Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
156375
MACASLANG,
Petitioner, Present:
CARPIOMORALES, Chairperson,
BRION,
-versus - BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA, and
SERENO, JJ.
DECISION
BERSAMIN, J.:
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) is not limited in its review of the decision of
the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) to the issues assigned by the appellant, but can
decide on the basis of the entire records of the proceedings of the trial court and
such memoranda or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the
RTC.
ANTECEDENTS
On March 10, 1999, the respondents filed a complaint for unlawful detainer in the
MTCC, alleging that the [petitioner] sold to [respondents] a residential land located
in Sabang, DanaoCity and that the [petitioner] requested to be allowed to live in
the house with a promise to vacate as soon as she would be able to find a new
residence. They further alleged thatdespitetheir demand after a year, the petitioner
failed or refused to vacate the premises.
Despite the due service of the summons and copy of the complaint, the
petitioner did not file heranswer. The MTCC declared her in defaultupon the
respondents motion to declare her in default, and proceeded to receivethe
respondentsoral testimony and documentary evidence. Thereafter, on September
13, 1999, the MTCC rendered judgment against her, disposing:
SO ORDERED.[4]
The petitioner appealed to the RTC, averring the following as reversible errors,
namely:
SO ORDERED.
The respondents appealed to the CA, assailing the RTCs decision for disregarding
the allegations in the complaint in determining the existence or non-existence of a
cause of action.
On July 3, 2002, the CA reversed and set aside the RTCs decision and
reinstated the MTCCs decision in favor of the respondents, disposing:
SO ORDERED.[8]
ISSUES
Hence, the petitioner appeals the CAs adverse decision, submitting legal issues, as
follows:
RULING
A.
As an appellate court, RTC may rule
upon an issue notraised on appeal
In its decision, the CA ruled that the RTC could not resolve issues that were
not assigned by the petitioner in her appeal memorandum, explaining:
Only errors assigned and properly argued on the brief and those
necessarily related thereto, may be considered by the appellate court in
resolving an appeal in a civil case. Based on said clear jurisprudence, the
court a quo committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction when it resolved Defendant-appellees appeal based on
grounds or issues not raised before it, much less assigned by Defendant-
appellee as an error.
Not only that. It is settled that an issue which was not raised during the
Trial in the court below would not be raised for the first time on appeal
as to do so would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and
due process (Victorias Milling Co., Inc. vs. CA, 333 SCRA 663). We can
therefore appreciate Plaintiffs-appellants dismay caused by the Regional
Trial Courts blatant disregard of a basic and fundamental right to due
process.[10]
The petitioner disagrees with the CA and contends that the RTC as an
appellate courtcould rule on the failure of the complaint to state a cause of action
and the lack of demand to vacate even if not assigned in the appeal.
The CA might have been correct had the appeal been a first appeal from the
RTC to the CA or another proper superior court, in which instance Section 8 of
Rule 51, which applies to appeals from the RTC to the CA,imposesthe express
limitation of the review to only those specified in the assignment of errorsor
closely related to or dependent on an assigned error and properly argued in
the appellants brief, viz:
Butthe petitioners appeal herein,being taken from the decision of the MTCC
to the RTC, was governed by a different rule, specifically Section 18 of Rule 70 of
the Rules of Court, to wit:
(a) Upon receipt of the complete record or the record on appeal, the clerk of
court of the Regional Trial Court shall notify the parties of such fact.
(b) Within fifteen (15) days from such notice, it shall be the duty of
the appellant to submit a memorandum which shall briefly discuss the
errors imputed to the lower court, a copy of which shall be furnished by
him to the adverse party. Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the
appellants memorandum, the appellee may file his memorandum. Failure
of the appellant to file a memorandum shall be a ground for dismissal of
the appeal.
As a result, the RTC presently decides all appeals from the MTC based
on the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such
memoranda or briefs as are filed in the RTC.
(d) Matters raised in the trial court and are of record having some
bearing on the issue submitted that the parties failed to raise or
that the lower court ignored;
B.
CA correctly delved into and determined
whether or not complaint stateda cause of action
The RTC opined that the complaint failed to state a cause of action because
the evidence showed that there was no demand to vacate made upon the petitioner.
