    SPS. HEBER & CHARLITA EDILLO. Vs. SPS.

    NORBERTO & DESIDERIA DULPINA

    G.R. No. 188360; January 21, 2010

    FACTS

    On February 21, 2006, plaintiffs-respondents Spouses Norberto and Desideria Dulpina (plaintiffs-respondents)
    filed a Complaint for Forcible Entry against the defendants-petitioners with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of
    Del Carmen-San Isidro-San Benito, Surigao del Norte (MCTC).

    The plaintiffs-respondents alleged that they purchased from Wencelito Camingue a 235-square meter
    residential lot and house located in Poblacion, San Isidro, Surigao del Norte, through a Deed of Sale 5 dated
    May 14, 1990. On August 8, 2005, defendant-petitioner Heber Edillo, without their consent and against their
    express prohibition, suddenly fenced off and occupied a 50-square meter portion of the western part of the
    disputed property while uttering threats against plaintiffs-respondents. On January 26, 2006, they sent the
    defendants-petitioners a notice to vacate the disputed property, but the defendants-petitioners refused to
    comply.6

    In their Answer dated March 1, 2006, the defendants-petitioners countered that the Complaint states no cause
    of action because the plaintiffs-respondents failed to allege that they were in prior physical possession of the
    disputed property.7 They also alleged that they acquired the disputed property through three (3) separate
    Deeds of Absolute Sale8 from Apolinar Saragoza,9 Felomino Forcadilla,10 and Wenceslao Caunzad.

    MCTC rendered judgment dismissing the Complaint. It ordered the plaintiffs-respondents to pay the
    defendants-petitioners ₱10,000.00 as actual damages and another ₱10,000.00 as attorney’s fees.

    The RTC decided the appeal on November 7, 2007. It set aside the MCTC judgment and ordered the
    defendants-petitioners to vacate the subject property and to restore the plaintiffs-respondents to their
    possession. It likewise ordered the payment of ₱10,000.00 as attorney’s fees and the cost of suit.

    The CA dismissed the Petition in its Resolution of January 28, 2009 21 on the ground that it does not contain a
    statement of the factual background of the case, in violation of Sections 2 and 3 of Rule 42 of the Rules of
    Court. 

    ISSUE

    W/N the RTC has no jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs-respondents’ appeal because the MCTC Decision
    had become final and executory; the Motion for Reconsideration the plaintiffs-respondents filed is a prohibited
    pleading in summary proceedings and did not stop the running of the period for the decision’s finality.

    HELD

    We agree with the defendants-petitioners. Jurisdiction over forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases belongs
    to the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the
    Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. The Revised Rules on Summary Procedure applies to prevent undue delays in
    the disposition of cases; to achieve this end, the filing of certain pleadings – a motion for reconsideration,
    among others – is prohibited.

    Specifically, Section 19(c) of the Rules of Summary Procedure and Section 13(c) of Rule 70 of the Rules of
    Court consider a motion for reconsideration of a judgment a prohibited pleading.

    Section 19(c) of the Rules of Summary Procedure provides that the following pleadings,
    motions or petitions shall not be allowed in the cases covered by this Rule: 
    (c)  Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for opening of
    trial; and Section 13(c) of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides that the following petitions, motions, or
    pleadings shall not be allowed: (c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for reopening of
    trial.

    Thus, when the plaintiffs-respondents filed on June 5, 2007 a Motion for Reconsideration of the MCTC
    Judgment, the motion did not stop the running of the period for appeal. With the continuous running of this
    period, the May 23, 2007 MCTC judgment (which the plaintiffs-respondents received through counsel on May
    31, 2007) had long lapsed to finality when the plaintiffs-respondents filed their Notice of Appeal on July 30,
    2007.

    A judgment that has become final and executory is immutable and unalterable;the judgment may no longer be
    modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous
    conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court
    rendering it or by the highest Court of the land. 41 While there are recognized exceptions – e.g., the correction of
    clerical errors, the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, void judgments, and
    whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and
    inequitable – none of these exceptions apply to the present case.

    In the present case, the lapse of the period for appeal rendered the RTC without any jurisdiction to entertain,
    much less grant, the plaintiffs-respondents’ appeal from the final and immutable MCTC judgment. This very
    basic legal reality would forever be lost if we allow the CA to dismiss the defendants-petitioners’ appeal outright
    on the basis of a technicality that, after all, has been substantially complied with.

    Rule 123 of Rules of Court

    Procedure in the Municipal Trial Courts

    Section 1. Uniform Procedure. — The procedure to be observed in the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
    Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall be the same as in the Regional Trial Courts, except where
    a particular provision applies only to either of said courts and in criminal cases governed by the Revised Rule
    on Summary Procedure. (1a)

    Rules of Summary Procedure

    Sec.  19.  Prohibited pleadings and motions. — The following pleadings, motions or


    petitions shall not be allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:  (a)  Motion to
    dismiss the complaint or to quash the complaint or information except on the
    ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or failure to comply with the
    preceding section;
    (b)  Motion for a bill of particulars;
    (c)  Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for opening of
    trial;
    (d)  Petition for relief from judgment;
    (e)  Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other paper; 
    (f)  Memoranda;
    (g)  Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order
    issued by the court;
    (h)  Motion to declare the defendant in default; chanrobles virtual law library
    (i)  Dilatory motions for postponement;
    (j)  Reply;
    (k)  Third party complaints;
    (l)  Interventions.

    Rule 70 of Rules of Court

    Section 13. Prohibited pleadings and motions. — The following petitions, motions, or pleadings shall not be
    allowed:

    1. Motion to dismiss the complaint except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter,
    or failure to comply with section 12;

    2. Motion for a bill of particulars;

    3. Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for reopening of trial;

    4. Petition for relief from judgment;

    5. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other paper;

    6. Memoranda;

    7. Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the court;

    8. Motion to declare the defendant in default;

    9. Dilatory motions for postponement;

    10. Reply;

    11. Third-party complaints;

    12. Interventions. (19a, RSP)

    You might also like