Fatima O. De Guzman-Fuerte v Spouses Silvino S.

Estomo and Concepcion Estomo

GR 223399, 23 April 2018

FACTS
● Fuerte filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Sps Estomo.
● Subject property is situated at Block 3, Lot 2, Birmingham Homes, Dalig City , Antipolo
City

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT
● Fuerte alleged that Manuela Co executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over the
subject property in her favor
● Co failed to pay the loan thus, Fuerte caused the foreclosure proceedings and eventually
obtained ownership of the property
● However, writ of possession was left unsatisfied since Co was no longer residing at the
property and that the Sps Estomo and their family occupied the same
● Through a letter, she demanded the Sps to vacate and surrender possession of the
property and pay the corresponding compensation but, Sps Estomo refused to heed to
her demands.

RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENT
● Spouses Estomo denied their alleged illegal occupation. They also denied the existence
of a demand letter
● The spouses averred that they acquired the property from the Homeowners
Development Corp. through a contract of sale, registered it under their names, and had
been their family home since 2000.
● The wife claimed that she sought the assistance of Co, a real estate broker, to assist her
in securing a loan. Co obtained the certificate of title to be shown to potential creditors
however, she never returned it.
● The TCT was cancelled by an alleged Absolute Sale of Real Property.
● Co mortgaged the subject property in the amount of P800,000
● Spouses Estomo filed an annulment case against Co and Fuerte
● They were served with the writ of possession in favor of Fuerte thus, compelling them to
file a terceria (a motion to recall the writ of possession) and asked for the consolidation
of the land registration case to the annulment case.
● Trial court quashed the writ and directed consolidation of cases

As to the complaint of unlawful detainer

● Sps Estomo also prayed that the complaint be dismissed for the reason that the
allegations are insufficient to establish a cause of action for unlawful detainer
● The case cannot be considered as one of forcible entry since it was never alleged that
their entry was by means of FITSS
● Prescription has already set. Fuerte was aware that the spouses possessed the property
when they filed a complaint for annulment of deed of absolute sale and real estate
mortgage against Co and Fuerte on Jan. 30, 2007.
RULING OF THE LOWER and (APPELLATE) COURT

MTCC Antipolo City Br. 1

● Dismissed the complaint filed by Fuerte
● Fuerte failed to attach in the complaint a copy of the demand letter as well as establish
the same was duly received by the spouses

RTC
● Reversed and set aside the decision of the MTCC
● Fuerte established the existence of the Dec. 1, 2008 demand letter which was sent thru
registered mail of Antipolo City Post Office
● The notice to vacate substantially complied with the modes of service required under
Sec 2, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court
● Ordered Spouses Estomo:
- vacate and surrender possession of the property
- Pay Fuertes P5000.00 as compensation for the use and occupation of the property (from
the time the complaint was filed on Aug 12, 2009 until the actual physical possession by
Fuerte.
- 10k as attorney’s fees

CA
● Reversed and set aside the ruling of RTC
● Dismissed the Unlawful Detainer and Damages case filed by Fuerte against spouses
Estomo
● Complaint failed to describe that the possession by the Spouses Estomo was initially
legal or tolerated and became illegal upon termination of lawful possession

ISSUE
● WON complaint constitute unlawful detainer
● WON CA defied Sec 8, Rule 40 Rules of Court

Section 8. Appeal from orders dismissing case without trial; lack of jurisdiction. — If an
appeal is taken from an order of the lower court dismissing the case without a trial on the merits,
the Regional Trial Court may affirm or reverse it, as the case may be. In case of affirmance and
the ground of dismissal is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Regional Trial Court, if
it has jurisdiction thereover, shall try the case on the merits as if the case was originally filed
with it. In case of reversal, the case shall be remanded for further proceedings.

If the case was tried on the merits by the lower court without jurisdiction over the subject matter,
the Regional Trial Court on appeal shall not dismiss the case if it has original jurisdiction thereof,
but shall decide the case in accordance with the preceding section, without prejudice to the
admission of amended pleadings and additional evidence in the interest of justice. (n)
SC RULING
● PETITION DEVOID OF MERIT
● A perusal of the complaint showed that it contradicts the requirements for unlawful
detainer

A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it states the
following:
(A) Initially, the possession of the property by the defendant was by contract with or
by tolerance of the plaintiff;
(B) Eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by the plaintiff to the
defendant about the termination of the latter's right of possession;
(C) Thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived
the plaintiff of its enjoyment;
(D) Within one year from the making of the last demand to vacate the property on
the defendant, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment

● Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the complaint make it clear that Sps Estomo’s occupancy was
ILLEGAL and without Fuerte’s consent. This is not in compliance with the requirement of
a sufficient complaint for unlawful detainer.

3. Plaintiff is the absolute and registered owner of that parcel of land with a house and
structures thereon situated at Blk. 3, Lot 2, Birmingham Homes, Dalig City 1, Antipolo
City, being illegally occupied by the defendants, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
No. R-55253 of the Registry of Deeds for the City of Antipolo, a machine copy thereof
is hereto attached as Annex "A" and made an integral part hereof

● Likewise, the complaint did not contain an allegation that Fuerte or her predecessor in
interest tolerated the spouses’ possession on account of an express or implied contract
between them. Neither an averment showing any overt act on Fuerte’s part indicative of
her permission to occupy the land.
● The demand letter also supports the fact the Fuerte characterized the Sps possession of
the subject property as UNLAWFUL FROM THE START

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Estomo:

We represent our client, DR. FATIMA O. DE GUZMAN-FUERTE DR. FATIMA O. DE

GUZMAN-FUERTE , the absolute and registered owner in fee simple of the above
premises you are presently occupying without her consent, permission nor approval.

…….

Nevertheless, since your occupancy of our client's property is without her consent,
permission and approval, it is, therefore, unlawful .
In view thereof, FORMAL DEMAND is made upon you to immediately vacate the
premises you are presently unlawfully occupying and to peacefully surrender the same
to our client….

● It is apparent from the letter that Fuerte demanded the spouses to immediately
vacate the subject property, contrary to her allegation that she granted such
period, during which she tolerated the spouses' possession.
● Fuerte failed to satisfy the requirement that her supposed act of tolerance was
present right from the start of the possession by the Spouses Estomo.
● COMPLAINT FAILED TO STATE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER.
MTCC failed to acquire jurisdiction and CA correctly dismissed the unlawful detainer
case against the Sps Estomo.
● As to the second issue, the SC emphasize the settled distinction between a summary
action of ejectment and a plenary action for recovery of possession and/or ownership.
First is limited to the question of possession de facto. Second refers to ownership with
inclusion of possession.
● A judgment rendered in a forcible entry case, or an unlawful detainer as in this
case, will not bar an action between the same parties respecting title or
ownership because between a case for forcible entry or unlawful detainer and an
accion reinvindicatoria, there is no identity of causes of action.

Section 18, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that a "judgment rendered
in an action for forcible entry or detainer shall be conclusive with respect to the
possession only and shall in no wise bind the title or affect the ownership of the land."

● Sec 8 Rule 40 ordains the RTC not to dismiss the cases appealed to it from the
first level court which tried the same albeit without jurisdiction, but to decide the
case on the merits.
● In the case at bar, the RTC actually treated the case as an appeal.

PRINCIPLE/DOCTRINE
The registered owner of a real property is entitled to its possession. However, the
registered owner cannot simply wrest possession thereof from whoever is in actual
occupation of the property. To recover possession, he must resort to the proper remedy,
and once he chooses what action to file, he is required to satisfy the conditions
necessary for such action to prosper.