Soriente v. Concepcion
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Nenita S. Concepcion was the registered owner of a lot at No. 637 Cavo F. Sanchez Street, Mandaluyong City, covered by TCT No. 128924. During the lifetime of her late husband, Arsenio E. Concepcion, who acquired the lot in 1978, petitioner Angelina Soriente was allowed to occupy the lot for free on a temporary basis until the family needed to develop it. After Arsenio's death in 1989, the family's development plans were hindered by petitioner's continued occupancy. Procedural History: Verbal demands to vacate were made, but petitioner did not leave. Barangay conciliation proceedings in June 2000 did not result in a settlement, leading to a Certificate to File Action. Respondent sent a demand letter dated September 22, 2000, offering financial assistance for relocation, but petitioner still did not vacate. On April 27, 2001, respondent filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against petitioner. Petitioner did not file a separate Answer but signed the Answer filed by another defendant in a related case. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) initially denied a motion to render judgment against petitioner but later considered the case submitted for decision due to petitioner's failure to appear at the preliminary conference. The MTC rendered a Decision on April 8, 2003, ordering petitioner to vacate, pay monthly compensation, attorney's fees, and costs. Petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MTC Decision on October 3, 2003. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, raising issues regarding the respondent's capacity to sue, the sufficiency of evidence for unlawful detainer, and the application of the Rules on Summary Procedure.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent has the legal capacity to sue as a representative of the Estate of Arsenio E. Concepcion. Whether the respondent established by preponderance of evidence her entitlement to the relief prayed for (ejectment). Whether the lower court erred in deciding the case in accordance with Section 7 of the Rules on Summary Procedure.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court. The Court held that petitioner's arguments lacked merit and that the RTC correctly affirmed the MTC's decision ordering the ejectment of petitioner from the property.
Ratio Decidendi
On the capacity to sue: The Court found petitioner's contention that respondent lacked legal capacity to sue as a representative of the Estate to be without merit. The Court noted that Section 4, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires a specific denial with supporting particulars to raise an issue as to capacity to sue. Petitioner failed to do so. Furthermore, as a successor-in-interest and co-owner, respondent is entitled to prosecute the ejectment case as a real party-in-interest, as any co-owner may bring an action in ejectment under Article 487 of the Civil Code. Even if she failed to submit proper documents for representative capacity, her standing as a co-owner allowed her to file the case. On the entitlement to ejectment: The Court held that the RTC correctly affirmed the ejectment of petitioner. To establish unlawful detainer, the complaint must allege unlawful withholding of possession after the termination of the right to hold possession, and the action must be filed within one year from when possession became unlawful. The complaint alleged that petitioner occupied the property by tolerance. Such possession becomes unlawful upon demand to vacate and refusal to comply. Respondent sent a demand letter on September 22, 2000, and filed the ejectment case on April 27, 2001, which was within the one-year period from the date of demand. The sole issue in unlawful detainer is physical possession, and the MTC correctly determined possession based on respondent's Torrens title (TCT No. 128924), which cannot be collaterally attacked in an ejectment case. On the application of the Rules on Summary Procedure: The Court found petitioner's contention that the case should not have been decided under Section 7 of the Rules on Summary Procedure to be without merit. While the cases were consolidated, petitioner was sued in a separate ejectment case (Civil Case No. 17973) distinct from those against Alfredo Caballero (Civil Case No. 17974) and Severina Sadol (Civil Case No. 17932). Under Section 7, if a sole defendant fails to appear at the preliminary conference, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment. The exception for multiple defendants with a common defense appearing at the conference did not apply because petitioner was not a co-defendant in the same case as Caballero or Sadol. Therefore, her failure to appear entitled respondent to a judgment.
Main Doctrine
A person occupying land by tolerance of the owner becomes an unlawful detainer upon demand to vacate and refusal to comply. The registered owner, holding a Torrens title, is entitled to possession, and the validity of the title cannot be attacked collaterally in an ejectment case.