THIRD
DIVISION
|
IGLESIA EVANGELICA METODISTA EN LAS
ISLAS FILIPINAS (IEMELIF), INC., Petitioner, - versus
- NATANAEL B. JUANE, Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x NATANAEL B. JUANE, Petitioner, - versus
- IGLESIA EVANGELICA METODISTA EN LAS
ISLAS FILIPINAS (IEMELIF), INC., Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 172447 G.R. No. 179404 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and
PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: September 18, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before this Court are two
consolidated cases arising from a Complaint, captioned “Unlawful Detainer,”
filed by Iglesia Evangelica Metodista en las Islas Filipinas (IEMELIF), Inc. against
Reverend Natanael B. Juane (Juane), docketed as Civil Case No. 173711-CV, and
raffled to the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of
IEMELIF is a religious
corporation existing and duly organized under Philippine laws. It alleged in its Complaint, dated
3. [IEMELIF] is the absolute and
registered owner of a parcel of land with Transfer Certificate of Title No.
62080 particularly described as a parcel of land with Lot No. 77-B-2 of the
subdivision plan psd-12951, being a portion of 77-B, pcs-367 of the cadastal
survey of the City of Manila, G.L.R.O. cad. rec. 264 as shown in Plan F-23-48,
Office of the City Engineer and situated in Tondo,
4. On these lots the Cathedral of the
Iglesia Evangelica Metodista en las Islas Filipinas is located together with
other improvements including the Pastor’s residence and the church’s school.
5. [Juane] is a former minister or pastor
of IEMELIF. He was elected as one of the
members of the Highest Consistory of Elders (or Board of Trustees) of IEMELIF
in the February 2000 IEMELIF General Conference. During the concluding Anniversary Service of
said General Conference, IEMELIF Bishop Nathanael P. Lazaro, the General
Superintendent of the whole IEMELIF Church and the General Administrator of the IEMELIF Cathedral in
Tondo, Manila, during the reading of the “IEMELIF Workers’ Assignment”,
announced the appointment and assignment of [Juane] as Resident Pastor of the
Cathedral Congregation in Tondo, Manila. By virtue and as a consequence of such
appointment, Defendant Rev. Juane was authorized to stay at and occupy the
Resident Pastor’s residence inside the Cathedral complex. By the same reason, he also took charge of
the Cathedral facilities and other property of the church in said
premises. One year thereafter, during
the traditional concluding IEMELIF Anniversary Service of the February 2001
General Conference, [Juane] was re-assigned and re-appointed by Bishop Lazaro
to the same position.
6. On 03 March 2002, during the annual and
regular reading of the “IEMELIF Workers’ Assignment” in the concluding
Anniversary Service of the IEMELIF 2002 General Conference, Bishop Lazaro,
acting in his capacity as the General Superintendent of IEMELIF Church as well
as the General Administrator of the IEMELIF Cathedral in Tondo, removed [Juane]
as Resident Pastor of the Tondo Cathedral Congregation and assigned him as
Resident Pastor of the Sta. Mesa (Banal na Hapag) Congregation. In view of this re-assignment, [Juane]’s
authority to occupy and to take charge and possession of the premises of the
IEMELIF Cathedral in Tondo ceased and expired.
However, [Juane] defied said re-assignment and continued to arrogate
upon himself the position of Resident Pastor of the Cathedral. To date, he continues to defy the Church
authorities and still has physical possession and occupation of the Cathedral
premises despite the expiration of his authority to do so and illegally
depriving herein Plaintiff [IEMELIF] physical possession thereof.
7. Further, on
8. Still, Defendant Juane ignored said
expulsion. To date, his defiance
continues. He is occupying the IEMELIF
Cathedral premises in Tondo in violation of [IEMELIF]’s right to physically
possess the subject property.
9. On 23 May 2002, Plaintiff’s Highest
Consistory of Elders, through the Secretary, Rev. Honorio F. Rivera and Bishop
Nathanael P. Lazaro, sent [Juane] a letter through registered mail, demanding
among others, that he vacate and turnover to the Church all Church property in
his possession, including the cathedral, pastoral house, the school and the
church premises. x x x.
