Macaslang v.

Zamora
Bersamin. May 2011.

FACTS
 Mar 10, 1999: Zamora’s FILED: Unlawful detainer with MTCC , alleging among
others:
o Macaslang sold to them a residential lot in Sabang, Davao City. 400sqm.
Including a residential house, where Macaslang was then living.
o After the sale, Macaslang requested to be allowed to live in the house .
Zamora granted the request on the reliance of Macaslang’s promise to vacate as
soon as she would be able to find a new residence
o After 1 year, Zamora demanded upon the defendant to vacate but she failed and
refused. The demand letter (Sept 1998) reads: “This is to give notice that since the
mortgage to your property has long been expired and that since the property is
already in my name, I will be taking over the occupancy of said property two (2) months
from the date of this letter.”
o Zamora’s sought the help of the Lupon, but no settlement was reached
 Despite the due service of summons, Macaslang did not file an answer. Hence
MTCC declared her in default.
 MTC: In favor of Zamora, ordered Macaslang to vacate and pay rental until they shall
have vacated the properties in question.
 M a c a s l a n g a p p e a l e d t o t h e RT C a l l e g i n g :
o Extrinsic Fraud
o Absolute sale relied upon is a patent nullity as her signature therein was procured
through fraud and trickery.
 RTC: Ruled in favor of Macaslang and DISMISSED Zamora’s complaint, for failure to state
a cause of action. The same maybe refilled in the same court by alleging a cause of action, if any.
Zamora’s Motion for Execution of MTCC decision rendered moot by this judgment.
 CA: REVERSED RTC decision for having no basis in fact and law. MTCC
decision reinstated.

ISSUES
1. W/N the RTC in its appellate jurisdiction is limited to assigned errors
2. W/N in an action for unlawful detainer, where there was no prior demand to vacate
and comply with the conditions of the lease, a valid cause of action exists.
3. W/N there was a violation of the Rules on Summary procedure.

HELD
1 . RTC in its appellate jurisdiction may rule upon an issue not raised on
appeal.
a. CA said that RTC cannot rule on issue not assigned as an error. This may
have been correct if the appeal to the CA was a first appeal from RTC to CA
(R41). There is an express limitation of the review to only specified in the assignment
of errors.
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
 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).
i. GN: Appellate court may only review errors assigned and properly argued
ii. Exceptions:
 (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 cause of action.
a. RTC: there is no cause of action 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.
i. Demand was not only made but also alleged in the complaint.
d. A complaint has sufficient cause of action for unlawful detainer if it states the
following:
i. Initial possession by defendant was by contract or tolerance
ii. Eventually possession became illegal upon notice
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 cause of action. Complaint complied with 1-4.

3.Ejectment was not proper due to defense of ownership.

a. Zamora’s cause of action is based on right to posses resulting from
ownership.
b. However exhibits show that the real transaction is one of equitable
mortgage not sale.
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 Macaslang’s ownership are not finally
definitive because R70 §16provides: that when the defendant raises ownership,
and the question of possession cannot be resolved, ownership shall only be
resolved to determine possession [not title].

4.MTC committed procedural lapses.

1. MTC granted Motion to Declare Macaslang in default for failure to file an
answer.
i. This motion is expressly prohibited under R70 §13 (8)
ii. What MTC should have done was provided for in R70 § 7: to simply render
judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and
limited to what is prayed for
 iii. Failure to file an answer under R70, results only to a judgment by
default not a declaration of default.
2. MTC’s reception of oral testimony is also a procedural lapse.
i. R70 envisions the submission only of affidavits of the witnesses
under §10
ii. §11 (2) that should the MTC need to clarify material facts, it may require
parties to submit affidavits or other evidence. (Note: In both sections no
mention of testimony, only affidavits.)

WHEREFORE GRANTED. Complaint for unlawful detainer dismissed.