(d)Within one year from the making of the last demand to vacate the
propertyon the defendant, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for
ejectment.[15]
In resolving whether the complaint states a cause of actionor not, only the
facts alleged in the complaint are considered. The test is whether the court can
render a valid judgment on the complaint based on the facts alleged and the prayer
asked for.[16] Only ultimate facts, not legal conclusions or evidentiary facts, are
considered for purposes of applying the test.[17]
To resolve the issue, therefore, a look at the respondents complaint is
helpful:
Yet, even as we rule that the respondents complaint stated a cause of action,
we must find and hold that both the RTC and the CA erroneously appreciatedthe
real issue to be about the complaints failure to state a cause of action. It certainly
was not so, butthe respondents lack of cause of action. Their erroneous
appreciationexpectedly prevented the correct resolution of the action.
Failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action are really
different from each other.On the one hand, failure to state a cause of actionrefers to
the insufficiency of the pleading, and is a ground for dismissal under Rule 16 of
the Rules of Court. On the other hand, lack of cause action refers to a situation
where the evidence does not prove the cause of action alleged in the pleading.
Justice Regalado, a recognized commentator on remedial law, has explained the
distinction:[19]
Having found that neither Exhibit C nor Exhibit E was a proper demand to
vacate,[21] considering that Exhibit C (the respondents letter dated February 11,
1998)demanded the payment of P1,101,089.90, and Exhibit E (theirletter dated
January 21, 1999) demandedthe payment of P1,600,000.00, the RTC concluded
that the demand alleged in the complaint did not constitute a demand to pay rent
and to vacate the premises necessary in an action for unlawful detainer. It was this
conclusion that caused the RTC to confuse the defect as failure of the complaint to
state a cause of action for unlawful detainer.
To begin with, it was undeniable that Exhibit D (the respondents letter dated
April 28, 1998) constitutedthedemand to vacate that validly supported their action
for unlawful detainer, because of its unmistakable tenor as a demand to vacate,
which the following portion indicates:[22]
This is to give notice that since the mortgage to your property has
long 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 date
of this letter.
C.
Ejectment was not proper due
to defense of ownership being established
The respondents cause of action for unlawful detainer was based on their
supposed right to possession resulting from their having acquired it through sale.
Simply stated, plaintiff alleged that she bought the house of the
defendant for P100,000.00 on September 10, 1997 as stated in an alleged
Deed of Absolute Sale marked as Exhibit A to the complaint. Insofar as
plaintiff is concerned, the best evidence is the said Deed of Absolute
Sale.
x xxx
Exhibit E, which is a letter dated January 21, 1999, shows the real
transaction between the parties in their case. To reiterate, the
consideration in the deed of sale (Exhibit A) is P100,000.00 but in their
letter (Exhibit E) she is already demanding the sum of P1,600,000.00
because somebody was going to buy it for P2,000,000.00.
There are indications that point out that the real transaction between
the parties is one of equitable mortgage and not sale. [25]
Despite holding herein that the respondents demand to vacate sufficed, we
uphold the result of the RTC decision in favor of the petitioner. This we do,because
therespondents Exhibit Cand Exhibit E, by demandingpayment from the petitioner,
respectively,of P1,101,089.90 and P1,600,000.00, revealedthe true nature of the
transaction involving the property in question as one of equitable mortgage, not a
sale.
Our upholding of the result reached by the RTC rests on the following
circumstancesthat tended to show that the petitioner had not really sold the
property to the respondents, contrary to the latters averments, namely:
(d)When the purchaser retains for himself a part of the purchase price;
(e)When the vendor binds himself to pay the taxes on the thing sold;
and,
(f) In any other case where it may be fairly inferred that the real
intention of the parties is that the transaction shall secure the
payment of a debt or the performance of any other obligation.
D.
MTC committed procedural lapses
that must be noted and corrected
The first lapse wasthe MTCCs granting of the respondents motion to declare
the petitioner in default following her failure to file an answer. The proper
procedurewas not for the plaintiffs to move for the declaration in default of the
defendant who failed to file the answer. Such a motion to declare in default has
been expressly prohibited under Section 13, Rule 70 of
theRules of Court.[33]Instead, the trial court, either motuproprio or on motion of the
plaintiff, should render judgment as the facts alleged in the complaint might
warrant.[34]In other words, the defendants failure to file an answer under Rule 70 of
the Rules of Courtmight result to a judgment by default, not to a declaration of
default.
WHEREFORE,we grant the petition for review on certiorari; set aside the
decision promulgated on July 3, 2002 by the Court of Appeals; and dismiss the
complaint for unlawful detainer for lack of a cause of action.
SO ORDERED.
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ATT E STAT I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
C E R T I FI CAT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice