7/6/2015 G.R.No.153567

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/153567.htm 1/14

THIRDDIVISIONLIBRADAM.AQUINO,Petitioner,

versus

ERNESTS.AURE[1]

,Respondent.

G.R.No.153567Present:YNARESSANTIAGO,J.,Chairperson,AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,CHICONAZARIO,NACHURA,andREYES,JJ.Promulgated:February18,2008

xx

DECISIONCHICONAZARIO,J.:

Before this Court is a Petition for Review onCertiorari[2]

under Rule 45 of the RevisedRulesofCourtfiledbypetitionerLibradaM.Aquino(Aquino),seekingthereversalandthe

settingasideof theDecision[3]

dated17October2001and theResolution[4]

dated8May2002oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.63733.Theappellatecourt,initsassailed

Decision and Resolution, reversed the Decision[5]

of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of

QuezonCity,Branch88,affirmingtheDecision[6]

oftheMetropolitanTrialCourt(MeTC)ofQuezonCity,Branch32,whichdismissedrespondentErnestoAures(Aure)complaintfor

7/6/2015 G.R.No.153567

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/153567.htm 2/14

ejectment on the ground, inter alia, of failure to comply with barangay conciliationproceedings.ThesubjectofthepresentcontroversyisaparceloflandsituatedinRoxasDistrict,QuezonCity,withanareaof449squaremetersandcoveredbyTransferCertificateofTitle(TCT)

No.205447registeredwiththeRegistryofDeedsofQuezonCity(subjectproperty).[7]

AureandE.S.AureLendingInvestors,Inc.(AureLending)filedaComplaintforejectmentagainstAquinobeforetheMeTCdocketedasCivilCaseNo.17450.IntheirComplaint,Aureand Aure Lending alleged that they acquired the subject property from Aquino and her

husbandManuel(spousesAquino)byvirtueofaDeedofSale[8]

executedon4June1996.AureclaimedthatafterthespousesAquinoreceivedsubstantialconsiderationforthesaleof

thesubjectproperty,theyrefusedtovacatethesame.[9]

InherAnswer,[10]

AquinocounteredthattheComplaintinCivilCaseNo.17450lackscause of action for Aure and Aure Lending do not have any legal right over the subjectproperty.AquinoadmittedthattherewasasalebutsuchwasgovernedbytheMemorandum

ofAgreement[11]

(MOA)signedbyAure.Asstated in theMOA,Aureshall securea loanfromabankorfinancialinstitutioninhisownnameusingthesubjectpropertyascollateraland turn over the proceeds thereof to the spouses Aquino. However, even after Auresuccessfully secured a loan, the spouses Aquino did not receive the proceeds thereon orbenefitedtherefrom.

On20April1999,theMeTCrenderedaDecisioninCivilCaseNo.17450infavorof

Aquino and dismissed the Complaint for ejectment of Aure and Aure Lending for noncompliance with the barangay conciliation process, among other grounds. The MeTCobservedthatAureandAquinoareresidentsofthesamebarangaybutthereisnoshowingthatanyattempthasbeenmadetosettlethecaseamicablyatthebarangaylevel.TheMeTCfurtherobserved thatAureLendingwas improperly includedasplaintiff inCivilCaseNo.17450foritdidnotstandtobeinjuredorbenefitedbythesuit.Finally,theMeTCruledthatsince the question of ownership was put in issue, the action was converted from a mere

7/6/2015 G.R.No.153567

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/153567.htm 3/14

detainersuittooneincapableofpecuniaryestimationwhichproperlyrestswithintheoriginalexclusivejurisdictionoftheRTC.ThedispositiveportionoftheMeTCDecisionreads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, let this case be, as it is, hereby ordered

DISMISSED.[Aquinos]counterclaimislikewisedismissed.[12]

Onappeal,theRTCaffirmedthedismissaloftheComplaintonthesamegroundthatthedisputewasnotbroughtbeforetheBarangayCouncilforconciliationbeforeitwasfiledin court. In a Decision dated 14 December 2000, the RTC stressed that the barangayconciliation process is a conditio sine qua non for the filing of an ejectment complaintinvolving residents of the same barangay, and failure to comply therewith constitutessufficientcauseforthedismissaloftheaction.TheRTClikewisevalidatedtherulingoftheMeTC that the main issue involved in Civil Case No. 17450 is incapable of pecuniaryestimationandcognizablebytheRTC.Hence,theRTCruled:

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the appealed judgment, it is hereby

affirmedinitsentirety.[13]

AuresMotionforReconsiderationwasdeniedbytheRTCinanOrder[14]

dated27February2001.

