Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila
THIRD DIVISION

DOLORES ADORA MACASLANG,
Petitioner,




-versus -



RENATO AND MELBA ZAMORA,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 156375

Present:
CARPIOMORALS, Chairperson,
!RIO",
!RSAMI",
#ILLARAMA, and
SR"O, JJ.

Promul$ated:

May 30, 2011
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

D E C I S I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:

%he Re$ional %rial Court &R%C' is not limited in its re(ie) of the decision of the Municipal %rial Court
&M%C' to the issues assi$ned b* the appellant, but can decide on the basis of the entire records of the
proceedin$s of the trial court and such memoranda or briefs as ma* be submitted b* the parties or re+uired b*
the R%C.

%he petitioner appeals the decision promul$ated on ,ul* -, .//.,
0
102 )hereb* the Court of Appeals &CA'
re(ersed3for ha(in$ no basis in fact and in la)4 the decision rendered on Ma* 05, .///
.
1.2 b* the Re$ional
%rial Court, !ranch .6, in 7anao Cit* &R%C' thathad dismissed the respondents8 action for e9ectment a$ainst the
petitioner, andreinstated the decision dated September 0-, 0::: of the Municipal %rial Court in Cities &M%CC'
of 7anaoCit* &orderin$ the petitioner as defendant to (acate the premises and to pa* attorne*8s fees of
P0/,///.// and monthl* rental of P6,///.// startin$ 7ecember 0::; until the* (acated the premises'.
-
1-2

<e $rant the petition for re(ie) and rule that contrar* to the CA8s conclusion, the R%Cas an appellate
court properl* considered and resol(ed issues e(en if not raised in the appeal from the decisionrendered in an
e9ectment case b* the M%CC.

ANTECEDENTS

On March 0/, 0:::, the respondents filed a complaint for unla)ful detainer in the M%CC, alle$in$ that
3the 1petitioner2 sold to 1respondents2 a residential land located in Saban$, 7anaoCit*4 and that 3the 1petitioner2
re+uested to be allo)ed to li(e in the house4 )ith a 3promise to (acate as soon as she )ould be able to find a
ne) residence.4 %he* further alle$ed thatdespitetheir demand after a *ear, the petitioner failed or refused to
(acate the premises.

0102Rollo, pp. -/---= penned b* Associate ,ustice ,ose L. Sabio&retired', and concurred in b* Associate ,ustice >ilarion L. A+uino
&retired' and Associate ,ustice Perlita ,. %ria%irona&retired'.
.1.2Id., pp. ?;-60= penned b* ,ud$e Meinrado P. Paredes.
-1-2Id., pp. ?--?@= penned b* ,ud$e Manuel 7. Patalin$hu$.
7espite the due ser(ice of the summons and cop* of the complaint, the petitioner did not file herans)er.
%he M%CC declared her in defaultupon the respondents8 motion to declare her in default, and proceeded to
recei(ethe respondents8oral testimon* and documentar* e(idence. %hereafter, on September 0-, 0:::, the
M%CC rendered 9ud$ment a$ainst her, disposin$:

<>RAOR, considerin$ the fore$oin$, ,ud$ment is hereb* rendered in fa(or 1of2
plaintiffs &sic' spouses Renato Bamora and Melba Bamora and a$ainst defendant 7olores
AdoraMacaslan$, orderin$ defendant to (acate the properties in +uestion, to pa* to plaintiffs
Attorne*8s Aees in the sum of P0/,///.// and monthl* rental of P6,///.// startin$ 7ecember,
0::; until the time the defendant shall ha(e (acated the properties in +uestion.

SO OR7R7.
?
1?2

%he petitioner appealed to the R%C, a(errin$ the follo)in$ as re(ersible errors, namel*:

0. Ctrinsic Araud )as practiced upon defendant-appellant )hich ordinar* prudence could not
ha(e $uarded a$ainst and b* reason of )hich she has been impaired of her ri$hts.

.. 7efendant-Appellant has a meritorious defense in that there )as no actual sale considerin$
that the absolute deed of sale relied upon b* the plaintiff-appell1ees2 is a patent-nullit* as her
si$nature therein )as procured throu$h fraud and tricDer*.
6
162

and pra*in$ throu$h her appeal memorandum as follo)s:

<herefore, in (ie) of the fore$oin$, it is most respectfull* pra*ed for that 9ud$ment be
rendered in fa(or of defendant-appellant orderin$ that this case be remanded bacD to the Court of
Ori$in, Municipal %rial Court of 7anao Cit*, for further proceedin$s to allo) the defendant to
present her e(idence, and thereafter, to render a 9ud$ment ane).
@
1@2

On Ma* 05, .///, the R%C resol(ed the appeal, to )it:
;
1;2

<>RAOR,9ud$ment is hereb* rendered dismissin$ the complaint for failure to state a
cause of action.

%he same ma*, ho)e(er, be refiled in the same Court, b* alle$in$ plaintiffs8 cause of
action, if an*.

Plaintiffs8 Motion for Cecution of ,ud$ment of the lo)er court is rendered moot b* this
9ud$ment.

SO OR7R7.

%he respondents appealed to the CA, assailin$ the R%C8s decision for 3disre$ardin$ the alle$ations in
the complaint4 in determinin$ the eCistence or non-eCistence of a cause of action.

On ,ul* -, .//., the CA re(ersed and set aside the R%C8s decision and reinstated the M%CC8s decision
in fa(or of the respondents, disposin$:
?1?2Id., p. ?@.
6162Rollo, p. 0?.
@1@2CA Rollo, p. 5;.
;1;2Rollo, pp. ?;-60.

