Lawyerly

GR No. 180269

2013-02-20

JOSE Z. CASILANG v. ROSARIO Z. CASILANG-DIZON

REYES, J.

It is well to be reminded of the settled distinction between a summary action of ejectment and a plenary action for recovery of possession and/or ownership of the land. What really distinguishes an action for unlawful detainer from a possessory action (accion publiciana) and from a reinvindicatory action (accion reinvindicatoria) is that the first is limited to the question of possession de facto. Unlawful detainer suits (accion interdictal) together with forcible entry are the two forms of ejectment suit that may be filed to recover possession of real property. Aside from the summary action of ejectment, accion publiciana or the plenary action to recover the right of possession and accion reinvindicatoria or the action to recover ownership which also includes recovery of possession, make up the three kinds of actions to judicially recover possession.[32]

GR No. 169380

2012-11-26

FIORELLO R. JOSE v. ROBERTO ALFUERTO

BRION, J.

Because they only resolve issues of possession de facto, ejectment actions are summary in nature, while accion publiciana (for the recovery of possession) and accion reivindicatoria (for the recovery of ownership) are plenary actions.[48] The purpose of allowing actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer to be decided in summary proceedings is to provide for a peaceful, speedy and expeditious means of preventing an alleged illegal possessor of property from unjustly taking and continuing his possession during the long period it would take to properly resolve the issue of possession de jure or ownership, thereby ensuring the maintenance of peace and order in the community; otherwise, the party illegally deprived of possession might take the law in his hands and seize the property by force and violence.[49] An ejectment case cannot be a substitute for a full-blown trial for the purpose of determining rights of possession or ownership. Citing Mediran v. Villanueva,[50] the Court in Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals[51] describes in detail how these two remedies should be used: In giving recognition to the action of forcible entry and detainer the purpose of the law is to protect the person who in fact has actual possession; and in case of controverted right, it requires the parties to preserve the status quo until one or the other of them sees fit to invoke the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction upon the question of ownership. It is obviously just that the person who has first acquired possession should remain in possession pending [the] decision; and the parties cannot be permitted meanwhile to engage in a petty warfare over the possession of the property which is the subject of dispute. To permit this would be highly dangerous to individual security and disturbing to social order. Therefore, where a person supposes himself to be the owner of a piece of property and desires to vindicate his ownership against the party actually in possession, it is incumbent upon him to institute an action to this end in a court of competent jurisdiction; and he [cannot] be permitted, by invading the property and excluding the actual possessor, to place upon the latter the burden of instituting an [action] to try the property right. [italics supplied]

GR No. 156185

2011-09-12

CATALINA B. CHU v. SPS. FERNANDO C. CUNANAN

BERSAMIN, J.

Yet, in order that res judicata may bar the institution of a subsequent action, the following requisites must concur:- (a) the former judgment must be final; (b) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be between the first and second actions (i) identity of parties, (ii) identity of the subject matter, and (iii) identity of cause of action.[33]

GR No. 153736

2010-08-12

SPS. NICANOR TUMBOKON v. APOLONIA G. LEGASPI

BERSAMIN, J.

For res judicata to bar the institution of a subsequent action, the following requisites must concur: (1) the former judgment must be final; (2) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be between the first and second actions (a) identity of parties, (b) identity of the subject matter, and (c) identity of cause of action.[15]

GR No. 153142

2010-03-29

CATALINA BALAIS-MABANAG v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY

BERSAMIN, J.

For res judicata to bar the institution of a subsequent action, the following requisites must concur: (a) the former judgment must be final; (b) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be between the first and second actions identity of parties, identity of the subject matter, and identity of cause of action.[18]

GR NO. 165962

2007-07-06

VIRGINIA PEREZ CLAUDIO v. FRANCISCA QUEBRAL

TINGA, J.