10. Despite receipt of the above-said demand
to vacate the IEMELIF Cathedral premises, [Juane] failed and refused, and
continues to fail and refuse, to vacate the subject property and continued its
unlawful occupation thereof to the exclusion of [IEMELIF].
11. Due to [Juane]’s unwarranted failure and
unjust refusal to vacate the premises, [IEMELIF] is left without recourse but
to file legal action to enforce its right to have physical possession of the
Cathedral premises and, thus, for such purpose, is constrained to engage the
services of undersigned counsel for an agreed engagement fee of P40,000.00
plus P2,000.00 per appearance fee and to incur other expenses incidental
to the instant litigation.
12. Likewise, said failure and refusal on the
part of [Juane] to vacate the Cathedral premises caused and is causing [IEMELIF]
damages for having been deprived of the physical possession of the
Cathedral. The fact is that due to such
continuing failure and refusal of [Juane] and of those deriving right under him
to vacate, [IEMELIF], through its Cathedral Congregation, is forced to rent a
space outside the Cathedral premises in order to provide its Tondo congregation
a place for worship.[1]
At the end of its
Complaint, IEMELIF prayed for the RTC to:
1. RENDER a decision ordering [Juane] and
any and all persons claiming right under him to vacate the Cathedral premises
and peacefully turn over possession thereof to [IEMELIF];
2. ORDER [Juane] to pay [IEMELIF]
reasonable compensation for the unlawful dispossession of the premises caused
by [Juane], commencing on the time of the dispossession of the property until
the same is finally vacated and possession thereof peacefully surrendered to [IEMELIF];
3. ORDER [Juane] to pay [IEMELIF]
attorney’s fees and the costs of suit.
Such
other reliefs, just and equitable under the circumstances, are likewise
respectfully prayed for.[2]
G.R. No. 172447 (Motion to Dismiss)
Juane filed a Motion to Dismiss
Civil Case No. 173711-CV, contending that the Complaint therein actually involved
intra-corporate controversies, which, under Republic Act No. 8799, otherwise
known as the Securities Regulation Code, fell within the jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), not the MeTC.
In an Order dated
Juane filed a Petition
for Certiorari and Prohibition with
Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order, docketed as Civil
Case No. 03-107439, before the RTC of Manila, Branch 30. On
Juane’s appeal to the
Court of Appeals was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 85543. In a Decision dated
IEMELIF, thus, filed the present
Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, docketed as G.R. No. 172447. IEMELIF argues that the intra-corporate
dispute alleged by Juane is a completely extraneous matter that was never
alleged or prayed for in the Complaint.
IEMELIF points out that the right to physically occupy the premises is
derived from Juane’s appointment as a church worker assigned to the Cathedral,
and not from his being a member of the corporation.
The Court has determined
that the fundamental issue for its resolution in this Petition is whether the
Complaint filed by IEMELIF against Juane constitutes an intra-corporate dispute
beyond the jurisdiction of the MeTC.
The Court rules in the negative.
In Magay v. Estiandan,[3] the
Court held that:
[J]urisdiction over the subject matter is determined
by the allegations of the complaint,
irrespective of whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or
some of the claims asserted therein – a matter that can be resolved only after
and as a result of the trial. Nor may the jurisdiction of the court be
made to depend upon the defenses set up in the answer or upon the motion to
dismiss, for, were we to be governed by such rule, the question of
jurisdiction could depend almost entirely upon the defendant x x x. (Emphases
ours.)
The Court reiterated in Abrin v. Campos[4]
that:
Well-settled
is the rule that what determines the nature of the action, as well as the Court
which has jurisdiction over the case, is the allegation made by the Plaintiff in his complaint (Ching v. Malaya,
153 SCRA 412; Ganadin v. Ramos, 99 SCRA 613; Republic v. Sebastian, 72 SCRA
227; Magay v. Estandian, 69 SCRA 456; Time, Inc. v. Reyes, 39 SCRA 303). To resolve the issue of jurisdiction, the
Court must interpret and apply the law on jurisdiction vis-a-vis the averments
of the complaint (Malayan Integrated Industries Corporation v. Judge Mendoza,
154 SCRA 548 [1987]). The defenses asserted in the answer or
motion to dismiss are not to be considered in resolving the issue of
jurisdiction, otherwise the question of jurisdiction could depend entirely
upon the defendant (Magay v. Estandian, 69 SCRA 456 [1976]).
