Dolores Macaslang vs Renato and Melba Zamora

Gr 156375

Facts:

Zamora filed an unlawful detainer with MTCC alleging among others:

a. Macaslang sold to them a residential lot in Sabang, Davao City including a residential house, where
Macaslang was then living.
b. After the sale, Macaslang requested to be allowed to live in the house. Zamora granted the
request on the reliance of Macaslangs promise to vacate as soon as she would be able to find a
new residence.
c. After 1year, Zamoras demanded upon the defendant to vacate but she failed and refused.
d. Zamora sought the help of the Lupon, but no settlement was reached as shown by certification to
file.

Despite the due service of summons, Macaslang did not file an answer. Hence MTCC declared her in
default. The MTCC ordered Macaslang to vacate, pay the Attorneys fee and rental until they shall have
vacated the properties in question.

Macaslang appealed to the RTC alleging that there is extrinsic fraud. The RTC ruled in favor of Macaslang
and dismissed Zamoras complaint for failure to state a COA. The CA reversed the decision of RTC for
having no basis in fact and law. MTCC decision reinstated.

Issues:

Whether or not in an action for unlawful detainer, where there was no prior demand to vacate and comply
with the condition of the lease, a valid COA exixts.

Whether or not there was a violation of the Rules on Summary Procedure.

Held:

A complaint has sufficient COA for unlawful detainer of it states the following:

1. Initial possession by defendant was by contract or tolerance

2. Eventually possession became illegal upon notice regarding termination
3. Defendant still remained in possession and deprived plaintiff of its enjoyment
4. Complaint was instituted within one year from last demand to vacate.

The TEST for sufficiency of complaint is whether or not the court can render a valid judgment based on
facts alleged in complaint.

According to the Supreme Court, complaint sufficiently stated a COA. The complaint complied with 1-4.
But fail to state and lack of COA are different.
Ejectment was not proper due to defense of ownership. Zamoras COA is based on the right to possess
resulting from ownership but exhibits show that the real transaction is one of equitable mortgage not
sale. The land was sold for 100k, when the demand letter was for a sum of 1.6M and the price is
inadequate. Then the vendor remained in possession of the property. Deed of sale was executed as a
result or by reason of loan.

In this case, the MTCC committed a procedural lapses.

MTC granted Motion to Declare Macaslang in default for failure to file an answer.

a. What MTC should have done was provided for in Rule 70: to simply render judgment as maybe
warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for therein.
b. Failure to file an answer under Rule 70, result only to a judgment by default not a declaration of
default.
c. This motion is expressly prohibited under Rule70

MTCs reception of oral testimony is also a procedural lapse. Rule 70 envisions the submission only of
affidavits of the witnesses and other proofs of the factual issues defined in the order issued within five
days from the termination of the preliminary conference; and has permitted the trial court, should it find
the need to clarify material facts, to thereafter issue an order during the 30-day period from submission
of the affidavits and other proofs specifying the matters to be clarified, and requiring the parties to submit
affidavits or other evidence upon such matters within ten days from receipt of the order.

The procedural lapses committed in this case are beyond comprehension. The MTCC judge could not have
been unfamiliar with the prevailing procedure, considering that the revised version of Rule 70, although
taking effect only on July 1, 1997, was derived from the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, in
effect since November 15, 1991. It was not likely, therefore, that the MTCC judge committed the lapses
out of his unfamiliarity with the relevant rule.

It is timely, therefore, to remind all MTC judges to display full and enthusiastic compliance with all the
rules of procedure, especially those intended for expediting proceedings.