FIRST DIVISION
NIMFA
MITRE REYES, BEATRIZ G.R. No. 155553
FELICIANO,
DOLORES “Baby” ALVAREZ, BABY JAVIER, FERNANDO FRIAS, REMEDIOS MAYMIERO, ROMULO
MARCA, SALVADOR NEBRES, VIVIAN SAZON and ERLINDA CORONADO,
Petitioners,
Present:
PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,
- versus - CARPIO,
AZCUNA,
and
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, JJ.
HEIRS OF EUDOSIA D. DAEZ, as
represented
by CECILIA D. DAEZ,[1]
Attorney-in-Fact, Promulgated:
Respondents.
X
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court challenges the July 23, 2002 Decision[2] as
well as the September 27, 2002 Resolution[3] of
the Court of Appeals sustaining the September 28, 2001 Decision[4] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 122, Caloocan City, which affirmed in toto the September 30, 1999 Decision[5] of
the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 49, Caloocan City, in Civil Case
No. 23664 for Ejectment, ordering petitioners to vacate the leased
premises.
On
x x x
3. Plaintiffs are the heirs of the deceased
EUDOSIA D. DAEZ. Part of the estate left by said deceased is a certain property
consisting of a lot and apartment units situated at 654 McArthur Highway,
Bonifacio, Caloocan City[,] and covered by TCT No. 21852 still in the name of
deceased EUDOSIA D. DAEZ. Copy of TCT No. 21852 is hereto attached as Annex
“B”;
4. Defendants are the tenants and actual
occupants of the aforesaid apartment units on a verbal lease agreement on a
[month-to-month] basis. The apartment units consisting of two (2) buildings were
erected way back in [1950s];
5. Sometime in 1996, plaintiffs observed that
the buildings are already getting old and dilapidated. Thinking of the safety
of its tenants/occupants, plaintiffs requested the City Engineer’s Office to
inspect the building. After inspection, the City Engineer’s Building Inspector
rendered a report recommending the immediate restructuring or general repair of
the building to avoid accident and hazard to lives and properties of the
tenants. Copy of the report dated
6. [On] January 21, 1997[,] plaintiffs
through DAN DAEZ received a letter from the City Engineer’s Office requiring
plaintiffs to comply with the recommendation of the Building Inspector by
restructuring the buildings;
7. Pursuant to said letter dated January 21,
1997 sent to plaintiffs by the City Engineer, plaintiffs sent formal notice to
vacate upon defendants terminating the verbal lease contract on a
[month-to-month] basis for the purpose of effecting the necessary restructuring
of the buildings;
8. Defendants despite receipt of the letter
failed [and] refused to vacate thereby endangering not only their lives and
properties but that of the public as well. [Copies] of the individual letters
are hereto attached as Annexes “D” to “R”;
9. Under Sec. 5(e) of the B.P. 877[,]
otherwise known as [the] Rent Control Law, need of the lessor to make the
necessary repairs of the leased premises which is the subject of an existing
order of condemnation by proper authorities concerned to make said premises
safe and habitable is a ground for ejectment, hence this case;
10. Defendants should be held liable for
[plaintiffs’] litigation expenses and costs in the amount [not] less than P20,000;
11. This dispute is exempted from the
barangay conciliatory proceedings as the parties are residents of different
cities.[6]
Except for
Virginia Ocampo, all defendants filed their jointly executed Answer with
Counterclaims, averring that:
x x x
10. Defendants are bonafide tenants/lessees
of [the] [Daez] apartment located at 654 McArthur Highway, Bonifacio, Caloocan
City for the past many years, as follows: Nimfa Mitre Reyes, 29 yrs[.]; Pamela
Tabon, 32 yrs[.]; Allen Pascual, 35 yrs[.]; Linda Coronado, 24 yrs[.]; Betty
Feliciano, 31 yrs[.]; Baby Alvarez, 25 yrs[.]; Virginia Ocampo, 10 yrs[.];
Federico Mateo, 20 yrs[.]; Fernando Frias, 19 yrs[.]; Baby Javier, 21 yrs[.];
Romulo Marca, 28 yrs[.]; Remedios [Maymiero], 22 yrs[.]; Flor Masmela, 22 yrs[.];
Vivian [Sazon], 20 yrs[.]; and Salvador Nebres, 27 yrs[.];
11. The lease agreement of defendants is with
the lessors, Sps. Lope [Daez] and Eudosia Diaz Daez and were and still are
originally covered by the Rent Control Law, BP 877 and its extending laws,
Republic Act 7644, hence within [their] mantle and ambit of [their] coverage;
12. That during all the years that herein
defendants had occupied their respective apartments at the agreed monthly
rentals, and as subsequently provided under the Rent Control Law, defendants
had religiously paid their monthly rentals and had not violated any of the
terms and conditions of their lease agreement with the said Sps. Lope [Daez]
and Eudosia Diaz Daez;
13. That during all the years that herein
defendants had occupied their respective apartments, the [lessors-owners]
thereof, had refused and failed to adequately maintain the two building
apartments, so that for the past many years, defendants had maintained the
same, spending for themselves the necessary repairs of the said apartments to
maintain the same to be a safe and sound dwelling place, as evidenced by the
pictures hereto attached x x x;
14. That contrary to the allegations of the
plaintiff that the building apartments subject of this case are dilapidated and
no longer safe as dwelling houses, Annexes [“1” to “33”] will readily show that the said apartments
