d2015member

Danilo Cansino & Lina de Jesus v. CA, RTC Judge, Sps Castro, and Sheriff (2003) Puno, J. 1. There was a complaint. Herein Respondents Sps Castro vs. Herein Petitioners Cansino et al. (Unlawful detainer over a land in Kalookan, MTC) In the complaint, it was alleged that by strategy and stealth, the defendants unlawfully constructed their houses on the land. Answer w/ Counterclaim, defendants say that their possession was premised on the honest belief that the lot they were occupying was still public land and that they have been in possession since 1977. The failure of plaintiffs to allege when possession of defendants started created and when taken cognizance by plaintiffs creates doubts as to the jurisdiction of the MTC. MTC took cognizance of the case and treated the complaint as one for ejectment under the Rules on Summary Procedure. TC ordered parties to submit their affidavits and those of their witnesses + other evidence. Later on, MTC dismissed the complaint saying that in an ejectment case, the plaintiff had the burden of proving prior physical possession which the plaintiffs were unable to discharge. RTC affirmed MTC decision. Plaintiffs filed an MR where they appended documentary evidence showing ownership over the property as well as ownership and possession of their predecessors-ininterest. RTC reversed earlier decision ruling that: Plaintiffs were able to prove ownership and possession. Rejected claim of defendants that the land was public property because RTC says it was already proven that the lot is titled to the plaintiffs. The title was incontrovertible after a year and so the defendants can no longer assail it Court considered defendants as squatters or intruders. Defendants filed pet for review with CA assailing right of RTC to decide the issue of ownership without any fair trial. They also assail the propriety of the action of the RTC in considering the evidence attached in the MR which were not made part of th e position paper they submitted. CA affirmed RTC saying that: o Defendants were unable to substantiate their possession of the property. Their occupancy is at best due to tolerance of the registered owners, the plaintiffs. o Wrt considering the evidence attached to the MR, CA says that under Rule 135.5 of the Revised RoC, the RTC has inherent power to amend and control its process and orders to make them conformable to law and justice Hence petition for review on certiorari to SC by defendants.

2.

3. 4.

5.

6.

7.

Issues/Held: 1. Is Rule 135.5 of Revised RoC applicable in an MR where docs in the MR are not considered as evidence to prove supervening events? -- NO 2. Do the plaintiffs have a clear right to possess the land? SC did not resolve. (See last par of ratio) Ratio: Rule 135.5g of the Revised RoC provides: Inherent powers of courts. Every court shall have the power: (g) To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice SC disagrees with CA when CA said it is the inherent right of the court to amend and control its processes and that procedural technicalities should not override substantial justice. It is true that the rules provide that courts have the inherent power to amend their decisions to make them conformable to law and justice but this is not absolute. The rules do not contemplate amendments that are substantial in nature. They merely cover formal changes or such that will not affect the crux of the decision, like the correction of typographical or clerical errors. Courts will violate due process if they make substantial amendments in their decisions without affording the other party the right to contest the new evidence presented in an MR. Under Rule 37, a party may file an MR on the ground that the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final order, or the decision or final order is contrary to law. It requires the motion to point out specifically the findings or conclusions of the judgment or final order which are not supported by the evidence or which are contrary to law, making specific reference to the testimonial or documentary evidence presented or to the provisions of law alleged to be violated. It is implicitly clear from Rule 37 that an MR cannot be used as a vehicle to introduce new evidence. Defendants correctly say that if plaintiffs wanted to present further evidence, they should have filed a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. However, for newly discovered evidence to warrant a new trial a. It must have been discovered after trial; b. It could not have been discovered or produced at the trial despite reasonable diligence;

d2015member

c. d.

It must be material and not merely collateral, cumulative, corroborative or purely for impeaching a witness, merely important evidence being not enough; and If presented, would probably alter the result of the action

Application to this case: Plaintiffs attached for the first time in their MR, evidence to prove their ownership. This cannot be countenanced. For one, possession is the only issue in a case for unlawful detainer. More importantly, there is no justification for the delay in presenting said evidence. Although it was plaintiffs who filed an appeal to the RTC, they failed to submit their memorandum as required by the court.It was only after the RTC rendered an unfavorable decision that they filed an MR and appended their new evidence. Piecemeal presentation of evidence is not in accord with orderly justice. Considering the totality of evidence, SC rules in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs appended to its MR the following evidence: o TCT issued in the name of the predecessors-in-interest of plaintiffs (Crisostomo and Bantug) o TCT issued in the name of plaintiff Sps Castro; o Contract to Sell between the subdivision (where land was located) and Crisostomo o Location Plan showing the site of the contested parcel of land; o Real Property Tax Receipts (1988 AND1993) The titles presented do not necessarily prove their right to possession, especially since there is a separate case for the investigation of the true status of the land formerly in the name of Biyaya Corporation from where plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest obtained their title. Neither will the contract to sell and the location plan prove possession. Tax receipts covered only the years 1988 and 1993. The failure to present the receipts covering the years before 1988 and between 1988 and 1993 creates doubt as to the validity of their claim of prior possession. It is fundamental that complainants in an ejectment case must allege and prove that they had prior physical possession of the property before they were unlawfully deprived thereof by defendants. Plaintiffs had the burden of proving their claim of prior possession. They failed to prove their claim. In light of the resolution of the first issue which clears the question of prior possession, it is unnecessary to discuss the second issue since petitioners argument touches on the ownership of the lot subject matter of this controversy. This case is an ejectment case where the only issue is prior possession of the lot. Any controversy with regard to ownership should be ventilated in a separate action. Petition granted.