NKI filed a complaint for ejectment against petitioners in the MeTC, alleging it owns the land petitioners have been occupying. In 2009, NKI sent demand letters asking petitioners to vacate within 5 days and pay rent, but petitioners refused. The MeTC ruled in favor of NKI, but the RTC set aside the decision for lack of jurisdiction as NKI failed to show a case of unlawful detainer. The CA reinstated the MeTC decision. The issue is whether petitioners' argument that the issue of their right of first refusal is a prejudicial question that must be resolved first. The SC ruled it is not and such an argument amounts to an impermissible collateral attack on NKI's
NKI filed a complaint for ejectment against petitioners in the MeTC, alleging it owns the land petitioners have been occupying. In 2009, NKI sent demand letters asking petitioners to vacate within 5 days and pay rent, but petitioners refused. The MeTC ruled in favor of NKI, but the RTC set aside the decision for lack of jurisdiction as NKI failed to show a case of unlawful detainer. The CA reinstated the MeTC decision. The issue is whether petitioners' argument that the issue of their right of first refusal is a prejudicial question that must be resolved first. The SC ruled it is not and such an argument amounts to an impermissible collateral attack on NKI's
NKI filed a complaint for ejectment against petitioners in the MeTC, alleging it owns the land petitioners have been occupying. In 2009, NKI sent demand letters asking petitioners to vacate within 5 days and pay rent, but petitioners refused. The MeTC ruled in favor of NKI, but the RTC set aside the decision for lack of jurisdiction as NKI failed to show a case of unlawful detainer. The CA reinstated the MeTC decision. The issue is whether petitioners' argument that the issue of their right of first refusal is a prejudicial question that must be resolved first. The SC ruled it is not and such an argument amounts to an impermissible collateral attack on NKI's
NKI filed a complaint for ejectment against petitioners in the MeTC, alleging it owns the land petitioners have been occupying. In 2009, NKI sent demand letters asking petitioners to vacate within 5 days and pay rent, but petitioners refused. The MeTC ruled in favor of NKI, but the RTC set aside the decision for lack of jurisdiction as NKI failed to show a case of unlawful detainer. The CA reinstated the MeTC decision. The issue is whether petitioners' argument that the issue of their right of first refusal is a prejudicial question that must be resolved first. The SC ruled it is not and such an argument amounts to an impermissible collateral attack on NKI's
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3
NKI’s arguments
012 SANTIAGO V. NORTHBAY KNITTING, INC. (EMAR) 2. NKI alleged that
11 Oct 2017| Peralta | Possession a. It owns the subject property, a parcel of land in Phase I, North Side of the PETITIONERS: Sps Erwin C. Santiago and Marinela A. Santiago; Sps Gaudencio Dagat-Dagatan Project in Navotas covered by TCT No. M-38092. A. Manimtim, Jr. and Editha P. Manimtim; Sps Ramiro and Elva Albaran; and b. All petitioners were Cesar F. Odan (Possessors/Petitioners for brevity) i. simply allowed to occupy said property by NKI and RESPONDENT: Northbay Knitting, Inc. (NKI) ii. were not paying any rent. SUMMARY: NKI filed a complaint for ejectment before the MeTC against the 3. Mar 5, 2009: NKI sent demand letters to petitioners asking them to petitioners herein, alleging that it owns the parcel of land the petitioners were a. vacate the property within 5d from receipt and occupying. In 2009, NKI sent demand letters to petitioners asking them to vacate b. pay rent in the event that they refuse to vacate within the grace period given. the property within 5d and pay if they refuse to vacate but the petitioners refused to 4. Despite receipt of said letters, petitioners refused to vacate or pay the necessary do so, so NKI filed an ejectment complaint against the petitioners. The petitioners rent. argue that NHA sold to NKI the property without giving them the right of first 5. Apr 14, 2009: NKI filed an ejectment complaint against petitioners. refusal although their predecessor-in-interest have been possessing the land since Petitioners Arguments 1970. Petitioners contended that this case on the issue of their right of first refusal is 6. The possessors averred that: a prejudicial question that must be resolved first before the MeTC can take a. NKI merely exists on paper as its certificate of registration had already been cognizance of the ejectment case. The MeTC decided in favor of NKI. The RTC set revoked by the SEC for failure to operate. aside the MeTC decision for lack of jurisdiction since NKI failed to show a case of b. NKI only became the registered owner of the subject property on June 16, unlawful detainer. The CA reinstated the decision of the MeTC. The issue in this 2008, while petitioners came into possession of said property through their case is WON the issue on the petitioners’ right of first refusal is a prejudicial predecessor-in-interest, Hermeginildo Odan, and have been continuously in question that must be resolved first before the MeTC can take cognizance of possession since 1970. the ejectment case – NO. Such argument is a collateral attack on NKI's title, which c. Odan had leased the property from the family of the late Francisco Felipe is not allowed in an unlawful detainer case. The only issue for resolution in an