are in good, sound, and safe conditions in view of the fact that[,] as already
alleged herein[,] defendants had taken [care] of the proper repairs and
maintenance of their respective apartments and readily contributed to the
general repairs and maintenance of the two (2) building apartments except those
which were recently damaged by the typhoon which is the responsibility of the
[lessors-owners] thereof;
15. That the alleged findings of the City
Engineer of Caloocan City x x x in fact will readily show that the alleged
[damage/s] to the apartments are superficial and mere ordinary wear and tear[;]
and that while it recommended re-structuring, it did not specify, much less
gave any plans and specifications [on] what is meant by re-structuring of the
building[,] so that the report of the said City Engineer and/or Inspecting
Engineer is merely to undertake general repairs of the exterior portions of the
apartments in question;
16. That whatever exterior repairs which
might be undertaken by the [lessors-owners] thereof could be accomplished
without ejecting herein defendants except if plaintiff in this case has other
motive in filing this instant case other than [what is] alleged in the
complaint[;] hence[,] Sec. 5(e) of BP 877 will not necessarily apply and/or be
operative as against the defendants;
17. That the claim of plaintiff for all the
defendants to pay monthly rentals of P2,000.00 from the day defendants should
vacate per notice sent by plaintiff is without just and valid basis both as to
facts and law considering that [defendants’] lease agreement with the
[lessors-owners], SPS. LOPE AND [EUDOSIA] DAEZ are within the coverage of the
Rent Control Law;
18. That TCT No. [21852] x x x show that the
land and the two (2) apartment buildings occupied by the defendants [are] still
registered in the name of [EUDOSIA] DIAZ DAEZ, married to LOPE DAEZ[,] and[,]
therefore[,] the plaintiff, more particularly CECILIA D. DAEZ had no right much
less any legal personality to file this instant case, being that the mere
allegations that the [complainants] are the heirs of [EUDOSIA] D. DAEZ represented
by CECILIA D. DAEZ [as] Attorney-in-Fact is insufficient to clothe CECILIA D.
DAEZ that power to file this instant case[,] exercising power of dominion over
the said real property covered by TCT No. [21852];
19. That plaintiff has no cause of action as
against herein defendants and that there was failure on the part of the
plaintiff to comply with the provisions of PD 1508[,] as amended by the
provisions of [the] Local Government Code with reference to the [arbitration]
powers and functions of the Katarungang Pambarangay where the real property in
question is located;[7]
Ocampo
briefly added in her separately filed Answer that the Heirs of Daez have no
cause of action inasmuch as their perceived motive in requesting for the
inspection of the building was only to obtain a legal basis to eject
defendants, and that she must be reimbursed in the amount of P100,000
for the expenses she incurred in the repair of the toilet and water drainage,
repainting of the walls and ceiling, and other improvements in her unit.
In the preliminary
conference held on
1) Whether there is a real need to
renovate the subject premises[;] [and]
2) Whether there is a need to
vacate the premises during the renovation.[8]
On the bases
of the foregoing issues, the parties were ordered to submit the affidavits of
their witnesses and other evidence, together with their respective position
papers.
The
Position Paper of respondents advanced substantially the same allegations
stated in their complaint. In addition
to the documents attached thereto, they submitted in evidence the tax
declaration of the subject property, the 12 November 1996 letter of Dan Daez to
the City Engineer requesting the building inspection and the 21 January 1997
advisory of the latter to the former regarding compliance to the recommendation
of the Building Inspector, the yet to be approved Building Permit as well as
the Specifications and Plans on the proposed establishment of Sacred Heart
Memorial Chapel,[9]
and the pictures of the façade of the apartment buildings.
For their
part, however, it appears on record that none of the defendants submitted a
position paper or evidence, documentary or otherwise, to support their
allegations.
On
Wherefore, [judgment] is hereby rendered in
favor of the plaintiffs ordering the [afore-named] defendants and all persons
claiming right under them:
1.
To vacate the premises in question and restore possession thereof to the
plaintiffs;
2. To pay plaintiffs thru their
attorney-in-fact, Cecilia D. Daez, the reasonable compensation for their use of
the premises at the rate of P500.00 per month per unit from April 1997 until
the premises is fully vacated;
3. To reimburse to plaintiff the
amount of P10,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees and for costs and
litigation expenses.
SO ORDERED.[10]
Defendants
appealed to the RTC. In their Appeal
Memorandum,[11]
they contended that an examination of the complaint would reveal that key
jurisdictional allegations supporting an action for ejectment were lacking. In particular, they claimed that neither was
there an allegation of prior material possession by respondents (in case of
forcible entry) or a showing that the Heirs gave them the right to occupy the
premises (in case of unlawful detainer).
