Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No.

160239 November 25, 2009

ANGELINA SORIENTE a ! ALL OT"ER PERSONS CLAIMING RIG"TS UN#ER "ER, Petitioners, vs. T"E ESTATE O$ T"E LATE ARSENIO E. CONCEPCION, re%re&e 'e! b( NENITA S. CONCEPCION,Respondents. D PERALTA, J.: This is a petition for revie" on certiorari# of the Order$ dated October %, $&&% of the Re'ional Trial !ourt of Mandalu(on' !it(, )ranch $#%, National !apital *udicial Re'ion in !ivil !ase No. M!+&%+,&-+., "hich affir/ed the Decision dated .pril 0, $&&% of the Metropolitan Trial !ourt of Mandalu(on' !it(, )ranch 12 in !ivil !ase No. #-2-%, orderin' petitioner to vacate the propert(, sub3ect /atter of this unla"ful detainer case, and surrender the possession thereof to respondent. The facts, as stated b( the trial court,% are as follo"s4 Respondent Nenita S. !oncepcion established that she "as the re'istered o"ner of the lot occupied b( petitioner .n'elina Soriente at No. 5%- !avo 6. Sanche7 Street, Mandalu(on' !it(, Metro Manila. The lot, "ith an area of $21 s8uare /eters, is covered b( Transfer !ertificate of Title 9T!T: No. #$02$ , issued b( the Re'ister of Deeds of Metro Manila, District II. Durin' the lifeti/e of .rsenio . !oncepcion, "ho ac8uired the lot in #2-0, he allo"ed and tolerated the occupanc( of the lot b( petitioner, "ho "as alread( sta(in' on the propert(. Petitioner "as allo"ed to sta( on the lot for free, but on a te/porar( basis until such ti/e that !oncepcion and;or his fa/il( needed to develop the lot. .fter .rsenio . !oncepcion died on Dece/ber $-, #202, his fa/il( initiated steps to develop the lot, but petitioner<s occupanc( of the lot prevented the/ fro/ pursuin' their plan. Verbal de/ands to vacate the lot "as /ade on petitioner. Petitioner pleaded for ti/e to transfer to another place, but she never left. !ISION

In *une $&&&, li7abeth !oncepcion+Dela !ru7, dau'hter of respondent, filed a co/plaint for conciliation proceedin's before the baran'a( at the instance of respondent. Ho"ever, the parties did not reach a settle/ent, "hich resulted in the issuance of a !ertificate to 6ile .ction1 dated 6ebruar( #-, $&&# b( the )aran'a( !aptain of )aran'a( Ha'dan )ato Itaas, Mandalu(on' !it(. Respondent sent petitioner a de/and letter dated Septe/ber $$, $&&& b( re'istered /ail, de/andin' that she peacefull( surrender the propert( and e=tendin' financial assistance for her relocation. Despite receipt of the de/and letter, petitioner did not vacate the pre/ises. On .pril $-, $&&#, respondent filed a'ainst petitioner a !o/plaint 5 for unla"ful detainer "ith the Metropolitan Trial !ourt of Mandalu(on' !it(, )ranch 12 9trial court:. The !o/plaint "as doc>eted as !ivil !ase No. #-2-%. The !o/plaint alle'ed that respondent "as the re'istered o"ner of the sub3ect propert(, "hile petitioner had no title to the propert( and her free occupanc( thereof "as /erel( tolerated b( respondent. Moreover, petitioner "as occup(in' the pre/ises to'ether "ith her fa/il(, and she had /aintained boarders for a fee. Respondent pra(ed that petitioner be ordered to vacate the lot, surrender the possession thereof to respondent, pa( /onthl( rent ofP1,&&&.&& fro/ *une $&&& until she vacates the pre/ises, and pa( actual, /oral and e=e/plar( da/a'es, as "ell as liti'ation e=penses. It appears fro/ the records of the case that petitioner Soriente, as a defendant in the lo"er court, did not file a separate .ns"er, but affi=ed her si'nature to the .ns"er filed b( defendant .lfredo !aballero in another e3ect/ent case, doc>eted as !ivil !ase No. #-2-,, "hich "as filed b( respondent a'ainst !aballero. Hence, respondent, throu'h counsel, filed a Motion to Render *ud'/ent - under Section -, Rule -& of the #22- Revised Rules of !ivil Procedure for Soriente<s failure to file an .ns"er to the !o/plaint. Petitioner filed an Opposition to the Motion to Render *ud'/ent.0 In an Order2 dated Dece/ber 1, $&&#, the trial court denied the Motion to Render *ud'/ent. It stated that the alle'ations of the !o/plaint in !ivil !ase No. #-2-% and #-2-, are si/ilar, the onl( substantial difference bein' the ti/e "hen defendants occupied the sub3ect propert( alle'edl( throu'h the tolerance of .rsenio !oncepcion. The trial court believed that in si'nin' the .ns"er filed in !ivil !ase No. #-2-,, Soriente intended to adopt the sa/e as her o"n, as both defendants !aballero and Soriente had a co//on defense a'ainst plaintiff<s 9respondent<s: separate clai/ a'ainst the/. The trial court denied the Motion to Render *ud'/ent in the interest of 3ustice and considered that the t"o cases, includin' !ivil !ase No. #-2%$ a'ainst Severina Sadol, had been consolidated. Pursuant to Section - of the #22# Revised Rule on Su//ar( Procedure, the trial court set a preli/inar( conference on October 2, $&&# at 04%& a./. The preli/inar( conference "as reset to Nove/ber #1, $&&#, and then to Dece/ber