Gonzales. unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession of the premises, d. Gonzales subleased the property to petitioners. independent of any claim of ownership by any of the party litigants. e. Apr 13, 1983: The government expropriated the subject property and declared DOCTRINE: Possession refers to possession de facto, and not possession de jure. it as an Area for Priority Development or Urban Land Reform Zone under It does not even matter if a party's title to the property is questionable. Where the Proclamation No. 3384. parties to an ejectment case raise the issue of ownership, the courts may pass upon f. Being tenants and actual occupants of the place, petitioners could not be that issue to determine who between the parties has the better right to possess the evicted. property. g. A Conditional Contract to Sell was entered into between NKI and NHA. However, where the issue of ownership is inseparably linked to that of possession, 7. NKI violated the terms of said contract, causing the automatic cancellation of the as in this case, adjudication of the ownership issue is not final and binding, but same. merely for the purpose of resolving the issue of possession. The adjudication of the 8. 2008: NHA sold the property to NKI without giving petitioners, as the actual issue of ownership is only provisional, and not a bar to an action between the same occupants, the right of first refusal granted under the law. parties involving title to the property. 9. Petitioners filed a case questioning said sale. 10. Petitioners contended that this case on the issue of their right of first refusal is a FACTS: prejudicial question that must be resolved first before the MeTC can take 1. NKI filed a Complaint for Ejectment before the Navotas MeTC against cognizance of the ejectment case. petitioners: 11. June 11, 2012: Navotas MeTC decided in favor of NKI, thus: a. Sps Albaran who were doing business under the name REA General Marine Judgment is rendered in favor of NKI. and against defendants as follows: 1. ORDERING defendants-sps Ramiro Albaran & Elva Albaran, sps Gaudencio Manimtim & Services, Edith Manimtim, Junedith Brokerage Corporation, sps Erwin Santiago & Marinela Santiago, b. Sps Manimtim who were doing business under the name Junedith Brokerage and Cesar Odan, and all persons claiming rights under them Corporation, a. to remove the improvements they introduced on the property; c. Sps Santiago who were doing business under the name Quick Care Cargo b. PEACEFULLY VACATE AND VOLUNTARILY SURRENDER to NKI the possession of the said lot; Handler, and 3. ORDERING each defendant to pay NKI the amount of P2k/month for the use and occupation of d. Cesar Odan who was doing business under the name Transment Freight the above-described property computed from May 4, 2009 until possession of said property is Forwarder. surrendered and turned-over to KNI; and 4. ORDERING defendants jointly and severally to pay NKI P20k, as and by way of attorney's fees. 4) within 1y from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the The Counterclaim of defendants-sps Albaran, Santiago, and Odan is DISMISSED for lack of merit. plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment. 12. May 29, 2013: Malabon RTC set aside the MeTC Decision for lack of jurisdiction, 5. Here, NKI's complaint sufficiently shows all the allegations required to support a since NKI failed to show a case of Unlawful Detainer: case for unlawful detainer, thereby vesting jurisdiction in the MeTC over the case. Pursuant to Sec. 8 par. 2, R40, RoC, this Com1 hereby assumes jurisdiction over this case. In the meantime, let this case be set for preliminary conference on July 24, 2013 at 8:30AM. NKI stated that it is the absolute owner of the subject property, as evidenced by SO ORDERED. TCT No. M-38092, and supported by Tax Declaration No. C-002-08822-C and 13. Upon appeal, the CA granted the petition for review; reversed the RTC decision real property tax receipt for the tax due in 2008. Petitioners, who are the actual and order; and reinstated the MeTC decision. occupants of said property, never paid rent but continued to possess the property 14. Thus, this Petition for Review filed by the possessors seeking to annul and set upon NKI's mere tolerance. Despite receipt of NKI's demand letters to vacate, aside the CA Decision and Resolution, reversing the RTC decision. petitioners refused and continued to occupy the property. 6. The statements in the complaint that petitioners' possession of the property in ISSUES: question was by mere tolerance of NKI clearly make out a case for unlawful 1. WON NKI’s complaint sufficiently shows all the allegations required to support a detainer. case for unlawful detainer – YES. NKI stated that it is the absolute owner of the 7. Unlawful detainer involves the person's withholding from another of the subject property, as evidenced by TCT No. M-38092, and supported by Tax possession of the real property to which the latter is entitled, after the expiration or Declaration No. C-002-08822-C and real property tax receipt for the tax due in termination of the former's right to hold possession under the contract, either 2008. Petitioners, who are the actual occupants of said property, never paid rent expressed or implied. but continued to possess the property upon NKI's mere tolerance. Despite receipt 8. A requisite for a valid cause of action in an unlawful detainer case is that of NKI's demand letters to vacate, petitioners refused and continued to occupy the possession must be originally lawful, and such possession must have turned property. unlawful only upon the expiration of the right to possess. 