Defendants posited that the proper legal recourse should have been an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria, either of which
is within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
This time,
the appealed case was submitted for resolution without respondents’ Memorandum.[12]
On
The case
was elevated to the Court of Appeals. Aside
from reiterating their allegations in Paragraphs 13 to 16 of their Answer
before the MTC, petitioners[13]
argued, for the first time, that the Position Paper submitted by respondents in
the MTC was not verified and that they failed to submit direct testimony, in
violation of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure; thereby, making the
decisions of the MTC and RTC based on hearsay evidence.
In their
Comment,[14]
respondents countered that the order of condemnation issued by the City
Engineer was never seasonably appealed by petitioners before the Secretary of
Public Works and Highways pursuant to the provisions of Presidential Decree No.
1096 (or the National Building Code); thus, the said order stands and remains
valid and could not be refuted by mere self-serving allegations that there is
no need to effect the restructuring being required. They also invoked the legal presumption that
official duty has been regularly performed.[15] Further, respondents asserted that the issue
on their failure to sign the verification in the Position Paper was never
raised before the RTC; hence, could not be assigned as an error before the
appellate court. And even if the
Position Paper was not verified, they contended that the documentary evidence
adduced was of public nature which may be presented and admitted without
reference to any affidavit. Moreover,
the omission is not fatal because all the allegations in the Position Paper
were mere reiterations of those stated in the Complaint, which was verified.
Respondents averred that petitioners had the opportunity to contradict their
allegations by submitting and marking countervailing evidence but they did not. Lastly, they noted that petitioners’
pleadings before the lower and appellate courts were not also verified by all
the original defendants yet these were still considered. The principle of in pari delicto and estoppel should, therefore, operate against
them.
On
Petitioners
moved to reconsider[16]
the Decision but it was denied; hence, this petition.[17]
For petitioners, the Court of Appeals
committed grave and serious error of law and facts amounting to grave abuse of
discretion resulting to lack of jurisdiction when:
a. It failed to consider the constitutional
mandate that all decisions of the court shall be supported with evidence, such
that the CA erred to have affirmed the appealed Decision despite respondents’ failure to submit their affidavit of
direct testimony and their Position Paper was unverified;
b. It concluded that the assigned error
regarding the absence of affidavits and failure on the part of respondents to
verify their Position Paper was not raised at the earliest possible
opportunity; and
c. It failed to consider the substantial
evidence rule.
Petitioners argue that Sec. 9 in
relation to Sec. 3 (B) of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure absolutely
requires the submission of affidavit/s of witnesses and verified Position
Paper. Compliance is mandatory since the
Summary Procedure is a departure from the Rules on Trial Order under Rule 30
and the Rules on Evidence under Rules 128 to 130 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Moreover, as provided for in Sec. 10 of
the Summary Procedure, the affidavits and the verified Position Paper are the
bases upon which the court shall rely on in determining the law and the facts
applicable to the case. Thus, with the
non-observance of the Rules, the lower courts did not render decisions pursuant
to the constitutional proscription that “[no] decision shall be rendered x x x
without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on
which it is based,”[18]
and the Decision of the MTC, as affirmed by the RTC and Court of Appeals, was
founded on hearsay evidence. According
to petitioners, the absence of substantial evidence upon which the lower
courts’ decisions must have been based deprived them of their right to due
process.
The petition has no merit.
Considering the allegations, issues
and arguments adduced, this Court resolves to deny this petition for failure of
petitioners to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any
reversible error in the assailed decision and resolution as to warrant the
exercise of this Court’s discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
Moreover, a careful consideration of
this petition indicates the failure of petitioners to show any cogent reason
why the actions of the three (3) courts which have passed upon the same issues
should be reversed. They failed to show
that the courts’ factual findings are not based on substantial evidence or that
their decisions are contrary to applicable law and jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED. The
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO RENATO C. CORONA
Associate
Justice Associate
Justice
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified 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 Court’s
Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Included in this case are Concordia D. Daez, Lope D. Daez, Jr., Petronilo D. Daez (in his behalf and as attorney-in-fact of Cresenciana D. Jurey), Adriano D. Daez, Leonora D. Mendoza, Gertrudes D. Evangelista, and Mariano D. Daez.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice
Eliezer R. De los
[3]
[4] Penned by Judge Remigio E. Zari; records, pp. 193-197.
[5] Penned by Judge Belen B. Ortiz; id. at 139-144.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Respondents alleged that they plan to convert the apartment building into a memorial chapel if defendants would not avail of their right to lease or could no longer afford to rent the newly renovated premises.
[10] Records, pp. 143-144.
[11] Only one of the original defendants, Romulo Marca, signed the verification of the Appeal Memorandum.; id. at 177-181.
[12]
[13] Per CA Resolution dated
[14] CA rollo, pp. 242-246.
[15] Revised Rules of Court, Rule 131, Sec. 3 (m).
[16] CA rollo, pp. 257-267.
[17] Notably, the signatories of the
verification and certification of non-forum shopping of the petition before
this Court were only Reyes, Coronado,
Feliciano, Alvarez, Frias, Javier, Marca, Maymiero, Sazon, and Nebres.
[18] 1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 14.