#0, $&&# because the Motion to Render *ud'/ent "as still pendin' resolution. On Dece/ber #0, $&&#, the preli/inar( conference "as reset to *anuar( $,, $&&$ as pra(ed for b( defendants on the 'round that their co//on counsel "as absent despite proper notice, and plaintiff 9respondent: did not ob3ect to the resettin'.#& On *anuar( $,, $&&$, the scheduled preli/inar( conference "as a'ain reset to March 1, $&&$ because no notice "as sent to defendants< counsel, and plaintiff 9respondent: and her counsel "ere both absent despite proper notice. On March 1, $&&$, the trial court reset the preli/inar( conference to .pril #5, $&&$ on the 'round that there "as no notice sent to defendants< counsel. In the scheduled preli/inar( conference held on 6ebruar( #0, $&&%, onl( plaintiff<s 9respondent<s: counsel and defendants Severina Sadol and .lfredo !aballero "ere present. Plaintiff<s 9respondent<s: counsel sub/itted a secretar(<s certificate attestin' to the e=istence of a board resolution authori7in' hi/ to enter into a co/pro/ise a'ree/ent. . representative of defendant 9petitioner: .n'elina Soriente appeared, but failed to sub/it a Special Po"er of .ttorne( authori7in' her to enter into a co/pro/ise a'ree/ent. !ounsel for defendants "as not in court, and there "as no proof of service on her for the hearin'. Ho"ever, defendants Sadol and !aballero infor/ed the court that the( infor/ed their counsel of the hearin' scheduled that da(. In vie" of the absence of defendant .n'elina Soriente or her authori7ed representative, plaintiff<s 9respondent<s: counsel /oved that the case be sub/itted for decision, and that he be 'iven #1 da(s "ithin "hich to sub/it his position paper. ## In its Order#$ dated 6ebruar( #0, $&&%, the trial court 'ranted the /otion of plaintiff<s 9respondent<s: counsel and considered the case a'ainst defendant 9petitioner: .n'elina Soriente sub/itted for decision in accordance "ith Section of the Rules on Su//ar( Procedure. #% On .pril 0, $&&%, the trial court rendered a Decision #, holdin' that respondent established b( preponderance of evidence that she "as entitled to the relief pra(ed for. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads4 ?H R 6OR , 3ud'/ent is hereb( rendered orderin' defendant .n'elina Soriente and all other persons clai/in' ri'hts under her to4 #. Vacate the sub3ect pre/ises and surrender the possession thereof to plaintiff@ $. Pa( the a/ount of P SOS4 6IV THOAS.ND 9P1,&&&.&&: per /onth as reasonable co/pensation for use and occupation of the pre/ises as of *une $&&& until she finall( vacates the sub3ect pre/ises@