The jurisdictional
elements needed to be alleged in a Complaint for unlawful detainer are the following:
(1) the plaintiff is a vendor, vendee, or other person from whom possession of
any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination
of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied;
(2) the defendant is the person unlawfully withholding the same from the
plaintiff after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession,
by virtue of any contract express or implied; (3) the plaintiff issued a demand
for the defendant to comply with the contract or vacate the said premises; and
(4) the action is commenced within one year from the demand.[5]
The Complaint of IEMELIF
in Civil Case No. 173711-CV stated all the foregoing jurisdictional
elements. The Complaint stated that
IEMELIF is the absolute and registered owner of the subject parcel of
land. The Complaint stated further that
by virtue of the appointment and assignment of defendant Juane as Resident
Pastor of the Cathedral Congregation in Tondo, Manila, he was authorized to
stay in and occupy the Pastor’s residence inside the cathedral complex. The Complaint stated that this authority to
stay in the premises expired upon Juane’s reassignment as Resident Pastor of
the Sta. Mesa Congregation. Finally, the
Complaint stated that IEMELIF issued a demand for Juane to vacate the premises
which was within one year from the date of the Complaint,
Furthermore, the Complaint
never alleged as issues the validity
of IEMELIF’s actions of reassigning Juane to another church, and later removing
him as pastor. The invalidity of Juane’s
removal as the Resident Pastor of the IEMELIF Tondo Congregation and his
reassignment as the Resident Pastor of the IEMELIF Sta. Mesa (Banal na Hapag)
Congregation was a defense set up by Juane in his Motion to Dismiss, which
cannot be considered in resolving the issue of jurisdiction.
The Complaint, having
stated the jurisdictional elements in an unlawful detainer case, was properly
filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court.[6]
G.R. No. 179404 (Main Case)
While the foregoing
incidents regarding Juane’s Motion to Dismiss were taking place, and without
any Temporary Restraining Order or preliminary injunction having been issued
against the MeTC, said trial court continued with the proceedings in Civil Case
No. 173711-CV. On
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
in favor of the plaintiff [IEMELIF] and against the defendant [Juane] ordering
the latter and any and all persons claiming right under him
1. to vacate the [IEMELIF’s] property
including the cathedral, pastoral house, the school, and the church premises in
Tondo, Manila and peacefully turn over possession thereof to the [IEMELIF];
2. to pay [IEMELEIF] attorneys fees in
the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos; and
3. to pay the costs of suit.[7]
Juane filed an appeal of
the aforementioned MeTC judgment, docketed as Civil Case No. 05-112202, before
the RTC of Manila, Branch 1. In a Decision dated
Juane brought his case before
the Court of Appeals, where it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 93222. Juane pursued his argument that the
transformation of IEMELIF from a corporation sole to a corporation aggregate
was legally defective and, therefore, IEMELIF had no personality to eject Juane
from the subject property.
The Sixth Division of the
Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated
Thereafter, Juane filed a
Petition for Review on Certiorari
with this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 179404.
Juane maintains that the “IEMELIF” that filed the Complaint before the
MeTC had no personality to eject him from the subject property. The Church has remained a corporation sole, since
its transformation to a corporation aggregate was legally defective. Juane, thus, claims that he is now the
corporation sole, who is entitled to the physical possession of the subject
property as owner thereof. In fact, on
the basis of these same arguments, Juane already filed a case disputing
ownership of the subject property, docketed as Civil Case No. 03-018777 before
the RTC of Manila. The RTC rendered a
Decision in Civil Case No. 03-018777 against Juane, which was affirmed by the
Court of Appeals. Juane now has a
pending Petition for Review with the Second Division of this Court.
We uphold the findings of
the Court of Appeals.