Undaunted, Aure appealed the adverse RTC Decision with the Court of Appealsarguing that the lower court erred in dismissinghisComplaint for lackof causeof action.Aure asserted that misjoinder of parties was not a proper ground for dismissal of hisComplaint and that theMeTCshouldhaveonlyordered the exclusionofAureLending asplaintiffwithout prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings inCivilCaseNo. 17450until the final determination thereof. Aure further asseverated that mere allegation ofownership should not divest the MeTC of jurisdiction over the ejectment suit sincejurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterisconferredbylawandshouldnotdependonthedefensesand objections raised by the parties. Finally, Aure contended that the MeTC erred indismissing his Complaint with prejudice on the ground of noncompliance with barangayconciliationprocess.Hewas not given the opportunity to rectify the procedural defect by

goingthroughthebarangaymediationproceedingsand,thereafter,refiletheComplaint.[15]

7/6/2015 G.R.No.153567

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/153567.htm 4/14

On17October2001, theCourtofAppealsrenderedaDecision,reversing theMeTCandRTCDecisionsand remanding thecase to theMeTC for furtherproceedings and finaldetermination of the substantive rights of the parties.The appellate court declared that thefailureofAuretosubjectthemattertobarangayconciliationisnotajurisdictionalflawanditwill not affect the sufficiency ofAuresComplaint sinceAquino failed to seasonably raisesuch issue in her Answer. The Court of Appeals further ruled that mere allegation ofownershipdoesnotdeprivetheMeTCofjurisdictionovertheejectmentcaseforjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterisconferredbylawandisdeterminedbytheallegationsadvancedbythe plaintiff in his complaint. Hence,mere assertion of ownership by the defendant in anejectment case will not oust the MeTC of its summary jurisdiction over the same. ThedecretalpartoftheCourtofAppealsDecisionreads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED and thedecisionsofthetrialcourtsbelowREVERSEDandSETASIDE.Lettherecordsberemandedback to the court a quo for further proceedings for an eventual decision of the substantive

rightsofthedisputants.[16]

In a Resolution dated 8 May 2002, the Court of Appeals denied the Motion forReconsiderationinterposedbyAquinoforitwasmerelyarehashoftheargumentssetforthinherpreviouspleadingswhichwerealreadyconsideredandpasseduponbytheappellatecourtinitsassailedDecision.AquinoisnowbeforethisCourtviathePetitionatbarraisingthefollowingissues:

I.

WHETHER OR NOT NONCOMPLIANCEWITH THE BARANGAY CONCILIATIONPROCEEDINGSISAJURISDICTIONALDEFECTTHATWARRANTSTHEDISMISSALOFTHECOMPLAINT.

II.

WHETHER OR NOT ALLEGATION OF OWNERSHIP OUSTS THE MeTC OF ITSJURISDICTIONOVERANEJECTMENTCASE.

Thebarangay justice systemwas established primarily as ameans of easing up thecongestionofcasesinthejudicialcourts.Thiscouldbeaccomplishedthroughaproceedingbefore thebarangay courtswhich,according to theconceptorof the system, the lateChief

7/6/2015 G.R.No.153567

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/153567.htm 5/14

JusticeFredRuizCastro,isessentiallyarbitrationincharacter,andtomakeittrulyeffective,itshouldalsobecompulsory.Withthisprimaryobjectiveofthebarangayjusticesysteminmind, itwouldbewholly inkeepingwith theunderlyingphilosophyofPresidentialDecreeNo.1508,otherwiseknownastheKatarungangPambarangayLaw,andthepolicybehinditwouldbebetterservedifanoutofcourtsettlementofthecaseisreachedvoluntarilybythe

parties.[17]

