REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

BRANCH 2, CEBU CITY

Virgina Villa, Teresio Villa, Florencia Villa,

Cesar Villa, Concepcion Villa, Arsenio T. Villa, Jr.,
Teresita Tecson Villa, Arlene Therese Villa,
Vivian Navaja, Arsenio Navaja, Wade Francis Navaja
And Walter Navaja, all represented by: Virginia Villa,
Plaintiffs,
CRIMINAL CASE No. R-57899
-versusFOR: EJECTMENT
Alberto Abenoja, Arman Agbo,
Josephene Agbo, Juanito Agbo,
Nenita Alba, Jonathan Alberastine,
Lydia Alindato, Diosamenda Alvarez,
Ricardo Aniceta, Virginia Anion/ Arleen
Ricaforte, Abeth Arcenal/ Juliet Vilbar,
Joselito Arcilla, Liodovena Arenas, Romana
Arenas, Teresita Arias, Lorina Atillo, Eutaqiou
Auxtero, Myrna Baligwat, Raquel Bande,
Alix Bataluna, Julieto Bataluna, Paulita
Bataluna, Arnaldo Benedicto, Dionesia Benedicto,
Jocelyn Berido, Loreto Bitos, Mechell Bitos,
Casemero Bontelao, Lourdes Braga,
Prudencio Brusas, Mila Bucado,
Castro Buenaventura, et. al.
Defendants.

x------------------------------------- /
JUDGMENT
In their Complaint, plaintiffs, represented by Virginia Villa, alleged that they
were the co-owners of two parcels of land located at T. Padilla Street, Cebu City,
known as Lot 323-G with land area of Four Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Four (4,
834) square meters (referred as Annex A) and Lot 323-N with land area of Four
Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Four (4, 834) square meters (referred as Annex B).
Plaintiffs averred that the defendants and their respective families occupied
the said parcels of land by virtue of a Verbal Contract of Lease with the plaintiffs. In
the cited contract of lease, defendants were obliged to pay the monthly

installments; however, defendants defaulted in the payment of their monthly

rentals.
Sometime in 2012 the Plaintiffs through their authorized representative
informed the rest of the occupants of the parcels of land subject of this case
including those without rentals in arrears that they will no longer renew the contract
of lease. Accordingly, the herein plaintiffs, through Virginia Villa, demanded for
several times to VACATE the premises but the defendants refused to vacate.
To comply with the mandatory conciliation under P.D. 1508, as amended by
the Local Government Code of 1991, the plaintiffs, through Virginia Villa, filed a
complaint for ejectment and payment of unpaid rentals against the defendants at
the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay T. Padilla, Cebu City. As alleged by the
plaintiffs on their complaint, they agreed to give the defendants three (3) months
within which to vacate the premises. However, the defendants failed to comply with
their undertaking. Consequently, the Lupon issued Certificate To File Action dated
July 30, 2012 attached as Annex E. 1
On May 6, 2013 the plaintiffs through counsel sent to the defendants the
demand letters for them to pay their rental-in-arrears and to vacate the premises
attached as Annexes F, F-1 to F-132.
The plaintiffs, in their prayer, included the payment full amount of unpaid
rentals by the defendants amounting to SIX MILLION FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY FOUR
THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY TWO AND SIXTEEN CENTS (P 6, 574, 252.16) and
for moral damages in the sum of fifty thousand pesos (50, 000) as a consequence of
the defendants belligerent attitude and stubborn refusal to pay rentals-in-arrears
and to vacate the premises which caused several sleepless nights, wounded
feelings, serious anxieties and the like.
After the summons have been duly served personally 2 to the defendants,
plaintiffs filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings last June 25, 2014 on the
ground of failure of the defendants to file their answer or any other responsive
pleading despite the lapse of more than one month citing Section 7, Rule 70 of the
Rules of court and Section 6 of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure which
provide:
Sec.7. Effect of failure to answer. Should the defendant fail to
answer the complaint within the period above provided, the court,
motu proprio or on motion of the plaintiff, shall render judgment as
may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to
what is prayed for therein. xxx