Ejectment cases in general involve a perturbation of social order which must be restored as promptly as possible.[27] Thus, the Rules on Summary Procedure, which govern the proceedings in these cases and which were designed to meet that end, are intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or right of possession of property.[28] A mere reading of the summary rules reveals the basic objective, through the procedural requirements and prohibitions therein, to obviate dilatory practices and unnecessary delay which have long been the bane of ejectment proceedings.[29] It is within the context of this policy of the law that we rule that respondent's challenge against the identity of the subject property is barred. A contrary ruling would render useless the proceedings had at the preliminary conference and would in fact be antithetical to the very purpose of a preliminary conference which is, among others, to allow the parties to admit and stipulate on a given set of facts and to simplify the issues involved. Our pronouncement in Custodio v. Corrado[30] is instructive on this point x x x Pre-trial is a procedural device intended to clarify and limit the basic issues between the parties. It thus paves the way for a less cluttered trial and resolution of the case. Its main objective is to simplify, abbreviate and expedite the trial, or totally dispense with it. Prescinding therefrom, it is a basic legal precept that the parties are bound to honor the stipulations they made during the pre-trial.[31] Besides, in much the same way that a complaint in ordinary procedure which fails to state a cause of action may be cured by the evidence presented at the trial, a defective complaint in an ejectment case may likewise be cured by the allegations in the position paper.[32]

GR NO. 166744

2006-11-02

AC ENTERPRISES v. FRABELLE PROPERTIES CORPORATION

CALLEJO, SR., J.

As gleaned from the Resolution, the dismissal was without prejudice. Since the PAB had no jurisdiction over the complaint and the dismissal was without prejudice, respondent's action before the RTC was not barred by res judicata or litis pendentia[70]. The decision of the PAB was not a decision on the merits of the case.[71] Consequently, the contention of petitioner that respondent is guilty of forum shopping has no factual basis.

GR NO. 153625

2006-07-31

HEIRS OF MARCELINO CABAL

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

As a general rule, in petitions for review, the jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought before it from the CA is limited to reviewing questions of law which involves no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.[41] The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts; it is not its function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again.[42] Accordingly, findings of fact of the appellate court are generally conclusive on the Supreme Court.[43]

GR NO. 149542

2006-07-20

ALBERTO HERBON v. LEOPOLDO T. PALAD

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

As a general rule, in petitions for review, the jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought before it from the CA is limited to reviewing questions of law which involves no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.[19] The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts; it is not its function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again.[20] Accordingly, findings of fact of the appellate court are generally conclusive on the Supreme Court.[21]

GR NO. 109389

2006-06-26

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. SPS. HUA KIM PENG AND ANGELITA RAMORAN

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

The elementary rule in this jurisdiction is that in petitions for review on certiorari as a mode of appeal, such as the one at bar, only questions of law may be raised[10] as this Court is not a trier of facts.[11] For a question to be one of law, it must not involve a reevaluation of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties.[12] The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are ordinarily not subject to review by this Court as they are deemed conclusive.[13] The exceptions are when it can be shown that: (1) the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals is a finding grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures, and is manifestly mistaken, absurd, and impossible; (2) there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (4) the findings of fact of the trial court and the appellate court are conflicting; and (5) the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of the parties.[14]

GR NO. 150755

2005-06-28

RENE GANILA v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

What really distinguishes an action for unlawful detainer from a possessory action (accion publiciana) and from a reinvindicatory action (accion reinvindicatoria) is that the first is limited to the question of possession de facto. An unlawful detainer suit (accion interdictal) together with forcible entry are the two forms of an ejectment suit that may be filed to recover possession of real property. Aside from the summary action of ejectment, accion publiciana or the plenary action to recover the right of possession and accion reinvindicatoria or the action to recover ownership which includes recovery of possession, make up the three kinds of actions to judicially recover possession.[21]

GR No. 141880

2004-09-27

ZENAIDA F. DAPAR v. GLORIA LOZANO BIASCAN

CALLEJO, SR., J.

For res judicata to bar the institution of subsequent action, the following requisites must concur: (1) the former judgment must be final; (2) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the first and second actions (a) identity of parties, (b) identity of subject matter, and (c) identity of cause of action.[29] The foundation principle upon which the doctrine of res judicata rests is that parties ought not to be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once; that when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, so long as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate.[30] As we ruled in Oropeza Marketing Corporation v. Allied Banking Corporation:[31] Res judicata literally means "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment." Res judicata lays the rule that an existing final judgment or decree rendered on the merits, and without fraud or collusion, or by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon any matter within its jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in all other actions or suits in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction on the points and matters in issue in the first suit. The principle of res judicata has two aspects, namely: (a) "bar by prior judgment" as enunciated in Rule 39, Section 49(b) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; and (b) "conclusiveness of judgment" which is contained in Rule 39, Section 47(c).