TheprimordialobjectiveofPresidentialDecreeNo.1508 is to reduce thenumberofcourtlitigationsandprevent thedeteriorationof thequalityof justicewhichhasbeenbroughtby

the indiscriminate filing of cases in the courts.[18]

To ensure this objective, Section 6 of

PresidentialDecreeNo.1508[19]

requiresthepartiestoundergoaconciliationprocessbeforethe Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo as a precondition to filing a

complaintincourtsubjecttocertainexceptions[20]

whichareinapplicabletothiscase.The

saidsectionhasbeendeclaredcompulsoryinnature.[21]

PresidentialDecreeNo.1508isnowincorporatedinRepublicActNo.7160,otherwiseknownasTheLocalGovernmentCode,whichtookeffecton1January1992.

The pertinent provisions of the Local Government Code making conciliation a

preconditiontofilingofcomplaintsincourt,read:

SEC. 412. Conciliation. (a) Precondition to filing of complaint in court. Nocomplaint, petition, action, or proceeding involving any matter within the authority of thelupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court or any other government office foradjudication, unless there has been a confrontation between the parties before the luponchairmanorthepangkat,andthatnoconciliationorsettlementhasbeenreachedascertifiedby the luponsecretaryorpangkatsecretaryasattested toby the luponchairmanorpangkatchairmanorunlessthesettlementhasbeenrepudiatedbythepartiesthereto.(b)Where parties may go directly to court. The parties may go directly to court in thefollowinginstances:

(1)Wheretheaccusedisunderdetention(2)Whereapersonhasotherwisebeendeprivedofpersonallibertycallingforhabeas

corpusproceedings(3) Where actions are coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary

7/6/2015 G.R.No.153567

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/153567.htm 6/14

injunction,attachment,deliveryofpersonalproperty,andsupportpendenteliteand(4)Wheretheactionmayotherwisebebarredbythestatuteoflimitations.

(c) Conciliation among members of indigenous cultural communities. The customs andtraditions of indigenous cultural communities shall be applied in settling disputes betweenmembersoftheculturalcommunities.

SEC.408.SubjectMatter forAmicableSettlementExceptionTherein.The luponofeachbarangayshallhaveauthoritytobringtogetherthepartiesactuallyresidinginthesamecityormunicipalityforamicablesettlementofalldisputesexcept:

(a)Whereonepartyisthegovernmentoranysubdivisionorinstrumentalitythereof(b)Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the

performanceofhisofficialfunctions(c)Offensespunishablebyimprisonmentexceedingone(1)yearorafineexceeding

Fivethousandpesos(P5,000.00)(d)Offenseswherethereisnoprivateoffendedparty(e) Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities or

municipalities unless the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicablesettlementbyanappropriatelupon

(f)Disputesinvolvingpartieswhoactuallyresideinbarangaysofdifferentcitiesor

municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties theretoagreetosubmittheirdifferencestoamicablesettlementbyanappropriatelupon

(g)SuchotherclassesofdisputeswhichthePresidentmaydetermineintheinterest

ofjusticeorupontherecommendationoftheSecretaryofJustice.

There is no dispute herein that the present casewas never referred to theBarangayLupon for conciliation beforeAure andAureLending institutedCivil CaseNo. 17450. Infact, no allegation of suchbarangay conciliation proceedingswasmade inAure andAureLendingsComplaintbeforetheMeTC.TheonlyissuetoberesolvediswhethernonrecoursetothebarangayconciliationprocessisajurisdictionalflawthatwarrantsthedismissaloftheejectmentsuitfiledwiththeMeTC.

Aquino posits that failure to resort to barangay conciliation makes the action forejectment premature and, hence, dismissible. She likewise avers that this objection wastimelyraisedduringthepretrialandevensubsequentlyinherPositionPapersubmittedtotheMeTC.

Wedonotagree.