%. Pa( the a/ount BofC P SOS4 THR attorne(<s fees@ and

THOAS.ND 9P%,&&&.&&: as

,. Pa( the liti'ation e=penses and cost of suit.#1 Petitioner appealed the trial court<s Decision to the RT! of Mandalu(on' !it(, )ranch $#%, raisin' the follo"in' issues4 #. The lo"er court erred in holdin' that the plaintiff "as able to establish that she is the re'istered o"ner of the lot occupied b( the defendant+ appellant instead of dis/issin' the co/plaint outri'ht for lac> of le'al capacit( to sue. $. The lo"er court erred in holdin' that the plaintiff "as able to establish b( preponderance of evidence that she is entitled to the relief pra(ed for despite lac> of 3urisdiction. %. The lo"er court erred in holdin' that this instant case sub3ect of this appeal be decided in accordance "ith Section - of the Rules on Su//ar( Procedure.#5 In an Order#- dated October %, $&&%, the RT! affir/ed the trial court<s Decision, disposin' thus4 PR S!INDIND 6ROM TH 6OR DOIND !ONSID R.TIONS, 3ud'/ent is hereb( rendered .66IRMIND IN TOTO the decision dated .pril 0, $&&% rendered b( the Metropolitan Trial !ourt, )ranch 12, Mandalu(on' !it(. #0 The RT! held4 !ase records readil( disclosed that the o"nership of the sub3ect lot belon's to the late .rsenio . !oncepcion, /arried to herein Plaintiff+.ppellee Nenita S. !oncepcion, as evidenced b( the Transfer !ertificate of Title No. #$02$ 9.nne= E.E in the co/plaint for Anla"ful Detainer:. This !ertificate of Title shall be received as evidence in all courts of the Philippines and shall be conclusive as to all /atters contained therein principall(, the identit( of the o"ner of the land covered thereb( e=cept as provided in the Fand Re'istration .ct. Said title can be attac>ed onl( for fraud "ithin one (ear after the date of the issuance of the decree of re'istration. Such attac> /ust be direct and not b( a collateral proceedin'. The title represented b( the certificate cannot be chan'ed, altered, /odified, enlar'ed or di/inished in a collateral proceedin' such as this instant appeal fro/ the decision rendered b( the Metropolitan Trial !ourt of Mandalu(on' !it( in an e3ect/ent case. .s should be >no"n b( .ppellant Soriente throu'h counsel, no title to re'istered land in dero'ation to that of the re'istered o"ner shall be ac8uired b( prescription or adverse possession. Prescription is unavailin' not onl( a'ainst the re'istered o"ner .rsenio .