	GR No. 180269 2013-02-20	JOSE Z. CASILANG v. ROSARIO Z. CASILANG-DIZON REYES, J.
It is well to be reminded of the settled distinction between a summary action of ejectment and a plenary action for recovery of possession and/or ownership of the land. What really distinguishes an action for unlawful detainer from a possessory action (accion publiciana) and from a reinvindicatory action (accion reinvindicatoria) is that the first is limited to the question of possession de facto. Unlawful detainer suits (accion interdictal) together with forcible entry are the two forms of ejectment suit that may be filed to recover possession of real property. Aside from the summary action of ejectment, accion publiciana or the plenary action to recover the right of possession and accion reinvindicatoria or the action to recover ownership which also includes recovery of possession, make up the three kinds of actions to judicially recover possession.[32]
	GR No. 169380 2012-11-26	FIORELLO R. JOSE v. ROBERTO ALFUERTO BRION, J.
Because they only resolve issues of possession de facto, ejectment actions are summary in nature, while accion publiciana (for the recovery of possession) and accion reivindicatoria (for the recovery of ownership) are plenary actions.[48] The purpose of allowing actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer to be decided in summary proceedings is to provide for a peaceful, speedy and expeditious means of preventing an alleged illegal possessor of property from unjustly taking and continuing his possession during the long period it would take to properly resolve the issue of possession de jure or ownership, thereby ensuring the maintenance of peace and order in the community; otherwise, the party illegally deprived of possession might take the law in his hands and seize the property by force and violence.[49] An ejectment case cannot be a substitute for a full-blown trial for the purpose of determining rights of possession or ownership. Citing Mediran v. Villanueva,[50] the Court in Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals[51] describes in detail how these two remedies should be used: In giving recognition to the action of forcible entry and detainer the purpose of the law is to protect the person who in fact has actual possession; and in case of controverted right, it requires the parties to preserve the status quo until one or the other of them sees fit to invoke the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction upon the question of ownership. It is obviously just that the person who has first acquired possession should remain in possession pending [the] decision; and the parties cannot be permitted meanwhile to engage in a petty warfare over the possession of the property which is the subject of dispute. To permit this would be highly dangerous to individual security and disturbing to social order. Therefore, where a person supposes himself to be the owner of a piece of property and desires to vindicate his ownership against the party actually in possession, it is incumbent upon him to institute an action to this end in a court of competent jurisdiction; and he [cannot] be permitted, by invading the property and excluding the actual possessor, to place upon the latter the burden of instituting an [action] to try the property right. [italics supplied]
	GR No. 156185 2011-09-12	CATALINA B. CHU v. SPS. FERNANDO C. CUNANAN BERSAMIN, J.
Yet, in order that res judicata may bar the institution of a subsequent action, the following requisites must concur:- (a) the former judgment must be final; (b) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be between the first and second actions (i) identity of parties, (ii) identity of the subject matter, and (iii) identity of cause of action.[33]
	GR No. 153736 2010-08-12	SPS. NICANOR TUMBOKON v. APOLONIA G. LEGASPI BERSAMIN, J.
For res judicata to bar the institution of a subsequent action, the following requisites must concur: (1) the former judgment must be final; (2) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be between the first and second actions (a) identity of parties, (b) identity of the subject matter, and (c) identity of cause of action.[15]
	GR No. 153142 2010-03-29	CATALINA BALAIS-MABANAG v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY BERSAMIN, J.
For res judicata to bar the institution of a subsequent action, the following requisites must concur: (a) the former judgment must be final; (b) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (d) there must be between the first and second actions identity of parties, identity of the subject matter, and identity of cause of action.[18]
	GR NO. 165962 2007-07-06	VIRGINIA PEREZ CLAUDIO v. FRANCISCA QUEBRAL TINGA, J.
Ejectment cases in general involve a perturbation of social order which must be restored as promptly as possible.[27] Thus, the Rules on Summary Procedure, which govern the proceedings in these cases and which were designed to meet that end, are intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or right of possession of property.[28] A mere reading of the summary rules reveals the basic objective, through the procedural requirements and prohibitions therein, to obviate dilatory practices and unnecessary delay which have long been the bane of ejectment proceedings.[29] It is within the context of this policy of the law that we rule that respondent's challenge against the identity of the subject property is barred. A contrary ruling would render useless the proceedings had at the preliminary conference and would in fact be antithetical to the very purpose of a preliminary conference which is, among others, to allow the parties to admit and stipulate on a given set of facts and to simplify the issues involved. Our pronouncement in Custodio v. Corrado[30] is instructive on this point x x x Pre-trial is a procedural device intended to clarify and limit the basic issues between the parties. It thus paves the way for a less cluttered trial and resolution of the case. Its main objective is to simplify, abbreviate and expedite the trial, or totally dispense with it. Prescinding therefrom, it is a basic legal precept that the parties are bound to honor the stipulations they made during the pre-trial.[31] Besides, in much the same way that a complaint in ordinary procedure which fails to state a cause of action may be cured by the evidence presented at the trial, a defective complaint in an ejectment case may likewise be cured by the allegations in the position paper.[32]
