Professional Documents
Culture Documents
b. But HERE this is a, MTC to RTC appeal governed by a specific rule for unlawful
detainer cases. R70 18 provides that MTC judgment may be appealed to the
RTC which shall decide the same on the basis of the entire record.
c. This difference in procedure is traceable from BP129 22, then in the 1991
Rules on summary procedure 21, then 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure R40 7.
(Please see code)
d. Even if the rules did not differentiate in the procedure, the review on the
entire case is still allowed as an exception (c) and (d).
GN: Appellate court may only review errors assigned and properly argued 1
EXCS: (a) When the question affects jurisdiction
(b) Matters that evidently plain or clerical errors
(c) Matters whose consideration is necessary for a just and complete
resolution
(d) Matters of record having bearing on the issue that parties failed to
raise
(e) Matters closely related to an error assigned
(f) Matters upon which the determination of a question is dependent
2. CA Correctly delved into w/n there was a COA.
a. RTC: there is no COA because there was no demand to vacate.
b. CA: No, the complaint readily reveals that there was a demand to vacate.
c. A complaint for Unlawful detainer is sufficient if it alleges the
withholding of possession or the refusal is unlawful without
necessarily employing the terminology of the law. (See Fact #1 (c)i)
Demand was not only made but also alleged in the complaint.
d. A complaint has sufficient COA for unlawful det. If it states the FF 2:
i. Initial possession by defendant was by contract or tolerance
ii. Eventually possession became illegal upon notice re:termination
iii. Defendant still remained in possession and deprived plaintiff of its
enjoyment
iv. Complaint was instituted within one year from last demand to vacate.
e. TEST for sufficiency of complaint: is w/n the court can render a valid
judgment based on facts alleged in complaint.
f. SC: Complaint sufficiently stated a COA. Complaint complied with 1-4. BUT
Fail to state and Lack of COA are different. RTC said there is failure to state
COA when in fact its basis was that there was no demand to vacate. Again
RTC erred in this regard, see Fact #1 (c)i.
i. Golden Gate Realty Co. v. IAC: The term vacate is not a talismatic word
that must be employed in all notices to vacate.
3. Ejectment was not proper due to defense of ownership.
a. Zamoras COA is based on right to posses resulting from ownership.
b. BUT exhibits show that the real transaction is one of equitable mortgage not
sale. NCC1602 instances where a contract may be presumed to be an
equitable mortgage.
i. Land was sold for P100K, when the demand letter was for a sum of
P1.6M. Price inadequate. Then the vendor remained in possession of
the property. Deed of sale was executed as a result or by reason of a
loan.
c. Nonetheless, findings favorable to Macaslangs ownership are not finally
definitive because R70 16 provides: that when the defendant raises
ownership, and the Q of possession cannot be resolved, ownership shall only
be resolved to determine possession [not title].
1
2