<>RAOR,fore$oin$ premises considered, the Petition is hereb* EI#" 7F
COFRS. Resultantl*, the impu$ned decision of the Re$ional %rial Court is hereb* R#RS7
and S% ASI7 for ha(in$ no basis in fact and in la), and the 7ecision of the Municipal %rial
Court in Cities RI"S%A%7 and AAAIRM7. "o costs.

SO OR7R7.
5
152

%he petitioner8smotion for reconsideration )as denied on"o(ember 0:, .//..

ISSES

>ence, the petitioner appeals the CA8s ad(erse decision, submittin$ le$al issues, as follo)s:
0. <hether or not the Re$ional %rial Court in the eCercise of its Appellate ,urisdiction is
limited to the assi$ned errors in the Memorandum or brief filed before it or )hether it can
decide the case based on the entire records of the case, as pro(ided for in Rule ?/, Sec. ;.
%his is a no(el issue )hich, )e respectfull* submit, deser(es a definiti(e rulin$ b* this
>onorable Supreme Court since it in(ol(es the application of a ne) pro(ision, specificall*
underlined no) under the 0::; Re(ised Rules on Ci(il procedure.

.. <hether or not in an action for unla)ful detainer, )here there )as no prior demand to
(acate and compl* )ith the conditions of the lease made, a (alid cause of action eCistsG

-. <hether or not in re(ersin$ the Re$ional %rial Court 7ecision and reinstatin$ and affirmin$
the decision of the Municipal Circuit %rial Court, )hich )as tried and decided b* the MC%C
in (iolation of the Rules on Summar* Procedure, the Court of Appeals sanctioned a $ross
departure from the usual course of 9udicial proceedin$sG
:
1:2
%he issues that this Court has to resol(e are stated thus)ise:

0. <hether or not the CA correctl* found that the R%C committed re(ersible error in rulin$ on
issues not raised b* the petitioner in her appeal=

.. <hether or not the CA correctl* found that the complaint stated a (alid cause of action=

-. <hether or not the CA erred in findin$ that there )as a (alid demand to (acate made b* the
respondents on the petitioner= and

?. <hether or not the petitioner8s defense of o)nership )as meritorious.

RLING

<e $rant the petition for re(ie).

A.
A! a" a##$%%a&$ 'o()&, RTC *ay )(%$
(#o" a" +!!($ "o&)a+!$, o" a##$a%

5152Supra, note 0.
:1:2Rollo, pp. 00-.@.
In its decision, the CA ruled that the R%C could not resol(e issues that )ere not assi$ned b* the
petitioner in her appeal memorandum, eCplainin$:

Indeed&,' <e are rather perpleCed )h* the Re$ional %rial Court, in arri(in$ at its decision,
discussed and ruled on issues or $rounds )hich )ere ne(er raised, assi$ned, or ar$ued on b* the
7efendant-appellee in her appeal to the former. A careful readin$ of the 7efendant-appellee8s
appeal memorandum clearl* sho)s that it onl* raised t)o &.' $rounds, namel* &a' alle$ed
eCtrinsic fraud, &b' meritorious defenses based on nullit* of the 7eed of Sale Instrument. And *et
the %rial Court, in its decision, ruled on issues not raised such as lacD of cause of action and no
prior demand to (acate ha(in$ been made.

Onl* errors assi$ned and properl* ar$ued on the brief and those necessaril* related thereto,
ma* be considered b* the appellate court in resol(in$ an appeal in a ci(il case. !ased on said
clear 9urisprudence, the court a +uo committed $ra(e abuse of discretion amountin$ to lacD of
9urisdiction )hen it resol(ed 7efendant-appellee8s appeal based on $rounds or issues not raised
before it, much less assi$ned b* 7efendant-appellee as an error.

"ot onl* that. It is settled that an issue )hich )as not raised durin$ the %rial in the court
belo) )ould not be raised for the first time on appeal as to do so )ould be offensi(e to the basic
rules of fair pla*, 9ustice and due process &#ictorias Millin$ Co., Inc. (s. CA, --- SCRA @@-'.
<e can therefore appreciate Plaintiffs-appellants8 disma* caused b* the Re$ional %rial Court8s
blatant disre$ard of a basic and fundamental ri$ht to due process.
0/
10/2

%he petitioner disa$rees )ith the CA and contends that the R%C as an appellate courtcould rule on the
failure of the complaint to state a cause of action and the lacD of demand to (acate e(en if not assi$ned in the
appeal.

<e concur )ith the petitioner8s contention.

%he CA mi$ht ha(e been correct had the appeal been a first appeal from the R%C to the CA or another
proper superior court, in )hich instance Section 5 of Rule 60, )hich applies to appeals from the R%C to the
CA,imposesthe eCpress limitation of the re(ie) to onl* those specified in the assi$nment of errorsor closel*
related to or dependent on an assi$ned error and properl* ar$ued in the appellant8s brief, viz:

Section 5. Questions that may be decided. H No $))o) )hich does not affect the 9urisdiction
o(er the sub9ect matter or the (alidit* of the 9ud$ment appealed from or the proceedin$ therein
-+%% .$ 'o"!+,$)$, ("%$!! !&a&$, +" &/$ a!!+0"*$"& o1 $))o)!, o) '%o!$%y )$%a&$, &o o)
,$#$",$"& o" a" a!!+0"$, $))o) a", #)o#$)%y a)0($, +" &/$ .)+$1, sa(e as the court ma* pass
upon plain errors and clerical errors.