!oncepcion but also a'ainst his hereditar( successors because the latter /erel( steps into the shoes of the decedent b( operation of la" and are /erel( the continuation of the personalities of their predecessors+in+interest 9)arcelona v. )arcelona, #&& Phil $1#@ PD #1$2, Sec. ,-:. = = = ==== Note"orth( to /ention in the case at bar is the rulin' laid do"n in !aluba(an v. Pascual, $# S!R. #,5, "here the Supre/e !ourt BheldC that a person "ho occupies the land of another at the latter<s tolerance or per/ission, "ithout an( contract bet"een the/, is necessaril( bound b( an i/plied pro/ise that he "ill vacate upon de/and, failin' "hich a su//ar( action for e3ect/ent is the proper re/ed( a'ainst Bhi/C. = = =#2 Petitioner filed this petition raisin' the follo"in' issues4 I TH R DION.F TRI.F !OART RR D IN .66IRMIND TH D !ISION O6 TH FO? R !OART IN HOFDIND TH.T TH PF.INTI66 ?.S .)F TO ST.)FISH TH.T SH IS TH R DIST R D O?N R O6 TH FOT O!!API D )G TH D 6 ND.NT+.PP FF.NT INST .D O6 DISMISSIND TH !OMPF.INT OATRIDHT 6OR F.!H O6 F D.F !.P.!ITG TO SA . II TH R DION.F TRI.F !OART RR D IN .66IRMIND TH D !ISION O6 TH FO? R !OART IN HOFDIND TH.T TH PF.INTI66 ?.S .)F TO ST.)FISH )G PR POND R.N! O6 VID N! TH.T SH IS NTITF D TO TH R FI 6 PR.G D 6OR D SPIT F.!H O6 *ARISDI!TION. III TH R DION.F TRI.F !OART RR D IN HOFDIND TH.T THIS INST.NT !.S SA)* !T O6 THIS .PP .F ) D !ID D IN .!!ORD.N! ?ITH S !TION - O6 TH RAF S ON SAMM.RG PRO! DAR . $& Petitioner appealed fro/ the RT!<s decision directl( to this !ourt on pure 8uestions of la". There is a 8uestion of la" in a 'iven case "hen the doubt or difference arises as to "hat the la" is on a certain state of facts@ there is a 8uestion of fact "hen the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alle'ed facts.$# Moreover, Republic v. Sandi'anba(an$$ ruled4

= = = . 8uestion of la" e=ists "hen the doubt or controvers( concerns the correct application of la" or 3urisprudence to a certain set of facts@ or "hen the issue does not call for an e=a/ination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts bein' ad/itted. . 8uestion of fact e=ists "hen the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or "hen the 8uer( invites calibration of the "hole evidence considerin' /ainl( the credibilit( of the "itnesses, the e=istence and relevanc( of specific surroundin' circu/stances as "ell as their relation to each other and to the "hole, and the probabilit( of the situation.$% The !ourt notes that petitioner raised both 8uestions of fact and la" in her petition. The !ourt shall resolve onl( the pertinent 8uestions of la" raised. 6irst, petitioner 8uestioned respondent Nenita !oncepcion<s capacit( to sue as a representative of the state of her husband, .rsenio !oncepcion, alle'in' absence of proof of the issuance of the re8uisite letters testa/entar( or letters of ad/inistration evidencin' her le'al capacit( to sue in behalf of the state of .rsenio !oncepcion in contravention of Section ,, Rule 0 of the #22- Rules of !ivil Procedure, thus4 Sec. ,. !apacit(. I 6acts sho"in' the capacit( of a part( to sue or be sued in a representative capacit( or the le'al e=istence of an or'ani7ed association of persons that is /ade a part(, /ust be averred. . part( desirin' to raise an issue as to the le'al e=istence of an( part( or the capacit( of an( part( to sue or be sued in a representative capacit(, shall do so b( specific denial, "hich shall include such supportin' particulars as are peculiarl( "ithin the pleader<s >no"led'e. Petitioner asserts that lac> of le'al capacit( to sue is a 'round for dis/issal under Section # 9d: of Rule #5 of the Revised Rules of !ourt, and considerin' that a /otion to dis/iss is a prohibited pleadin' under the su//ar( procedure, the trial court failed to e=ercise its dut( to order the outri'ht dis/issal of the co/plaint as /andated under Section ,$, of the #22# Revised Rule on Su//ar( Procedure. Petitioner<s contention lac>s /erit. Section ,, Rule 0 of the #22- Rules of !ivil Procedure provides4 Sec. ,. !apacit(. J = = = . part( desirin' to raise an issue as to the le'al e=istence of an( part( or the capacit( of an( part( to sue or be sued in a representative capacit(, shall do so b( specific denial, "hich shall include such supportin' particulars as are peculiarl( "ithin the pleader<s >no"led'e. $1 )ased on the provision cited above, the RT! correctl( ruled4