2. WON the issue of the petitioners’ right of first refusal is a prejudicial 9. It must be shown that the possession was initially lawful; hence, the basis of such question that must be resolved first before the MeTC can take cognizance of lawful possession must be established. the ejectment case – NO. The only issue for resolution in an unlawful detainer 10. If, as in the instant case, the claim is that such possession is by mere tolerance of case is physical or material possession of the premises, independent of any claim the plaintiff, the acts of tolerance must be proved. of ownership by any of the party litigants. 11. Here, the possessors claim that NKI only became the registered owner of the subject property on June 16, 2008. RULING: Petition DENIED. CA decision and resolution AFFIRMED. 12. However, from that time when the title to the disputed property was registered in NKI's name on June 16, 2008 until the time when it sent the demand letters to RATIO: vacate on Mar 5, 2009, petitioners' possession had certainly been one upon mere 1. The petition is devoid of merit. tolerance of the owner. NKI's right to possess the property had then become 2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and is determined by the absolute and undeniable. And when NKI demanded that they leave the premises material allegations of the complaint. It cannot be acquired through, or waived by, and petitioners refused to do so, their possession had already become unlawful. As any act or omission of the parties, neither can it be cured by their silence, the registered owner, NKI had a right to the possession of the property, which is acquiescence, or even express consent. one of the attributes of its ownership. 3. In ejectment cases, the complaint should embody such statement of facts as to 13. Further, petitioners argue that there is a pending action questioning the validity of bring the party clearly within the class of cases for which the statutes provide a the sale of the disputed property to NKI, consequently affecting the validity of its remedy, as these proceedings are summary in nature. The complaint must show title to said property. enough on its face to give the court jurisdiction without resort to parol evidence. 14. Such argument is a collateral attack on NKI's title, which is not allowed in an 4. A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it states unlawful detainer case. the following: 15. A certificate of title cannot be subject to a collateral attack and can be altered, 1) possession of property by the defendant was initially by modified, or cancelled only in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. - contract with or 16. A Torrens Certificate of Title cannot be the subject of collateral attack. Such - tolerance of the plaintiff; attack must be direct and not by a collateral proceeding. 2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to 17. Considering that this is an unlawful detainer case wherein the sole issue to be defendant of the termination of the latter's right of possession; decided is possession de facto rather than possession de Jure, a collateral attack by 3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived petitioners on NKI's title is proscribed. the plaintiff of the enjoyment of the same; and 18. The present case only covers the issue of who has the better right of possession in relation to the issue of disputed ownership of the subject properties. 19. Questions as to the validity of NKI's title can be ventilated in a proper suit instituted separately to directly attack its validity, an issue that cannot be definitively resolved in the extant unlawful detainer case. 20. The only issue for resolution in an unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession of the premises, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the party litigants. 21. Possession refers to possession de facto, and not possession de Jure. It does not even matter if a party's title to the property is questionable. Where the parties to an ejectment case raise the issue of ownership, the courts may pass upon that issue to determine who between the parties has the better right to possess the property. 22. However, where the issue of ownership is inseparably linked to that of possession, as in this case, adjudication of the ownership issue is not final and binding, but merely for the purpose of resolving the issue of possession. The adjudication of the issue of ownership is only provisional, and not a bar to an action between the same parties involving title to the property. 23. An ejectment suit is likewise summary in nature and is not susceptible to circumvention by the simple expedient of asserting ownership over the property. 24. In forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, even if the defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the lower courts and the CA, nonetheless, have the undoubted competence to provisionally resolve the issue of ownership for the sole purpose of determining the issue of possession. Such decision, however, does not bind the title or affect the ownership of the land nor is conclusive of the facts found in said case between the same parties but upon a separate cause of action involving possession. 25. SC finds no cogent reason to depart from the assailed rulings of the CA.