!utthe petitioner8s appeal herein,bein$ taDen from the decision of the M%CC to the R%C, )as $o(erned
b* a different rule, specificall* Section 05 of Rule ;/ of the Rules of Court, to )it:

Section 05. CCC
CCC
T/$ 2(,0*$"& o) 1+"a% o),$) !/a%% .$ a##$a%a.%$ &o &/$ a##)o#)+a&$ R$0+o"a% T)+a%
Co()& -/+'/ !/a%% ,$'+,$ &/$ !a*$ o" &/$ .a!+! o1 &/$ $"&+)$ )$'o), o1 &/$ #)o'$$,+"0! /a,
+" &/$ 'o()& o1 o)+0+" a", !('/ *$*o)a",a a",3o) .)+$1! a! *ay .$ !(.*+&&$, .y &/$
#a)&+$! o) )$4(+)$, .y &/$ R$0+o"a% T)+a% Co()&. &;a'
0/10/2 Id., pp. -.---.
As such,the R%C, in eCercisin$ appellate 9urisdiction,)as not limited to the errors assi$ned in the
petitioner8s appeal memorandum, but coulddecide on the basis of the entire record of the proceedin$shad in the
trial court and such memoranda andIor briefs as may be submitted b* the parties or reuired b* the R%C.

%he difference bet)een the procedures for decidin$ on re(ie) is traceable to Section .. of !atas
"ambansa!l#. $%&,
00
1002)hich pro(ides:

Section ... 'ppellate Jurisdiction. H Re$ional %rial Courts shall eCercise appellate
9urisdiction o(er all cases decided b* Metropolitan %rial Courts, Municipal %rial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit %rial Courts in their respecti(e territorial 9urisdictions.S('/ 'a!$! !/a%% .$
,$'+,$, o" &/$ .a!+! o1 &/$ $"&+)$ )$'o), o1 &/$ #)o'$$,+"0! /a, +" &/$ 'o()& o1 o)+0+" 5a",6
!('/ *$*o)a",a a",3o) .)+$1! a! *ay .$ !(.*+&&$, .y &/$ #a)&+$! o) )$4(+)$, .y &/$
R$0+o"a% T)+a% Co()&!. %he decision of the Re$ional %rial Courts in such cases shall be
appealable b* petition for re(ie) to the Court of Appeals )hich ma* $i(e it due course onl*
)hen the petition sho)s prima facie that the lo)er court has committed an error of fact or la)
that )ill )arrant a re(ersal or modification of the decision or 9ud$ment sou$ht to be re(ie)ed.
0.
10.2

As its compliance )ith the re+uirement of Section -@ of !atas "ambansa!l#. $%&to 3adopt special rules
or procedures applicable to such cases in order to achie(e an eCpeditious and ineCpensi(e determination thereof
001002 Also Dno)n as (he Judiciary Reor#anization 'ct of $&)*, )hich became effecti(e upon its appro(al on
Au$ust 0?, 0:50 b* (irtue of its Section ?5 pro(idin$ that: 3%his Act shall taDe effect immediatel*.4
0.10.2 Interestin$l*, Section ?6 of Republic Act "o. .:@ &Judiciary 'ct of $&+)', as amended b* Section 0 of
Republic Act "o. @/-0 &'n 'ct to Increase the Salaries of ,unicipal Jud#es and to Reuire (hem to -evote
.ull (ime to their .unctions as Jud#es, to convert ,unicipal and City Courts into Courts of Record, to ma/e
final the -ecisions of Courts of .irst Instance in 'ppealed Cases fallin# under the 0xclusive 1ri#inal
Jurisdiction of ,unicipal and City Courts except in uestions of la2, amendin# thereby Sections +3, 4*, 43, 44
and )% of Republic 'ct 5umbered (2o 6undred 'nd 5inety Six, 1ther2ise /no2n as the Judiciary 'ct of $&+),
and for other purposes', )hich $o(erned the appellate procedure in the Court of Airst Instance, had an almost
similar tenor, to )it:
Section 45.Appellate Jurisdiction. Courts of First Instance shall have appellate jurisdiction over all
cases arising in city and municipal courts, in their respective provinces, except over appeals from
cases tried y municipal judges of provincial capitals or city judges pursuant to the authority granted
under the last paragraph of Section !" of this #ct.
Courts of First Instance shall decide such appealed cases on the basis of the evidence
and records transmitted from the city or municipal courts: Provided, That the parties may
submit memoranda and/or brief with oral argument if so requested: Provided, however,
That if the case was tried in a city or municipal court before the latter became a court of
record, then on appeal the case shall proceed by trial de novo.
In cases fallin$ under the eCclusi(e ori$inal 9urisdiction of municipal and cit* courts )hich are
appealed to the courts of first instance, the decision of the latter shall be final: "rovided, %hat the findin$s
of facts contained in said decision are supported b* substantial e(idence as basis thereof, and the
conclusions are not clearl* a$ainst the la) and 9urisprudence= in cases fallin$ under the concurrent
9urisdictions of the municipal and cit* courts )ith the courts of first instance, the appeal shall be made
directl* to the court of appeals )hose decision shall be final: "rovided, ho2ever, that the supreme court in
its discretion ma*, in an* case in(ol(in$ a +uestion of la), upon petition of the part* a$$rie(ed b* the
decision and under rules and conditions that it ma* prescribe, re+uire b* certiorari that the case be
certified to it for re(ie) and determination, as if the case had been brou$ht before it on appeal.
)ithout re$ard to technical rules,4 the Court promul$ated the $&&$ Revised Rules on Summary "rocedure,
)hereb* it institutionaliJed the summar* procedure for all the first le(el courts. Section .0 of the $&&$ Revised
Rules on Summary "rocedurespecificall* stated:

Section .0. 'ppeal. H T/$2(,0*$"& o) 1+"a% o),$) !/a%% .$ a##$a%a.%$ &o &/$
a##)o#)+a&$ R$0+o"a% T)+a% Co()& -/+'/ !/a%% ,$'+,$ &/$ !a*$ +" a''o),a"'$ -+&/ S$'&+o"
22 o1 Ba&a! 7a*.a"!aB%0. 128. %he decision of the Re$ional %rial Court in ci(il cases $o(erned
b* this Rule, includin$ forcible entr* and unla)ful detainer shall be immediatel* eCecutor*,
)ithout pre9udice to a further appeal that ma* be taDen therefrom. Section 0/ of Rule ;/ shall be
deemed repealed.