The ar'u/ent is not tenable. This court, upon cursor( readin' of the provisions of Rule 0, Section , of the Rules of !ourt, in relation to the Rules on Su//ar( Procedure, finds it relevant to note = = = that althou'h a Motion to Dis/iss or a Motion for )ill of Particulars cannot be availed of to challen'e the capacit( of the part( under the Rules on Su//ar( Procedure, the DefendantJ.ppellant should have at least SP !I6I!.FFG D NI D such capacit( of the part( in the .ns"er, "hich should have included such supportin' particulars as are peculiarl( "ithin the pleader<s >no"led'e. The case records clearl( disclosed that no such specific denial "as /ade b( the appellant and this court believes that the lo"er court had carefull( and dutifull( ta>en into account the applicable rules particularl( Section , of the Revised Rules on Su//ar( Procedure, in relation to Section ,, Rule 0 of the Rules of !ourt and pertinent 3urisprudence, before renderin' the assailed decision dated .pril 0, $&&%. The presu/ption of the re'ular perfor/ance of duties applies in this case and the sa/e shall prevail over /ere alle'ations of the herein Defendant+.ppellant. $5 6urther, as the successor+in+interest of the late .rsenio . !oncepcion and co+ o"ner of the sub3ect propert(, respondent Nenita S. !oncepcion is entitled to prosecute the e3ect/ent case not onl( in a representative capacit(, but as a real part(+in+interest. .rticle ,0- of the !ivil !ode states, E.n( one of the co+o"ners /a( brin' an action in e3ect/ent.E Hence, assu/in' that respondent failed to sub/it the proper docu/ents sho"in' her capacit( to sue in a representative capacit( for the estate of her deceased husband, the !ourt, in the interest of speed( disposition of cases, /a( dee/ her capacitated to prosecute the e3ect/ent case as a real part(+in+interest bein' a co+o"ner of the sub3ect propert( considerin' that the trial court has 3urisdiction over the sub3ect /atter and has also ac8uired 3urisdiction over the parties, includin' respondent Nenita S. !oncepcion. Second, petitioner 8uestions "hether respondent has established b( a preponderance of evidence that she is entitled to the relief pra(ed for, "hich is the e3ect/ent of petitioner fro/ the sub3ect propert(. Petitioner contends that respondent ad/itted in her !o/plaint that her ri'ht to the sub3ect propert( arose onl( in #2-0, "hen the late .rsenio . !oncepcion ac8uired the sa/e. Petitioner alle'es that to the contrar(, substantial evidence e=ists that she and her predecessors+in+interest have continuousl( and openl( occupied and possessed, in the concept of o"ner, the sub3ect propert( since ti/e i//e/orial. The !ourt holds that the RT! correctl( affir/ed the e3ect/ent of petitioner fro/ the propert(. To /a>e out a case of unla"ful detainer under Section #, $- Rule -& of the Rules of !ourt, the !o/plaint /ust alle'e that the defendant is unla"full( "ithholdin' fro/ the plaintiff the possession of certain real propert( after the e=piration or ter/ination of the for/er<s ri'ht to hold possession b( virtue of a contract,