7/6/2015 G.R.No.153567

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/153567.htm 7/14

ItistruethattheprecisetechnicaleffectoffailuretocomplywiththerequirementofSection412oftheLocalGovernmentCodeonbarangayconciliation(previouslycontainedin Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1508) ismuch the same effect produced by nonexhaustionofadministrativeremediesthecomplaintbecomesafflictedwiththeviceofprematurity and the controversy there alleged is not ripe for judicial determination. The

complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss.[22]Nevertheless, the conciliationprocess is not a jurisdictional requirement, so that noncompliance therewith cannotaffectthejurisdictionwhichthecourthasotherwiseacquiredoverthesubjectmatteror

overthepersonofthedefendant.[23]

AsenunciatedinthelandmarkcaseofRoyalesv.IntermediateAppellateCourt[24]

:

Ordinarily, noncompliance with the condition precedent prescribed by P.D. 1508could affect the sufficiency of the plaintiff's cause of action and make his complaintvulnerable to dismissal on ground of lack of cause of action or prematuritybut the samewould not prevent a court of competent jurisdiction from exercising its power ofadjudicationoverthecasebeforeit,wherethedefendants,asinthiscase,failedtoobjecttosuchexerciseofjurisdictionintheiranswerandevenduringtheentireproceedingsaquo.

Whilepetitionerscouldhavepreventedthetrialcourtfromexercisingjurisdictionoverthe case by seasonably taking exception thereto, they instead invoked the very samejurisdiction by filing an answer and seeking affirmative relief from it.What ismore, theyparticipatedinthetrialofthecasebycrossexaminingrespondentPlanas.Uponthispremise,petitioners cannot now be allowed belatedly to adopt an inconsistent posture byattacking the jurisdiction of the court to which they had submitted themselvesvoluntarily.xxx(Emphasissupplied.)

Inthecaseatbar,wesimilarlyfindthatAquinocannotbeallowedtoattackthejurisdictionoftheMeTCoverCivilCaseNo.17450afterhavingsubmittedherselfvoluntarilythereto.WehavescrupulouslyexaminedAquinosAnswerbeforetheMeTCinCivilCaseNo.17450andthereisutterlackofanyobjectiononherparttoanydeficiencyinthecomplaintwhichcouldousttheMeTCofitsjurisdcition.

WethusquotewithapprovalthedisquisitionoftheCourtofAppeals:

Moreover, theCourt takes note that the defendant [Aquino] herself did not raise indefense the aforesaid lack of conciliation proceedings in her answer, which raises the

7/6/2015 G.R.No.153567

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/153567.htm 8/14

exclusive affirmative defense of simulation. By this acquiescence, defendant [Aquino] isdeemedtohavewaivedsuchobjection.Asheldinacaseofsimilarcircumstances,thefailureofadefendant[Aquino]inanejectmentsuit tospecificallyallegethefact that therewasnocompliancewiththebarangayconciliationprocedureconstitutesawaiverofthatdefense.xx

x.[25]

By Aquinos failure to seasonably object to the deficiency in the Complaint, she isdeemed to have already acquiesced or waived any defect attendant thereto. Consequently,Aquino cannot thereafter move for the dismissal of the ejectment suit for Aure and AureLendingsfailuretoresorttothebarangayconciliationprocess,sincesheisalreadyprecludedfrom doing so. The fact that Aquino raised such objection during the pretrial and in herPosition Paper is of no moment, for the issue of nonrecourse to barangay mediationproceedingsshouldbeimpleadedinherAnswer.

AsprovidedunderSection1,Rule9ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure:Sec.1.Defensesandobjectionsnotpleaded.Defensesandobjectionsnotpleadedeitherinamotiontodismissorintheansweraredeemedwaived.However,whenitappearsfromthe pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subjectmatter, that there isanotheractionpendingbetween thesameparties for thesamecause,orthattheactionisbarredbyapriorjudgmentorbystatuteoflimitations,thecourtshalldismisstheclaim.(Emphasissupplied.)

Whiletheaforequotedprovisionappliestoapleading(specifically,anAnswer)oramotiontodismiss,asimilaroridenticalruleisprovidedforallothermotionsinSection8ofRule15ofthesameRulewhichstates:

Sec.8.OmnibusMotion.SubjecttotheprovisionsofSection1ofRule9,amotionattackingapleading,order,judgment,orproceedingshallincludeallobjectionsthenavailable,andallobjectionsnotsoincludedshallbedeemedwaived.

