Court of Appeals Forcible Entry No.124921
Transcript of Court of Appeals Forcible Entry No.124921
8/18/2019 Court of Appeals Forcible Entry No.124921
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/court-of-appeals-forcible-entry-no124921 1/12
Ttarc€z€
e*e4
ffi
W
.EJi,H,:f'fliTlltl"
I,
TERESITA
R.
MARIGOMEN,
Clerk
of
Court of the
Court
of
Appeals,
do
hereby
certify
that
I
have
examined the herein document,
to
wit:
A certiJied
true
copy
of the Decision
of the Court
of
Appeals in
case
CA-G,R.
.SP
No.
124921,
Atry, Ernesto
L,
De Los
Santos
vs.
University
of
Manila, et
al.,
etc,,
promulgated
on February
24,
2016,
and
consisting
of
Eleven
(11)
pages
only.
That
the same
has bee't compared
with
the
original on
jile
in
this
Office,
and that
the same is
s true and
correct copy
thereof,
IN
WITNESS WHEREOF,
I
have
hereunto
signed my name
and affrxed the
seal
of this
Court,
this
APR
0
"i
201&
NOTE: This
certification is
not
valid
u,ithout
the signatures
of
the
certifying
officer
as well as
the
seal of the
Court on
each and
verifier
and the
is document.
MEN
ARN
.
MACAPAGAL
Chief Reporter
Verified
with the
Original
in
the custody of
the Reporter's
Division
By:
,l
/
LINA E.
PANTOLA
dPi
CI
i
i,|0
NTINOLA
By:
Prs.oo
,r"rfrgr1{+b
Stamp
paid
under
Original
Receipt No.
Pairl:
1l
q)
1JCl.r
o.R.
Nos.
Nf7ldd
.
hLFA
JZJ
Proofiead
By:
Date:
v.T,t
(
tr
ANIBEil
T.
RODELAS
Issued upon
the
request
of:
Villamie
Mantilla
1549 HDS Bldg.,
A. Mabini
St.
Ermita,
NIla.
8/18/2019 Court of Appeals Forcible Entry No.124921
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/court-of-appeals-forcible-entry-no124921 2/12
DE LOS
Petitioner,
-uersus
-
UNIU}RSITY
OF
MANII,A,
MRS. EMILY
D.
DE
LEON,
ATTY.
DIOSDA.DO
G. II/TADRID,
JULIEWHYNN
QUEND
OZA*,
ATTY.
ERNESTO
L.
SANTOS,
JEFFREY
C.
JOCELYN
PROVTDER
Repuhrlic of
tlre
Philippines
Court
of
Appeals
MANILA
TENTH DIVISION
OLIGARTO,
OLIGARIO,
SECURTTY
CA
_
G.R.
SP
NO . I2492L
Members:
PUNZALAN
CASTILLO,
M.
P.,
Chairperson
MACALINO,
F.S., and
GALAPATE.LAGUILL
ES, 2.T.,
J,J,
:
Promulgated:
2
{
FEB
ZO16
fuim,nr
/:dtl7
AGENCY,
ROBERTO
C.,
GAUDIA,
ANGELO P.
MENDALO,
VICTORY
COMBAT
FORCE
SECURITY
.FTGENCY,
ABU
DIMAPORO,
REYNALDO
Q.
MARCIAL
and ALL
PERSONS
CLAIMING
RIGHTS
UNDER
THEM,
Respondents.
DECISION
GALAPATE-LAGUILLES,
=I,
;
An
action
for
forcible
entry is a
quieting
process
that
ls
summarg
in nature. /f
fs
designed
to recouer
phgsical
possession
in
speedA
proceedings
that are
restrictiue
in
nature, scope
and
time lirnits. xxxx
1
'
Quendoza/Quindoza
in some
part
of the
records
1
Justice Panganiban in Bongato v. Sps. Nlalvar, G.R. L4L6L4. August
1
L
A,(;,R,
C'R/C\/iSI NO.
RESITA
Ai.IGOMET.
Cl,erk
rl
Ptu'ln,url
llyr
BY:
ATTY
h* rt't.
t .
r\,t
Ac.\pAcAt
Chicf
Ri,0orter
ro
rter
COUR'I'OT
APPEALS
VERIFIED
[,r
8/18/2019 Court of Appeals Forcible Entry No.124921
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/court-of-appeals-forcible-entry-no124921 3/12
CA-G.R.
SP
No,
1249?-l
DECISION
Page 2 of
11
This
Petition
for
Review
assails
the
Decision
dated
March
l, 2Ot2
of the
Regional
Trial Court,
Baguio
City,
Branch
5
in
Special
Civil
Action No.