e=press or i/plied, and that the action is bein' brou'ht "ithin one (ear fro/ the ti/e the defendant<s possession beca/e unla"ful. $0 The !o/plaint alle'ed that petitioner occupied the sub3ect propert( b( tolerance of the late .rsenio !oncepcion. ?hile tolerance is la"ful, such possession beco/es ille'al upon de/and to vacate b( the o"ner and the possessor b( tolerance refuses to co/pl( "ith such de/and.$2 Respondent sent petitioner a de/and letter dated Septe/ber $$, $&&& to vacate the sub3ect propert(, but petitioner did not co/pl( "ith the de/and. . person "ho occupies the land of another at the latter<s tolerance or per/ission, "ithout an( contract bet"een the/, is necessaril( bound b( an i/plied pro/ise that he "ill vacate upon de/and, failin' "hich a su//ar( action for e3ect/ent is the proper re/ed( a'ainst hi/.%& Ander Section #, Rule -& of the Rules of !ourt, the one+(ear period "ithin "hich a co/plaint for unla"ful detainer can be filed should be counted fro/ the date of de/and, because onl( upon the lapse of that period does the possession beco/e unla"ful. %# Respondent filed the e3ect/ent case a'ainst petitioner on .pril $-, $&&#, "hich "as less than a (ear fro/ the date of for/al de/and. !learl(, therefore, the action "as filed "ithin the one+(ear period prescribed for filin' an e3ect/ent or unla"ful detainer case. The sole issue for resolution in an unla"ful detainer case is ph(sical or /aterial possession.%$ .ll that the trial court can do is to /a>e an initial deter/ination of "ho is the o"ner of the propert(, so that it can resolve "ho is entitled to its possession absent other evidence to resolve o"nership. %% !ourts in e3ect/ent cases decide 8uestions of o"nership onl( it is necessar( to decide the 8uestion of possession.%, The reason for this rule is to prevent the defendant fro/ triflin' "ith the su//ar( nature of an e3ect/ent suit b( the si/ple e=pedient of assertin' o"nership over the disputed propert(. %1 In this case, the trial court found that respondent o"ns the propert( on the basis of Transfer !ertificate of Title No. #$02$,%5 "hich "as Eissued in the na/e of .rsenio . !oncepcion, = = = /arried to Nenita F. Son'co.E It is settled rule that the person "ho has a Torrens title over a land is entitled to possession thereof.%- Hence, as the re'istered o"ner of the sub3ect propert(, respondent is preferred to possess it.%0 The validit( of respondent<s certificate of title cannot be attac>ed b( petitioner in this case for e3ect/ent. Ander Section ,0 of Presidential Decree No. #1$2, a certificate of title shall not be sub3ect to collateral attac>. %2 It cannot be altered, /odified or cancelled, e=cept in a direct proceedin' for that purpose in accordance "ith la".,& The issue of the validit( of the title of the respondents can onl( be assailed in an action e=pressl( instituted for that purpose. ,# ?hether or not the petitioner has the ri'ht to clai/ o"nership over the propert( is be(ond the po"er of the trial court to deter/ine in an action for unla"ful detainer. ,$

.lthou'h petitioner alle'es that substantial evidence e=ists that she and her predecessors+in+interest had continuousl( and openl( occupied and possessed, in the concept of o"ner, the sub3ect propert( since ti/e i//e/orial, petitioner failed to present evidence to substantiate her alle'ation. ?hereas respondent holds a Torrens title over the sub3ect propert(@ hence, she is entitled to the possession of the propert(.,% The courtKs ad3udication of o"nership in an e3ect/ent case is /erel( provisional, and affir/ance of the trial court<s decision "ould not bar or pre3udice an action bet"een the sa/e parties involvin' title to the propert(, if and "hen such action is brou'ht seasonabl( before the proper foru/. ,, Fastl(, petitioner contends that the lo"er court erred in decidin' this case in accordance "ith Section - of the Rules on Su//ar( Procedure, thus4 S !. -. Preli/inar( conference@ appearance of parties. J Not later than thirt( 9%&: da(s after the last ans"er is filed, a preli/inar( conference shall be held. The rules on pre+trial in ordinar( cases shall be applicable to the preli/inar( conference unless inconsistent "ith the provisions of this Rule. The failure of the plaintiff to appear in the preli/inar( conference shall be a cause for the dis/issal of his co/plaint. The defendant "ho appears in the absence of the plaintiff shall be entitled to 3ud'/ent on his counterclai/ in accordance "ith Section 5 hereof. .ll cross+clai/s shall be dis/issed. If a sole defendant shall fail to appear, the plaintiff shall be entitled to 3ud'/ent in accordance "ith Section 5hereof. This Rule shall not appl( "here one of t"o or /ore defendants sued under a co//on cause of action "ho had pleaded a co//on defense shall appear at the preli/inar( conference. ,1 Section 5 of the #22# Revised Rules on Su//ar( Procedure, "hich is referred to b( Section - above, states4 S !. 5. ffect of failure to ans"er. J Should the defendant fail to ans"er the co/plaint "ithin the period above provided, the court, /otu proprio, or on /otion of the plaintiff, shall render 3ud'/ent as /a( be "arranted b( the facts alle'ed in the co/plaint and li/ited to "hat is pra(ed for therein4 Provided, ho"ever, That the court /a( in its discretion reduce the a/ount of da/a'es and attorne(<s fees clai/ed for bein' e=cessive or other"ise unconscionable. This is "ithout pre3udice to the applicabilit( of Section ,, Rule #0 of the Rules of !ourt, if there are t"o or /ore defendants. Petitioner asserts that considerin' that the cases a'ainst her, defendants !aballero and Sadol "ere consolidated, and she and defendant !aballero si'ned and filed one co//on .ns"er to the !o/plaint, thus, pleadin' a co//on defense, the trial court should not have rendered 3ud'/ent on her case based on