1
Certificate to file action : 1. There was no amicable settlement between both
parties of the Lupon Chairman for three (3) consecutive hearings

2
Sheriffs return, May 29, 2014

Sec.6. Effect of failure to answer. Should the defendant fail to

answer the complaint within the period above provided, the court,
motu proprio, or on motion of the plaintiff, shall render judgment as
may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to
what is prayed for therein xxx

On October 15, 2014, an ex parte Manifestation was submitted by the

plaintiffs so that the court can act on the Motion for Judgment on the pleadings filed
by the plaintiffs. Hearing was set on October 29, 2014; however, Paulita Bataluna
was the one who appeared alone and claimed to represent all of the defendants.
The Court gives fifteen (15) days to the defendants within which to retain the
services of a counsel to represent them in this case and to file the proper pleading
to counter the motion filed by the plaintiff. 3
On November 10, 2014, the counsel for the defendants, Atty. Collin N.
Rosell, submitted his Explanation on failure to attend the Scheduled Hearing last
October 29, 2014; however, no answer or responsive pleading was attached. By
virtue of interest of justice, Atty. Rosell was given 10 days from the receipt of Order
to submit comment or opposition to the Motion for Judgment of the Pleadings,
serving a copy thereof on the plaintiff.
On November 26, 2014, Manifestation with Urgent Motion to Resolve
Pending Motion For Judgment on the Pleadings was submitted by the plaintiffs. They
emphasized on their pleading that to allow further delay in the proceedings of the
foregoing case would run counter against the very essence of ejectment cases
which is to restore possession the rightful party in the most INEXPENSIVE and
EXPEDITIOUS manner.
Jurisprudence cited by the plaintiffs:
I.

Victoria Milling Co. vs CA and IPI (G.R. No. 168062, June 29,
2010)

In an ejectment case mandated to be tried under

summary procedure, the paramount consideration is its
expeditious resolution without regard to technicalities.
xxx
The purpose of the Rule on Summary Procedure is to
achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of
cases
II.

Bienvenido Barrientos vs Mario Rapal (G.R. No. 169594,

January 20, 2011)

Ejectment cases forcible entry and unlawful detainer

are summary proceedings designed to provide expeditious
means to protect actual possession or the right to possession of
3
ORDER, October 29, 2014

the property involved. The only question that the courts resolve
in ejectment proceedings is: who is entitled to the physical
possession of the premises, that is, to the possession de facto
and not to the possession de jure. It does not even matter if a
partys title to the property is questionable. In an unlawful
detainer case, the sole issue for resolution is physical or material
possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of
ownership by any of the parties. Where the issue of ownership is
raised by any of the parties, the courts may pass upon the same
in order to determine who has the right to possess the property.
III.

In Barrientos vs Rapal citing the case of Samonte vs Century

Savings Bank (G. R. No 176413, November 25, 2009, 605
SCRA 478, 486)

It should be stressed that unlawful detainer and

forcible entry suits, under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, are
designated to summarily restore physical possession of a piece
of land or building to one who has been illegally or forcibly
deprived thereof, without prejudice to the settlement of the
parties opposing claims of juridical possession in appropriate
proceedings. These actions are intended to avoid disruption of
public order by those who would take the law in their hands
purportedly to enforce their claimed right of possession.
Opposition to the Motion for Judgment on the pleadings was filed by the
defendants on December 11, 2014 which convinced the court that it is not their
intention to delay the proceedings. According to the said opposition, a handful of
individuals, which estimated to One Hundred Thirty (130) individuals along with
their families, will be affected if strict application of the 1991 Revised Rules on
Summary Procedure will be implemented. However, the Court 4 emphasized that
counsel for the defendants merely prayed that the Motion be denied without even
attaching their ANSWER to the complaint. Thus, such act of the defendants, to the
mind of the Court, was indicative of their apathetic outlook of this case causing
undue delay in the proceeding. Hence, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings of the
plaintiff was GRANTED.
Therefore, the case is submitted for decision.

4
Order, January 15, 2015