	GR NO. 166744 2006-11-02	AC ENTERPRISES v. FRABELLE PROPERTIES CORPORATION CALLEJO, SR., J.
As gleaned from the Resolution, the dismissal was without prejudice. Since the PAB had no jurisdiction over the complaint and the dismissal was without prejudice, respondent's action before the RTC was not barred by res judicata or litis pendentia[70]. The decision of the PAB was not a decision on the merits of the case.[71] Consequently, the contention of petitioner that respondent is guilty of forum shopping has no factual basis.
	GR NO. 153625 2006-07-31	HEIRS OF MARCELINO CABAL AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As a general rule, in petitions for review, the jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought before it from the CA is limited to reviewing questions of law which involves no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.[41] The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts; it is not its function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again.[42] Accordingly, findings of fact of the appellate court are generally conclusive on the Supreme Court.[43]
	GR NO. 149542 2006-07-20	ALBERTO HERBON v. LEOPOLDO T. PALAD AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As a general rule, in petitions for review, the jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought before it from the CA is limited to reviewing questions of law which involves no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.[19] The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts; it is not its function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again.[20] Accordingly, findings of fact of the appellate court are generally conclusive on the Supreme Court.[21]
	GR NO. 109389 2006-06-26	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. SPS. HUA KIM PENG AND ANGELITA RAMORAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The elementary rule in this jurisdiction is that in petitions for review on certiorari as a mode of appeal, such as the one at bar, only questions of law may be raised[10] as this Court is not a trier of facts.[11] For a question to be one of law, it must not involve a reevaluation of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties.[12] The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are ordinarily not subject to review by this Court as they are deemed conclusive.[13] The exceptions are when it can be shown that: (1) the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals is a finding grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures, and is manifestly mistaken, absurd, and impossible; (2) there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (4) the findings of fact of the trial court and the appellate court are conflicting; and (5) the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of the parties.[14]
	GR NO. 150755 2005-06-28	RENE GANILA v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
What really distinguishes an action for unlawful detainer from a possessory action (accion publiciana) and from a reinvindicatory action (accion reinvindicatoria) is that the first is limited to the question of possession de facto. An unlawful detainer suit (accion interdictal) together with forcible entry are the two forms of an ejectment suit that may be filed to recover possession of real property. Aside from the summary action of ejectment, accion publiciana or the plenary action to recover the right of possession and accion reinvindicatoria or the action to recover ownership which includes recovery of possession, make up the three kinds of actions to judicially recover possession.[21]
	GR No. 141880 2004-09-27	ZENAIDA F. DAPAR v. GLORIA LOZANO BIASCAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
For res judicata to bar the institution of subsequent action, the following requisites must concur: (1) the former judgment must be final; (2) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the first and second actions (a) identity of parties, (b) identity of subject matter, and (c) identity of cause of action.[29] The foundation principle upon which the doctrine of res judicata rests is that parties ought not to be permitted to litigate the same issue more than once; that when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, so long as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them in law or estate.[30] As we ruled in Oropeza Marketing Corporation v. Allied Banking Corporation:[31] Res judicata literally means "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment." Res judicata lays the rule that an existing final judgment or decree rendered on the merits, and without fraud or collusion, or by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon any matter within its jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in all other actions or suits in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction on the points and matters in issue in the first suit. The principle of res judicata has two aspects, namely: (a) "bar by prior judgment" as enunciated in Rule 39, Section 49(b) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; and (b) "conclusiveness of judgment" which is contained in Rule 39, Section 47(c).

MELCHOR CUSTODIO v. ROSENDO F. CORRADO