Section - of the #22# Revised Rules on Su//ar( Procedure "hen she failed to appear in the preli/inar( conference. The contention lac>s /erit. The !ourt notes that the e3ect/ent case filed b( respondent a'ainst petitioner "as doc>eted in the trial court as !ivil !ase No. #-2-%, the case a'ainst .lfredo !aballero "as doc>eted as !ivil !ase No. #-2-,, "hile the case a'ainst Severina Sadol "as doc>eted as !ivil !ase No. #-2%$. These cases "ere consolidated b( the trial court. Ander Section - of the #22# Revised Rules on Su//ar( Procedure, if a sole defendant shall fail to appear in the preli/inar( conference, the plaintiff shall be entitled to 3ud'/ent in accordance "ith Section 5 of the Rule, that is, the court shall render 3ud'/ent as /a( be "arranted b( the facts alle'ed in the !o/plaint and li/ited to "hat is pra(ed for therein. Ho"ever, EBtChis Rule 9Sec. -: shall not appl( "here one of t"o or /ore defendants sued under a co//on cause of action, "ho had pleaded a co//on defense, shall appear at the preli/inar( conference.E Petitioner clai/s that the precedin' provision applies to her as a defendant, since the e3ect/ent cases "ere consolidated b( the trial court, and she and !aballero filed the sa/e .ns"er to the !o/plaint@ hence, the trial court should not have rendered 3ud'/ent a'ainst her "hen she failed to appear in the preli/inar( conference.,5 The !ourt holds that the italici7ed provision above does not appl( in the case of petitioner, since she and !aballero "ere not co+defendants in the sa/e case. The e3ect/ent case filed a'ainst petitioner "as distinct fro/ that of !aballero, even if the trial court consolidated the cases and, in the interest of 3ustice, considered the .ns"er filed b( !aballero in !ivil !ase No. #-2-, as the .ns"er also of petitioner since she affi=ed her si'nature thereto. !onsiderin' that petitioner "as sued in a separate case for e3ect/ent fro/ that of !aballero and Sadol, petitioner<s failure to appear in the preli/inar( conference entitled respondent to the rendition of 3ud'/ent b( the trial court on the e3ect/ent case filed a'ainst petitioner, doc>eted as !ivil !ase No. #-2-%, in accordance "ith Section - of the #22# Revised Rules on Su//ar( Procedure. ?H R 6OR , the petition is D NI D. The Order dated October %, $&&% of the Re'ional Trial !ourt of Mandalu(on' !it(, )ranch $#%, National !apital *udicial Re'ion in !ivil !ase No. M!+&%+,&-+. is .66IRM D. No costs. SO ORD R D.