Thespiritthatsurroundstheforegoingstatutorynormistorequirethepartyfilingapleadingor motion to raise all available exceptions for relief during the single opportunity so that

singleormultipleobjectionsmaybeavoided.[26]

ItisclearandcategoricalinSection1,Rule9of theRevisedRulesofCourt thatfailure toraisedefensesandobjections inamotiontodismiss or in an answer is deemed a waiver thereof and basic is the rule in statutoryconstruction thatwhen the law is clear and free from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no

7/6/2015 G.R.No.153567

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/153567.htm 9/14

roomforconstructionorinterpretation.[27]

Ashasbeenourconsistentruling,wherethelawspeaksinclearandcategoricallanguage,thereisnooccasionforinterpretationthereisonly

room for application.[28]

Thus, although Aquinos defense of noncompliance withPresidentialDecreeNo.1508ismeritorious,procedurally,suchdefenseisnolongeravailableforfailuretopleadthesameintheAnswerasrequiredbytheomnibusmotionrule.

Neither could theMeTC dismiss Civil CaseNo. 17450motu proprio. The 1997 Rules ofCivilProcedureprovideonly three instanceswhen thecourtmaymotupropriodismiss theclaim,andthatiswhenthepleadingsorevidenceontherecordshowthat(1)thecourthasnojurisdictionoverthesubjectmatter(2)thereisanothercauseofactionpendingbetweenthesamepartiesforthesamecauseor(3)wheretheactionisbarredbyapriorjudgmentorbyastatuteoflimitations.Thus,itisclearthatacourtmaynotmotupropriodismissacaseonthegroundoffailuretocomplywiththerequirementforbarangayconciliation,thisgroundnotbeing among those mentioned for the dismissal by the trial court of a case on its owninitiative.Aquinofurtherarguesthat theissueofpossessionintheinstantcasecannotberesolvedbytheMeTCwithoutfirstadjudicatingthequestionofownership,sincetheDeedofSalevestingAurewiththelegalrightoverthesubjectpropertyissimulated.

Again,wedonotagree.Jurisdictioninejectmentcasesisdeterminedbytheallegationspleadedinthecomplaint.Aslongastheseallegationsdemonstrateacauseofactioneitherforforcibleentryorforunlawfuldetainer,thecourtacquiresjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatter.This principle holds, even if the facts proved during the trial do not support the cause ofactionthusalleged,inwhichinstancethecourtafteracquiringjurisdictionmayresolvetodismisstheactionforinsufficiencyofevidence.

ThenecessaryallegationsinaComplaintforejectmentaresetforthinSection1,Rule70oftheRulesofCourt,whichreads:

SECTION1.Whomayinstituteproceedings,andwhen.Subjecttotheprovisionsofthenextsucceeding section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force,intimidation, threat, strategy,or stealth,or a lessor,vendor,vendee,orotherpersonagainstwhom the possession of any land or building is unlawfullywithheld after the expiration orterminationoftherighttoholdpossession,byvirtueofanycontract,expressorimplied,orthelegalrepresentativesorassignsofanysuchlessor,vendor,vendee,orotherpersonmayatanytimewithinone(1)yearaftersuchunlawfuldeprivationorwithholdingofpossession,bring

7/6/2015 G.R.No.153567

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/153567.htm 10/14

an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfullywithholdingordeprivingofpossession,oranypersonorpersonsclaimingunderthem,fortherestitutionofsuchpossession,togetherwithdamagesandcosts.