Later on, the Court promul$ated the 0::; Rules of Civil "rocedure, effecti(e on ,ul* 0, 0::;, and
incorporated in Section ; of Rule ?/ thereof the directi(e to the R%C to decide appealed cases3on the basis of
the entire record of the proceedin$s had in the court of ori$in and such memoranda as are filed,4viz:

Section ;. "rocedure in the Re#ional (rial Court. H

&a' Fpon receipt of the complete record or the record on appeal, the clerD of court of the
Re$ional %rial Court shall notif* the parties of such fact.

&b' <ithin fifteen &06' da*s from such notice, it shall be the dut* of the appellant to submit
a memorandum )hich shall briefl* discuss the errors imputed to the lo)er court, a cop* of )hich
shall be furnished b* him to the ad(erse part*. <ithin fifteen &06' da*s from receipt of the
appellant8s memorandum, the appellee ma* file his memorandum. Aailure of the appellant to file
a memorandum shall be a $round for dismissal of the appeal.

&c' Fpon the filin$ of the memorandum of the appellee, or the eCpiration of the period to do
so, the case shall be considered submitted for decision. T/$ R$0+o"a% T)+a% Co()& !/a%% ,$'+,$
&/$ 'a!$ o" &/$ .a!+! o1 &/$ $"&+)$ )$'o), o1 &/$ #)o'$$,+"0! /a, +" &/$ 'o()& o1 o)+0+" a",
!('/ *$*o)a",a a! a)$ 1+%$,. &n'

As a result, the R%C presentl* decides all appeals from the M%C based on the entire record of the
proceedin$s had in the court of ori$in and such memoranda or briefs as are filed in the R%C.

Ket, e(en )ithout the differentiation in the procedures of decidin$ appeals, the limitation of the re(ie)
to onl* the errors assi$ned and properl* ar$ued in the appeal brief or memorandum and the errors necessaril*
related to such assi$ned error sou$ht not to ha(e obstructed the CA from resol(in$ the unassi$ned issues b*
(irtue of their comin$ under one or se(eral of the follo)in$ reco$niJed eCceptions to the limitation, namel*:

&a' <hen the +uestion affects 9urisdiction o(er the sub9ect matter=
&b' Matters that are e(identl* plain or clerical errors )ithin contemplation of la)=
&c' Matters )hose consideration is necessar* in arri(in$ at a 9ust decision and complete
resolution of the case or in ser(in$ the interests of 9ustice or a(oidin$ dispensin$ piecemeal
9ustice=
&d' Matters raised in the trial court and are of record ha(in$ some bearin$ on the issue submitted
that the parties failed to raise or that the lo)er court i$nored=
&e' Matters closel* related to an error assi$ned= and
&f' Matters upon )hich the determination of a +uestion properl* assi$ned is dependent.
0-
10-2
0-10-2 Comilan# v. !urcena, E.R. "o. 0?@56-, Aebruar* 0-, .//@, ?5. SCRA -?., -?:= Sumipat v. !an#a, E.R. "o. 06650/,
Au$ust 0-, .//?, ?-@ SCRA 6.0, 6-.-6--= Catholic !ishop of !alan#a v. Court of 'ppeals, E.R. "o. 00.60:, "o(ember 0?, 0::@,
.@? SCRA 050, 0:0-0:..

Conse+uentl*, the CA improperl* disallo)ed the consideration and resolution of the t)o errors despite
their bein$: &a'necessar* in arri(in$ at a 9ust decision and acomplete resolution of the case= and &b' matters of
record ha(in$ some bearin$ on the issues submitted that the lo)er court i$nored.

B.
CA 'o))$'&%y ,$%9$, +"&o a", ,$&$)*+"$,
-/$&/$) o) "o& 'o*#%a+"& !&a&$, a 'a(!$ o1 a'&+o"

%he R%C opined that the complaint failed to state a cause of action because the e(idence sho)ed that
there )as no demand to (acate made upon the petitioner.

%he CA disa$reed, obser(in$ in its appealed decision:

!ut )hat is )orse is that a careful readin$ of Plaintiffs-appellants8 Complaint )ould readil*
re(eal that the* ha(e sufficientl* established &sic' a cause of action a$ainst 7efendant-appellee.
It is undisputed that as alle$ed in the complaint and testified to b* Plaintiffs-appellants, a demand
to (acate )as made before the action for unla)ful detainer )as instituted.

A complaint for unla)ful detainer is sufficient if it alle$es that the )ithholdin$ of
possession or the refusal is unla)ful )ithout necessaril* emplo*in$ the terminolo$* of the la)
&,imeneJ (s. Patricia, Inc., -?/ SCRA 6.6'. In the case at bench, par. ? of the Complaint alle$es,
thus:
3?. After a period of one &0' *ear li(in$ in the aforementioned house,
Plaintiff demanded upon defendant to (acate but she failed and refused=4

Arom the fore$oin$ alle$ation, it cannot be disputed that a demand to (acate has not onl*
been made but that the same )as alle$ed in the complaint. >o) the Re$ional %rial Court came to
the +uestionable conclusion that Plaintiffs-appellants had no cause of action is be*ond Fs.
0?
10?2

<e concur )ith the CA.

