FACTS: Spouses Trinidad filed a case of forcible entry against Reynaldo and other persons acting on his behalf before the MTC of Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija. They claimed to be the owners of a parcel of land (property) in Valenzuela, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale with Waiver of Rights (DOAS) signed by Reynaldo. Reynaldo, with the assistance of his cohorts, entered the property without any permission from spouses Trinidad and through force, strategy, and stealth was able to gain possession thereof. Spouses Trinidad alleged that they did not attempt to recover possession of the property by extra-legal means to prevent any trouble, much less bloodshed. They sent a Final Demand to Vacate to Reynaldo but the latter refused to receive it.
Reynaldo countered that spouses Trinidad have never been in possession of the property; much less were they dispossessed of the same. He claimed that he had been in continuous, uninterrupted, actual and physical possession of the property since time immemorial. He argued that the allegation of dispossession in the complaint was made in general terms and without any clarification on how he employed force, stealth, and strategy.
The MTC ruled that spouses Trinidad’s claim of possession flows from their ownership of the property as opposed to the actual possession thereof, which is the primary consideration in a forcible entry case.
On appeal to the RTC, the RTC held that (1) the MTC had no jurisdiction to entertain the case for forcible entry; the assessed values of the buildings erected thereon were PHP 19,190.00 and PHP 121,520.00, per the Tax Declaration of the property. Thus, applying Rule 40, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, the RTC treated the case as accion publiciana. It held that it is “duty bound to remove the issue of ownership and questions on who has better right to the possession of the property.” (2) Reynaldo to vacate the property. While Reynaldo admitted signing the DOAS, he insisted that the real transaction between him and spouses Trinidad was a loan. The RTC rejected this claim as Reynaldo failed to establish the elements of a loan, such as the period of repayment and interest.
The CA dismissed the appeal. Rule 41, Section 2(b) of the Rules of Court provides that the appeal to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review under Rule 42. The Decision and Resolution assailed by Reynaldo were rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Under Rule 50, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, an appeal by notice of appeal instead of a petition for review from the appellate judgment of the RTC shall be dismissed.
ISSUES:
- Whether the appropriate mode of appeal to the CA is a petition for review instead of an ordinary appeal; and
- Whether the Spouses Trinidad have the right to possession of the property.
RULING:
(1) The Decision of the RTC appealed from was rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Thus, under Rule 41, Section 2(b) of the Rules of Court, the proper mode of appeal to the CA is via petition for review.
In De Vera v. Spouses Santiago, the phrase in Rule 40, Section 8 that the RTC shall decide the case “as if the same was originally filed before it” does not convert the type of jurisdiction being exercised by the RTC, which remains to be appellate. The phrase does not change the fact that the case was originally or first filed before the MTC and reached the RTC only via appeal. It is in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction that the RTC determines that the MTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. If the RTC has jurisdiction, it will take cognizance of the case pursuant to Rule 40, Section 8, in the interest of convenience and judicial economy. Without the express mandate of Rule 40, Section 8, the RTC would just dismiss the case and have the same refiled before it. This would lead to unnecessary proceedings which would hamper the expeditious resolution of the case.
Under Rule 50, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, “an appeal by notice of appeal instead of by petition for review from the appellate judgment of a Regional Trial Court shall be dismissed.” Hence, the CA is correct in dismissing Reynaldo’s notice of appeal for being an improper mode of appeal. Reynaldo should have filed a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. Therefore, the challenged RTC Decision had already attained finality.
(2) Yes. Under Article 1495 of the Civil Code, the vendor is under obligation to physically place the vendee in possession of the property, which is the object of the contract.
Here, Reynaldo failed to do this. Reynaldo admitted that he signed the notarized DOAS in favor of spouses Trinidad. While he insisted that the real transaction between him and spouses Trinidad is one of loan, he failed to substantiate the same. As owners of the property, spouses Trinidad are entitled to the possession thereof. As between Reynaldo and spouses Trinidad, the latter have a better right to possess the property.