Inthecaseatbar,theComplaintfiledbyAureandAureLendingon2April1997,allegedasfollows:

2.[AureandAureLending]becametheownersofahouseandlot locatedatNo.37Salazar Street corner Encarnacion Street, B.F.Homes,QuezonCity by virtue of a deed ofabsolutesaleexecutedby[thespousesAquino]infavorof[AureandAureLending]althoughregistered in thenameofxxxErnestoS.Aure title to the saidpropertyhadalreadybeenissuedinthenameof[Aure]asshownbyatransferCertificateofTitle,acopyofwhichisheretoattachedandmadeanintegralparthereofasAnnexA

3.However,despitethesalethustransferringownershipofthesubjectpremisesto[AureandAure Lending] as abovestated and consequently terminating [Aquinos] right of possessionover the subjectproperty, [Aquino] togetherwithher family, is continuouslyoccupying thesubjectpremisesnotwithstandingseveraldemandsmadeby[AureandAureLending]against[Aquino]andallpersonsclaimingrightunderhertovacatethesubjectpremisesandsurrenderpossession thereof to [AureandAureLending]causingdamageandprejudice to [AureandAureLending]andmaking[Aquinos]occupancytogetherwiththoseactuallyoccupyingthe

subjectpremisesclaimingrightunderher,illegal.[29]

ItcanbeinferredfromtheforegoingthatAure,togetherwithAureLending,soughtthe

possession of the subject property which was never surrendered by Aquino after theperfection of theDeedofSale,which gives rise to a cause of action for an ejectment suitcognizablebytheMeTC.Auresassertionofpossessionoverthesubjectpropertyisbasedonhis ownership thereof as evidenced by TCT No. 156802 bearing his name. That AquinoimpugnedthevalidityofAurestitleoverthesubjectpropertyandclaimedthat theDeedof

SalewassimulatedshouldnotdivesttheMeTCofjurisdictionovertheejectmentcase.[30]

Asextensivelydiscussedby theeminent juristFlorenzD.Regalado inRefugia v.Court of

Appeals[31]

:

As the law on forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases now stands, even where thedefendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possessioncannot be resolvedwithout deciding the issue of ownership, theMetropolitanTrialCourts,MunicipalTrialCourts,andMunicipalCircuitTrialCourtsneverthelesshavetheundoubtedcompetencetoresolvetheissueofownershipalbeitonlytodeterminetheissueofpossession.x x x.The law, as revised, now provides instead that when the question of possessioncannotberesolvedwithoutdecidingtheissueofownership,theissueofownershipshallbe resolved only to determine the issue of possession. On its face, the new Rule onSummary Procedure was extended to include within the jurisdiction of the inferior courts

7/6/2015 G.R.No.153567

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/153567.htm 11/14

ejectmentcaseswhichlikewiseinvolvetheissueofownership.Thisdoesnotmean,however,that blanket authority to adjudicate the issue of ownership in ejectment suits has been thusconferredontheinferiorcourts.

At the outset, it must here be stressed that the resolution of this particular issueconcerns and applies only to forcible entry and unlawful detainer caseswhere the issue ofpossessionisintimatelyintertwinedwiththeissueofownership.Itfindsnoproperapplicationwhereitisotherwise,thatis,whereownershipisnotinissue,orwheretheprincipalandmainissueraisedintheallegationsofthecomplaintaswellasthereliefprayedformakeoutnotacaseforejectmentbutoneforrecoveryofownership.

Aproposthereto,thisCourtruledinHilariov.CourtofAppeals[32]

:

Thus, an adjudication made therein regarding the issue of ownership should beregardedasmerelyprovisionaland, therefore,wouldnotbarorprejudiceanactionbetweenthesamepartiesinvolvingtitletotheland.Theforegoingdoctrineisanecessaryconsequenceofthenatureofforcibleentryandunlawfuldetainercaseswheretheonlyissuetobesettledisthephysicalormaterialpossessionovertherealproperty,thatis,possessiondefactoandnotpossessiondejure.

Inotherwords,inferiorcourtsarenowconditionallyvestedwithadjudicatorypowerovertheissueoftitleorownershipraisedbythepartiesinanejectmentsuit.Thesecourtsshallresolvethequestionofownershipraisedasan incident inanejectmentcasewhereadetermination

thereofisnecessaryforaproperandcompleteadjudicationoftheissueofpossession.[33]

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered, the instantPetition isDENIED.TheCourt of

AppealsDecisiondated17October2001anditsResolutiondated8May2002inCAG.R.SPNo.63733areherebyAFFIRMED.Costsagainstthepetitioner.