A complaint sufficientl* alle$es a cause of action for unla)ful detainer if it states the follo)in$:
&a'Initiall*, the possession of the propert* b* the defendant )as b* contract )ith or b* tolerance
of the plaintiff=
&b'(entuall*, such possession became ille$al upon notice b* the plaintiff to the defendant about
the termination of the latter8s ri$ht of possession=
&c'%hereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the propert* and depri(ed the plaintiff of
its en9o*ment= and
&d'<ithin one *ear from the maDin$ of the last demand to (acate the propert* on the defendant,
the plaintiff instituted the complaint for e9ectment.
06
1062

In resol(in$ )hether the complaint states a cause of action or not, onl* the facts alle$ed in the complaint
are considered. %he test is )hether the court can render a (alid 9ud$ment on the complaint based on the facts
alle$ed and the pra*er asDed for.
0@
10@2 Onl* ultimate facts, not le$al conclusions or e(identiar* facts, are
considered for purposes of appl*in$ the test.
0;
10;2

0?10?2 Id., pp. -.---.
061062 Cabrera v. 7etaruela, E.R. "o. 0@?.0-, April .0, .//:, 65@ SCRA 0.:, 0-@-0-;.
0@10@2 "eltan -evelopment, Inc. v. C', E.R. "o. 00;/.:, March 0:, 0::;, .;/ SCRA 5., :0.
0;10;2 7 8 S (ransport Corp. v. C', E.R. "o. 0./.5;, Ma* .5, .//., -5. SCRA .@., .;?.
%o resol(e the issue, therefore, a looD at the respondents8 complaint is helpful:

.. On September 0/, 0::;, ,$1$",a"& !o%, &o #%a+"&+11! a )$!+,$"&+a% %a", located in
Saban$, 7anao Cit*, co(ered b* %aC 7ec./-0.?0; R! )ith an area of ?// s+uare meters,
includin$ a residential house )here defendant )as then li(in$ co(ered b* %aC 7ec. /-0.?0; R!,
a cop* of the deed of absolute 1sale2 of these properties is hereto attached as AnneC 3A4=

-. After the sale, ,$1$",a"& )$4($!&$, &o .$ a%%o-$, &o %+9$ +" &/$ /o(!$ )hich #%a+"&+11
0)a"&$, on reliance of defendant8s #)o*+!$ &o 9a'a&$ as soon as she )ould be able to find a ne)
residence=

?. After a period of one &0' *ear li(in$ in the aforementioned house, #%a+"&+11! ,$*a",$,
(#o" ,$1$",a"& &o 9a'a&$ but !/$ 1a+%$, o) )$1(!$,.

6. Plaintiffs sou$ht the aid of the baran$a* Lupon of Saban$, 7anao Cit* for arbitration but
no settlement )as reached as sho)n b* a certification to file action hereto attached as AnneC
3!4=

@. Plaintiffs )ere compelled to file this action and hire counsel for P0/,/// b* )a* of
attorne*8s fee=

;. 7efendant a$reed to pa* plaintiffs a monthl* rental of P6,/// for the period of time that
the former continued to li(e in the said house in +uestion.

<>RAOR, it is respectfull* pra*ed of this >onorable Court to render 9ud$ment
orderin$ the defendant to (acate the properties in +uestion, orderin$ the defendant to pa*
plaintiffs attorne*8s fees in the sum of P0/,///, orderin$ the defendant to pa* the plaintiffs a
monthl* rental of P6,/// startin$ in October 0::;, until the time that defendant (acates the
properties in +uestion. Plaintiffs pra* for such other refiefs consistent )ith 9ustice and e+uit*.
05
1052

!ased on its alle$ations, the complaintsufficientl* stated a cause of action for unla)ful detainer. Airstl*,
it a(erred that the petitioner possessed the propert* b* the mere tolerance of the respondents. Secondl*, the
respondents demanded that the petitioner (acate the propert*, thereb* renderin$ her possession ille$al.
%hirdl*,she remained in possession of the propert* despite the demand to (acate. And, fourthl*, the respondents
instituted the complaint on March 0/, 0:::,)hich )as )ell )ithin a *ear after the demand to (acate )as made
around September of 0::5 or later.

Ket, e(en as )e rule that the respondents8 complaint stated a cause of action, )e must find and hold that
both the R%C and the CA erroneousl* appreciatedthe real issue to be about the complaint8s failure to state a
cause of action. It certainl* )as not so, butthe respondents8 lacD of cause of action. %heir erroneous
appreciationeCpectedl* pre(ented the correct resolution of the action.

Aailure to state a cause of action and lacD of cause of action are reall* different from each other.On the
one hand, failure to state a cause of actionrefers to the insufficienc* of the pleadin$, and is a $round for
dismissal under Rule 0@ of the Rules of Court. On the other hand, lacD of cause action refers to a situation
)here the e(idence does not pro(e the cause of action alle$ed in the pleadin$. ,ustice Re$alado, a reco$niJed
commentator on remedial la), has eCplained the distinction:
0:
10:2

051052 Rollo, p. -;.
0:10:2 Re$alado, Remedial 9a2 Compendium, #olume I, "inth Re(ised d. &.//6', p. 05..
CCC <hat is contemplated, therefore, is a failure to state a cause of action )hich is
pro(ided in Sec. 0&$' of Rule 0@. %his is a matter of insufficienc* of the pleadin#. Sec. 6 of Rule
0/, )hich )as also included as the last mode for raisin$ the issue to the court, refers to the
situation )here the e(idence does not prove a cause of action. %his is, therefore, a matter of
insufficienc* of evidence. Aailure to state a cause of action is different from failure to pro(e a
cause of action. %he remed* in the first is to mo(e for dismissal of the pleadin$, )hile the
remed* in the second is to demur to the e(idence, hence reference to Sec. 6 of Rule 0/ has been
eliminated in this section. %he procedure )ould conse+uentl* be to re+uire the pleadin$ to state a
cause of action, b* timel* ob9ection to its deficienc*= or, at the trial, to file a demurrer to
e(idence, if such motion is )arranted.