#IOS#A#O M. PERALTA .ssociate *ustice )E CONCUR* RENATO C. CORONA .ssociate *ustice !hairperson MINITA +. C"ICO,NA-ARIO .ssociate *ustice PRES.ITERO /. +ELASCO, /R. .ssociate *ustice

ANTONIO E#UAR#O .. NAC"URA .ssociate *ustice ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case "as assi'ned to the "riter of the opinion of the !ourt<s Division. RENATO C. CORONA Records, pp. #+%.
-

Id. at #%+#1. Id. at $&+$-. Id. at %$+%%. *oint Order dated Dece/ber #0, $&&#, records, p. %1. *oint Order dated 6ebruar( #0, $&&%, records, p. ,,. Id.

#&

##

#$

S !. -. Preli/inar( conference@ appearance of parties. I Not later than thirt( 9%&: da(s after the last ans"er is filed, a preli/inar( conference shall be held. The rules on pre+trial in ordinar( cases shall be applicable to the preli/inar( conference unless inconsistent "ith the provisions of this Rule.
#%

The failure of the plaintiff to appear in the preli/inar( conference shall be a cause for the dis/issal of his co/plaint. The defendant "ho appears in the absence of the plaintiff shall be entitled to 3ud'/ent on his

counterclai/ in accordance "ith Section 5 hereof. .ll cross+clai/s shall be dis/issed. If a sole defendant shall fail to appear, the plaintiff shall be entitled to 3ud'/ent in accordance "ith Section 5 hereof. This Rule shall not appl( "here one of t"o or /ore defendants sued under a co//on cause of action "ho had pleaded a co//on defense shall appear at the preli/inar( conference.
#,

Records, pp. ,1+,-. Id. at ,5+,-. RT! Order, rollo, p. %5. Rollo, pp. %1+,%. Id. at ,$+,%. Id. at %2. Id. at #5.

#1

#5

#-

#0

#2

$&

Ra/os v. Pepsi+!ola )ottlin' !o. of the Philippines, et al., #$1 Phil. -&#, -&1 9#25-:.
$# $$

,$5 Phil. #&, 9$&&$:. Id. at ##&.

$%

S !. ,. Dut( of !ourt. J .fter the court deter/ines that the case falls under su//ar( procedure, it /a(, fro/ an e=a/ination of the alle'ations therein and such evidence as /a( be attached thereto, dis/iss the case outri'ht on an( of the 'rounds apparent therefro/ for the dis/issal of a civil action
$, $1

/phasis supplied. Rollo, p. ,&.

$5

S !TION #. ?ho /a( institute proceedin's, and "hen. J Sub3ect to the provisions of the ne=t succeedin' section, = = = a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person a'ainst "ho/ the possession of an( land or buildin' is unla"full( "ithheld after the e=piration or ter/ination of the ri'ht to hold possession, b( virtue of an( contract, e=press or i/plied, or the le'al representatives or assi'ns of an( such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person , /a(, at an( ti/e "ithin one 9#: (ear after such unla"ful deprivation or "ithholdin' of possession, brin' an
$-

action in the proper Municipal Trial !ourt a'ainst the person or persons unla"full( "ithholdin' or deprivin' of possession, or an( person or persons clai/in' under the/, for the restitution of such possession, to'ether "ith da/a'es and costs.
$0

)arbosa v. Hernande7, D.R. No. #%%15,, *ul( #&, $&&-, 1$- S!R. 22. Pan'ilinan v. .'uilar, #1& Phil. #55, #-5 9#2-$:. Id. Fope7 v. David, *r., D.R. No. #1$#,1, March %&, $&&,, ,$5 S!R. 1%1, 1,$.

$2

%&

%#

.ra/bulo v. Dun'ab, D.R. No. #1510#, Septe/ber %&, $&&1, ,-# S!R. 5,&, 5,2.
%$ %%

Id. Id. Id. Records, p. 1. .ra/bulo v. Dun'ab, supra note %$, at 5,2+51&. Id. at 5,2. .postol v. !ourt of .ppeals, ,-5 Phil ,&%, ,#, 9$&&,:. Id. Id. Id. Pan'ilinan v. .'uilar, supra note $2, at #,1. Id. /phasis supplied. Italics supplied.

%,

%1

%5

%-

%0

%2

,&

,#

,$

,%

,,

,1

,5