SOORDERED.

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIOAssociateJustice

7/6/2015 G.R.No.153567

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/153567.htm 12/14

WECONCUR:

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGOAssociateJustice

Chairperson

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURAAssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

RUBENT.REYESAssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the aboveDecisionwere reached in consultation before thecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGOAssociateJustice

Chairperson,ThirdDivision

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division ChairpersonsAttestation,itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNOChiefJustice

7/6/2015 G.R.No.153567

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/153567.htm 13/14

[1]Substitutedbyhisheirs:AgnesJ.Aure,Ma.CeciliaAureQuinsay,Ma.ConcepcionCriseldaAureBarrion,Ma.ErnaJ.Aure,

ErnestMichaelJ.AureandMa.MelissaJ.Aurerollo,p.159.[2]

Rollo,pp.821.[3]

PennedbyAssociateJusticeRamonMabutas,Jr.withAssociateJusticesRobertoA.BarriosandEdgardoP.Cruz,concurring.Rollo,pp.2126.

[4]Id.at28.

[5]Records,514515.

[6]Id.at436439.

[7]Id.at482483.

[8]Id.

[9]Id.at17.

[10]Id.at1115.

[11]Id.at1415.

[12]Id.at439.

[13]Id.at516.

[14]Id.at537.

[15]Id.at465480.

[16]Rollo,p.25.

[17]Peoplev.Caruncho,Jr.,212Phil.16,27(1984).

[18]Galubav.Laureta,G.R.No.71091,29January1988,157SCRA627,634.

[19]SECTION6.Conciliation,preconditiontofilingofcomplaint.Nocomplaint,petition,actionorproceedinginvolvingany

matterwithintheauthorityoftheLuponasprovidedinSection2hereofshallbefiledorinstitutedincourtoranyothergovernmentofficeforadjudicationunlesstherehasbeenaconfrontationofthepartiesbeforetheLuponChairmanorthePangkatandnoconciliationorsettlementhasbeenreachedascertifiedbytheLuponSecretaryorthePangkatSecretaryattestedbytheLuponorPangkatChairman,orunlessthesettlementhasbeenrepudiated.However,thepartiesmaygodirectlytocourtinthefollowingcases:1]Wheretheaccusedisunderdetention[2]Whereapersonhasotherwisebeendeprivedofpersonallibertycallingforhabeascorpusproceedings[3]Actionscoupledwithprovisionalremediessuchaspreliminaryinjunction,attachment,deliveryofpersonalpropertyandsupportpendenteliteand[4]WheretheactionmayotherwisebebarredbytheStatuteofLimitations.

[20]Paragraph2,Section6,PDNo.1508.

However,thepartiesmaygodirectlytocourtinthefollowingcases:1]Wheretheaccusedisunderdetention[2]Whereapersonhasotherwisebeendeprivedofpersonallibertycallingforhabeascorpusproceedings[3]Actionscoupledwithprovisionalremediessuchaspreliminaryinjunction,attachment,deliveryofpersonalpropertyandsupportpendenteliteand[4]WheretheactionmayotherwisebebarredbytheStatuteofLimitations.

[21]Moratav.Go,210Phil.367,372(1983).

[22]Uyv.Contreras,G.R.No.11141617,26September1994,237SCRA167,170.

[23]Prescov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.82215,10December1990,192SCRA232,240241.

[24]212Phil.432,435436(1984).

7/6/2015 G.R.No.153567

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/feb2008/153567.htm 14/14

[25]Rollo,p.24.

[26]Manacopv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.104875,13November1992,215SCRA773,778.

[27]TwinAceHoldingsCorporationv.RufinaandCompany,G.R.No.160191,8June2006,490SCRA368,376.

[28]Id.

[29]Records,pp.12.

[30]Tecsonv.Gutierez,G.R.No.152928,4March2005,452SCRA781,786.

[31]327Phil.982,10011002(1996).

[32]329Phil.202,208(1996),ascitedinOroncev.CourtofAppeals,358Phil.616(1998).

[33]Id.