A complaint states a cause of action if it a(ers the eCistence of the three essential elements of a cause of
action, namel*:

&a' %he le$al ri$ht of the plaintiff=
&b' %he correlati(e obli$ation of the defendant= and
&c' %he act or omission of the defendant in (iolation of said le$al ri$ht.

If the alle$ations of the complaint do not a(er the concurrence of these elements, the complaint becomes
(ulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the $round of failure to state a cause of action.(identl*, it is not the lacD
or absence of a cause of action that is a $round for the dismissal of the complaint but the fact that the complaint
states no cause of action.Aailure to state a cause of action ma* be raised at the earliest sta$es of an action
throu$h a motion to dismiss, but lacD of cause of action ma* be raised at an* time after the +uestions of fact
ha(e been resol(ed on the basis of the stipulations, admissions, or e(idence presented.
./
1./2

>a(in$ found that neither Chibit C nor Chibit )as a proper demand to (acate,
.0
1.02 considerin$ that
Chibit C &the respondents8 letter dated Aebruar* 00, 0::5'demanded the pa*ment of P0,0/0,/5:.:/, and
Chibit &theirletter dated ,anuar* .0, 0:::' demandedthe pa*ment of P0,@//,///.//, the R%C concluded that
the demand alle$ed in the complaint did not constitute a demand to pa* rent and to (acate the premises
necessar* in an action for unla)ful detainer. It )as this conclusion that caused the R%C to confuse the defect as
failure of the complaint to state a cause of action for unla)ful detainer.

%he R%Cerred e(en in that re$ard.

%o be$in )ith, it )as undeniable that Chibit 7 &the respondents8 letter dated April .5, 0::5'
constitutedthedemand to (acate that (alidl* supported their action for unla)ful detainer, because of its
unmistaDable tenor as a demand to (acate, )hich the follo)in$ portion indicates:
..
1..2

%his is to $i(e notice that since the mort$a$e to *our propert* has lon$ eCpired and that
since the propert* is alread* in m* name, I -+%% .$ &a:+"0 o9$) &/$ o''(#a"'y o1 !a+, #)o#$)&y
&-o ;2< *o"&/! 1)o* ,a&$ o1 &/+! %$&&$).

Chibit 7, despite not eCplicitl* usin$ the )ordvacate, rela*ed to the petitionerthe respondents8 desire to
taDe o(er the possession of the propert* b* $i(in$her no alternati(e eCceptto (acate.%he )ord vacate,accordin$
to7olden 7ate Realty Corporation v. Intermediate 'ppellate Court,
.-
1.-2is not a talismanic )ord that must be
emplo*ed in all notices to (acate.%he tenantsin 7olden 7ate Realty Corporationhad defaulted in the pa*ment of
./1./2 !an/ of 'merica 5(8S' v. Court of 'ppeals, E.R. "o. 0./0-6, March -0, .//-, ?// SCRA 06@, 0@;-0@5= -abuco v. Court
of 'ppeals, E.R. "o. 0--;;6, ,anuar* ./, .///, -.. SCRA 56-, 56;-565.
.01.02 Id., pp. ?5-60.
..1..2 Id., p. ?..
.-1.-2 "o. L-?.5:, ,ul* -0, 0:5;, 06. SCRA @5?, @:0.
rents, leadin$ theirlessorto notif* them to pa* )ith a )arnin$ that a case of e9ectment )ould be filed a$ainst
themshould the* not do so. %he Court held that the lessor had thereb* $i(en stron$ notice that 3*ou either pa*
*our unpaid rentals or I )ill file a court case to ha(e *ou thro)n out of m* propert*,4for there)as no other
interpretation of the import of the notice due to the alternati(es bein$ clear cut, in that the tenants must pa*
rentals that had been fiCed and had become pa*able in the past, failin$ in )hich the* must mo(e out.
.?
1.?2
Also, the demand not bein$ to pa* rent and to (acate did not render the cause of action deficient. !ased
on the complaint, the petitioner8s possession )as alle$edl* based on the respondents8 tolerance, not on an*
contract bet)een them. >ence, the demand to (acate sufficed.

C.
E2$'&*$"& -a! "o& #)o#$) ,($
&o ,$1$"!$ o1 o-"$)!/+# .$+"0 $!&a.%+!/$,


%he respondents8 cause of action for unla)ful detainer )as based on their supposed ri$ht to possession
resultin$ from their ha(in$ ac+uired it throu$h sale.

%he R%Cdismissed the complaint based on its follo)in$ findin$s, to )it:

In the case at bench, there is conflict bet)een the alle$ation of the complaint and the
document attached thereto.

Simpl* stated, plaintiff alle$ed that she bou$ht the house of the defendant for P0//,///.//
on September 0/, 0::; as stated in an alle$ed 7eed of Absolute Sale marDed as Chibit 3A4 to
the complaint. Insofar as plaintiff is concerned, the best e(idence is the said 7eed of Absolute
Sale.

%he Court is surprised )h* in plaintiff8s letter dated Aebruar* 00, 0::5, marDed as Chibit
3C4 and attached to the same complaint, she demanded from the defendant the )hoopin$ sum of
P0,0/0,/5:.:/. It must be remembered that this letter )as )ritten fi(e &6' months after the deed
of absolute sale )as eCecuted.

%he same letter &Chibit 3C4' is not a letter of demand as contemplated b* la) and
9urisprudence. %he plaintiff simpl* said that she )ill appreciate pa*ment per notariJed document.
%here is no eCplanation )hat this document is.