As held by the Court of
Appeals, even if the transformation of IEMELIF from a corporation sole to a
corporation aggregate was legally defective, its head or governing body, i.e., Bishop Lazaro, whose acts were
approved by the Highest Consistory of Elders, still did not change. A corporation
sole is one formed by the chief archbishop, bishop, priest, minister, rabbi
or other presiding elder of a religious denomination, sect, or church, for the
purpose of administering or managing, as trustee, the affairs, properties and
temporalities of such religious denomination, sect or church.[8] As
opposed to a corporation aggregate, a corporation sole consists of a single
member, while a corporation aggregate consists of two or more persons. If the transformation did not materialize,
the corporation sole would still be Bishop Lazaro, who himself performed the
questioned acts of removing Juane as Resident Pastor of the Tondo
Congregation. If the transformation did
materialize, the corporation aggregate would be composed of the Highest
Consistory of Elders, which nevertheless approved the very same acts. As either Bishop Lazaro or the Highest
Consistory of Elders had the authority to appoint Juane as Resident Pastor of
the IEMELIF Tondo Congregation, it also had the power to remove him as such or
transfer him to another congregation.
An action for reconveyance
or accion reivindicatoria has no
effect and can exist at the same time as ejectment cases involving the same
property.[9] This is because the only issue to be resolved
in an unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession of the property
involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties involved.[10] Ejectment
cases are designed to summarily restore physical possession to one who has been
illegally deprived of such possession, without prejudice to the settlement of
the parties’ opposing claims of juridical possession in appropriate
proceedings.[11] The question of ownership may only be
provisionally ruled upon for the sole purpose of determining who is entitled to
possession de facto.[12]
That IEMELIF has presented
sufficient evidence to prove its allegations in its Complaint in Civil Case No.
173711-CV, thus, warranting the ejectment of Juane from the subject property,
is a matter which the Court can no longer look into. There is a question of
fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of
alleged facts, or when the query necessarily invites calibration of the whole
evidence, considering mainly the credibility of witnesses, existence and
relevance of specific surrounding circumstances, their relation to one another and
to the whole and the probabilities of the situation.[13] Time and again we have held that it is not the
function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence
and credibility of witnesses presented before the lower tribunal or
office. The Supreme Court is not a trier
of facts. Its jurisdiction is limited to
reviewing and revising errors of law imputed to the lower court, its findings
of fact being conclusive and not reviewable by this Court.[14] Findings of fact of the trial court,
particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this
Court.[15]
WHEREFORE, the Court renders the following judgment:
(1) The Petition in G.R. No. 172447 is GRANTED. The Decision dated 10 April 2006 of the
Special Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 85543 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision
dated 14 November 2003 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 30, in
Civil Case No. 03-107439, which affirmed the Order dated 27 February 2003 of
the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 26, in Civil Case No. 173711-CV,
denying the Motion to Dismiss of Natanael B. Juane, is REINSTATED; and
(2) The Petition in G.R.
No. 179404 is DENIED. The Decision dated
Costs against Natanael B.
Juane.
SO
ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice |
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
|
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTAAssociate Justice |
|
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were 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] Records, Vol. I, pp. 2-5.
[2]
[3] G.R. No. L-28975,
[4] G.R. No. 52740,
[5] Rules of Court, Rule 70, Sections 1-2.
[6] Rules of Court, Rule 70, Section 1.
[7] Records, Vol. I, p. 777.
[8] CORPORATION CODE, Section 110.
[9] See Del Rosario v. Jimenez, 118 Phil. 565, 567 (1963); Guzman v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 81949, 15 September 1989, 177 SCRA 604, 616; Sy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95818, 2 August 1991, 200 SCRA 117, 126-127.
[10] Co v. Militar, 466 Phil. 217, 223 (2004).
[11] Barnes
v. Padilla, G.R. No. 160753,
[12] Umpoc
v. Mercado, G.R. No. 158166,
[13] Bernardo
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101680,
[14] Manzano v. Court of Appeals, 344 Phil. 240, 252 (1997).
[15] Castillo v. Court of Appeals, 329 Phil. 151, 159 (1996).