Plaintiff8s letter dated April .5, 0::5 &Chibit 374' contradicts her alle$ation that she
purchased the house and lot mentioned in the complaint. Chibit 374, )hich is part of the
pleadin$ and a 9udicial admission clearl* sho)s that the house and lot of the defendant )as not
sold but mort$a$ed.

A$ain, for purposes of emphasis and clarit*, a portion of the letter &Chibit 374' reads:

L%his is to $i(e notice that since the mort$a$e to *our propert* has lon$ eCpired
and that since the propert* is alread* in m* name, I )ill be taDin$ o(er the
occupanc* of said propert* t)o &.' months from date of this letter.8

C CCC

.?1.?2 Id.
Chibit 34, )hich is a letter dated ,anuar* .0, 0:::, sho)s the real transaction bet)een
the parties in their case. %o reiterate, the consideration in the deed of sale &Chibit 3A4' is
P0//,///.// but in their letter &Chibit 34' she is alread* demandin$ the sum of P0,@//,///.//
because somebod* )as $oin$ to bu* it for P.,///,///.//.

%here are indications that point out that the real transaction bet)een the parties is one of
e+uitable mort$a$e and not sale.
.61.62


7espite holdin$ herein that the respondents8 demand to (acate sufficed, )e uphold the result of the R%C
decision in fa(or of the petitioner. %his )e do,because therespondents8 Chibit Cand Chibit , b*
demandin$pa*ment from the petitioner, respecti(el*,of P0,0/0,/5:.:/ and P0,@//,///.//, re(ealedthe true
nature of the transaction in(ol(in$ the propert* in +uestion as one of e+uitable mort$a$e, not a sale.

Our upholdin$ of the result reached b* the R%C rests on the follo)in$ circumstancesthat tended to sho)
that the petitioner had not reall* sold the propert* to the respondents, contrar* to the latter8s a(erments, namel*:

&a'%he petitioner, as the (endor, )as paid the amount of onl* P0//,///.//,
.@
1.@2 a price too
inade+uate in comparison )ith the sum of P0,@//,///.// demanded in Chibit =
.;
1.;2

&b' %he petitioner retained possession of the propert* despite the supposed sale= and

&c' %he deed of sale )aseCecuted as a result or b* reason of the loan the respondents eCtended to
the petitioner,because the* still allo)ed the petitioner to 3redeem4 the propert* b* pa*in$
her obli$ation under the loan.
.51.52

Submissions of the petitioner further supported the findin$s of the R%Con the e+uitable mort$a$e.
Airstl*, there )as the earlier dated instrument &deed of pactode retro'in(ol(in$ the same propert*, albeit the
consideration )as onl* P?5/,///.//, eCecuted bet)een the petitioner as (endor a retro and the respondent
Renato Bamora as (endee a retro.
.:
1.:2 Secondl*, there )ere t)o receipts for the pa*ments the petitioner had
made to the respondentstotalin$ P-//,///.//.
-/
1-/2 And, thirdl*, the former secretar* of respondent Melba
Bamora eCecuted an affida(it acDno)led$in$ that the petitioner had alread* paid a total of P6//,///.// to the
respondents.
-0
1-02 All these confirmed the petitioner8s claim that she remained the o)ner of the propert* and
)as still entitled to its possession.

Article 0@/. of the Civil Codeenumerates the instances )hen a contract, re$ardless of its nomenclature,
ma* be presumed to be an e+uitable mort$a$e, namel*:

&a' <hen the price of a sale )ith ri$ht to repurchase is unusuall* inade+uate=
&b' <hen the (endor remains in possession as lessee or other)ise=
&c' <hen upon or after the eCpiration of the ri$ht to repurchase another instrument eCtendin$ the
period of redemption or $rantin$ a ne) period is eCecuted=
&d'<hen the purchaser retains for himself a part of the purchase price=
&e'<hen the (endor binds himself to pa* the taCes on the thin$ sold= and,
.61.62 Rollo, pp. ?5-60.
.@1.@2 Id., p. -:.
.;1.;2 Id., p. ?:
.51.52 Id., p. ?..
.:1.:2 CA Rollo, pp. 5:-:/.
-/1-/2 Id., p. :0.
-01-02 Id., p. :..
&f' In an* other case )here it ma* be fairl* inferred that the real intention of the parties is that the
transaction shall secure the pa*ment of a debt or the performance of an* other obli$ation.

%he circumstances earlier mentioned )ere, indeed, bad$es of an e+uitable mort$a$e )ithin the conteCt
ofArticle 0@/. of the Civil Code.

"onetheless, the findin$sfa(orable to the petitioner8s o)nership are neitherfinall* determinati(e of the
title in the propert*, nor conclusi(e in an* other proceedin$ )here o)nership of the propert* in(ol(ed herein
ma* be more fittin$l* ad9udicated.#eril*, )here the cause of action in an e9ectment suit is based on o)nership
of the propert*, the defense that the defendantretainedtitle or o)nership is a proper sub9ect for determination b*
the M%C but onl* for the purpose of ad9udicatin$ the ri$htful possessor of the propert*.
-.
1-.2%his is based on
Rule ;/ of the Rules of Court, viz:

Section 0@. Resolvin# defense of o2nership. M <hen the defendant raises the defense of
o)nership in his pleadin$s and the +uestion of possession cannot be resol(ed )ithout decidin$
the issue of o)nership, the issue of o)nership shall be resol(ed onl* to determine the issue of
possession.&?a'

D.
MTC 'o**+&&$, #)o'$,()a% %a#!$!
&/a& *(!& .$ "o&$, a", 'o))$'&$,

%he Court seiJes the opportunit* to note and to correct se(eral noticeable procedural lapses on the part
of the M%CC, to a(oid the impression that the Court condones or tolerates the lapses.

%he first lapse )as the M%CC8s $rantin$ of the respondents8 motion to declare the petitioner in default
follo)in$ her failure to file an ans)er. %he proper procedure )as not for the plaintiffs to mo(e for the
declaration in default of the defendant )ho failed to file the ans)er. Such a motion to declare in default has
been eCpressl* prohibited under Section 0-, Rule ;/ of the Rules of Court.
--
1--2Instead, the trial court, either
motuproprio or on motion of the plaintiff, should render 9ud$ment as the facts alle$ed in the complaint mi$ht
-.1-.2 Sps. Refu#ia v. Court of 'ppeals, E.R. "o. 005.5?, ,ul* 6, 0::@, .65 SCRA -?;, -@.--@;.
$$%$$& Section '$.Prohibited pleadings and motions. ( )he follo*ing petitions, motions, or pleadings shall
not e allo*ed+
'. ,otion to dismiss the complaint except on the ground of lac- of jurisdiction over the suject matter,
or failure to comply *ith section './
.. ,otion for a ill of particulars/
$. ,otion for ne* trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for reopening of trial/
4. 0etition for relief from judgment/
5. ,otion for extension of time to 1le pleadings, a2davits or any other paper/
3. ,emoranda/
". 0etition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohiition against any interlocutory order issued y the court/
. !otion to declare the defendant in default"
4. 5ilatory motions for postponement/
'6. 7eply/
''. )hird8party complaints/
'.. Interventions. 9'4a, 7S0:
)arrant.
-?
1-?2In other )ords, the defendant8s failure to file an ans)er under Rule ;/ of the Rules of Courtmi$ht
result to a 9ud$ment b* default, not to a declaration of default.

%he second lapse )as the M%CC8sreception of the oral testimon* of respondent Melba Bamora. Rule ;/
of the Rules of Court has en(isioned the submission onl* of affida(its of the )itnesses &not oral testimon*' and
other proofs on the factual issues defined in the order issued )ithin fi(e da*s from the termination of the
preliminar* conference=
-6
1-62and has permitted the trial court, should it find the need to clarif* material facts, to
thereafter issue an order durin$ the -/-da* period from submission of the affida(its and other proofs specif*in$
the matters to be clarified, and re+uirin$ the parties to submit affida(its or other e(idence upon such matters
)ithin ten da*s from receipt of the order.
-@
1-@2

%he procedural lapses committed in this case are be*ond comprehension. %he M%CC 9ud$e could not
ha(e been unfamiliar )ith the pre(ailin$ procedure, considerin$ that the re(ised (ersion of Rule ;/, althou$h
taDin$ effect onl* on ,ul* 0, 0::;,)as deri(ed from the $&&$ Revised Rule on Summary "rocedure, in effect
since "o(ember 06, 0::0. It )as not liDel*, therefore, that the M%CC 9ud$e committed the lapses out of his
unfamiliarit* )ith the rele(ant rule. <e discern that the cause of the lapses )as his lacD of enthusiasm in
implementin$ correct procedures in this case. If that )as the true reason, the Court can onl* be alarmed and
concerned, for a 9ud$e should not lacD enthusiasm in appl*in$ the rules of procedure lest the )orth* ob9ecti(es
of their promul$ation be un)arrantedl* sacrificed and brushed aside. %he M%CC 9ud$e should not for$et that
the rules of procedure )ere al)a*s meant to be implemented deliberatel*, not casuall*, and their non-
compliance should onl* be eCcused in the hi$her interest of the administration of 9ustice.

It is timel*, therefore, to remind all M%C 9ud$es to displa* full and enthusiastic compliance )ith all the
rules of procedure, especiall* those intended for eCpeditin$ proceedin$s.

=HERE>ORE,)e $rant the petition for re(ie) on certiorari= set aside the decision promul$ated on
,ul* -, .//. b* the Court of Appeals= and dismiss the complaint for unla)ful detainer for lacD of a cause of
action.

%he respondents shall pa* the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.
LCAS 7. BERSAMIN
Associate ,ustice
=E CONCR:

CONCHITA CAR7IO MORALES
Associate ,ustice
Chairperson


ARTRO D. BRION MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, ?R.
-?1-?2 Section ;, Rule ;/, Rules of Court, viz:
Section ;.0ffect of failure to ans2er. M Should the defendant fail to ans)er the complaint )ithin the period abo(e pro(ided, the
court, motuproprio, or on motion of the plaintiff, shall render 9ud$ment as ma* be )arranted b* the facts alle$ed in the complaint and
limited to )hat is pra*ed for therein: Pro(ided, ho)e(er, %hat the court ma* in its discretion reduce the amount of dama$es and
attorne*8s fees claimed for bein$ eCcessi(e or other)ise unconscionable, )ithout pre9udice to the applicabilit* of Section -&c', Rule :,
if there are t)o or more defendants.
-61-62 Section 0/, Rule ;/, Rules of Court.
-@1-@2 Section 00, Rule ;/, Rules of Court.
Associate ,ustice Associate ,ustice


MARIA LORDES 7. A. SERENO
Associate ,ustice


A T T E S T A T I O N

I attest that the conclusions in the abo(e 7ecision had been reached in consultation before the case )as
assi$ned to the )riter of the opinion of the Court8s 7i(ision.

CONCHITA CAR7IO MORALES
Associate ,ustice
Chairperson


C E R T I > I C A T I O N

Pursuant to Section 0-, Article #III of the Constitution, and the 7i(ision Chairperson8s Attestation, I
certif* that the conclusions in the abo(e 7ecision had been reached in consultation before the case )as assi$ned
to the )riter of the opinion of the Court8s 7i(ision.


RENATO C. CORONA
Chief ,ustice