7510-R
which
affirmed
in
toto
the
Order dated
September
5,
zALl
of
the
Municipal
Trial
Court
in
Cities, Branch 1
of
Baguro
City.
The facts
as culled
from the
records
are as
follows.
Petitioner
Atty.
Ernesto
Delos
Santos
(Delos Santos)
is
a
stockholder
of
the University
of
Manila
(UM),
owned
by
his
late
grandparents
and
parer.ts.
He is
also
the
generaL
manager of
the
Benguet Pines Tourist Inn
(Beng,uet
Pines), owned
by
UM.
Petitioner owns
a-nd
manages Pines
Shadow
Cafe, a
restaurant
located
wjthin
the
premises
of
Benguet
Pines.
Within
the
premises
of Benguet Pines is the ancestral
house
which
Delos
Santos
and
his
family had
been occupying,
even
before
the establish,naent
of
Benguet
Pkres.
Respond.ents
on
the other hand
alLege
that Delos Santos
was
merely tolerated
by the
Board
of
Trustees
(Board)
of UM to
manage
and
operate
Benguet
Pines
and to
occupy
a
room
in
the
anscestral
house
because,
not
only
because
he
is
a
stockholder
and a member
of the Board,
he is
also
willing
to
staSr
in
Baguio
City.
Sometime
in
,June
ZOLI,
the
Board
of
UM
issued
a
Resolution2,
the
pertinent portion
of
which
states:
xxx
"RESOLVED,
as
il
is
resolveC,
ttrat
effective
June
15,
2011
and for the reason
of
conflict
of
interest,
Atty.
ERNESTO
L.
DELOS
SANTOS,
he
being the owner and
operator
of
Deiy's
Inn
located
at
CTLL
Building,
110
Otek St., Baguio
City, shall
no
longer have
any
hand
in the
managbment
and
operation
of Benguet
Pines
Tourist
Inn.;
"RESOLVED,
Further,
as it
is
hereby
resolved,
that
effective
June 15,
20ll
the
rrranagement
and
Tourist
Inn,
managed
and
operat
Atty.$rnesto
L.
C^-C.R,
CR/CViS?
NO.
ITA
R:
ARIGOMEI'
Cle
0urt
BY:
A'ITY
ARNEI,
D,
ITIACAPAGAL
Clrief
ftr:
porrcr
COUR'T
OF APPEAIJ
N
VERIFIED
2
Rollo/
p.
98
l'rttrlfll'r1d
gyi
8/18/2019 Court of Appeals Forcible Entry No.124921
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/court-of-appeals-forcible-entry-no124921 4/12
CA-G.R.
SP
No.
LZ492L
DECISION
Page
3
of
11
Delos
Santos
shall be
under
the
managemerrt
and
operation
of
the
Benguet Pines
Tourist Inn;
and that
all
appliances
owned
by Atty,
Delos
Santc.rs in
the
said
canteen
shall
be
returned
to
him
or
to his
employees;
"RESOLVED,
Furthermore,
as it is
resolved, that
effective
Junc
15, 2011
Atty.
Ernesto
L.
Delos
Santos,
Ms.
Fe
Delilah
Dagu,.insin,
Mr.
Vincent
Delos
Santos,
and/or
all employees
of
Dely's Inn andf
or
CTLL
Building are
prohibited
to
enter
and/or
stay
in
the
premises
of
the
Benguet
Pines
Tourist Inn;
'RESOLVED,
moreover,
as
it is
hereby resolved,
that
a
representative
of
the
University
of Manila
and/or
Benguet
Pines
Tourist
Inn
is
authorized
to
verify
or
look
into
reports
that
water, electricity, and
cable and
even
supplies
like
tissue,
papers,
soaps,
rice
and
others
of Dely's
Inn
andT
or
CTLL Building
are
connected
and/or
treken
from
Benguet
Pines
Tourist
Inn;
"RESOLVED,
Finaliy,
as it
is
hereby
r.esolved,
that
the
Board
passed,
approved
and
adopted
these
resoiutions
to
comply
with its
duties
under
the Corporation
Code.
xxx
In
view
thereof,
respondents
officers
of
uM, namely
Emily
De
Leon
-
President (De
Leon)
and
Atty.
Diosdado
David
-
corporate
Secretary
(Atty.
David),
sought
the
serr/ices
of
respondents
Provider
security
A.gency
arrd
victory
Combat
Force
security
Agency (security
Agencies),
to
caJry ou.t
the
mandate
of the
Board
Resolution.
Hence,
on
June
ls,
2011,
respondents
Security
Agencies
with
respondents
Juliewhynn
Quindoza,
Jocelyn
oligario
and
Jeffrey
oligario,
were
able
to
successfully removed
petitioner's personal
belongings
out
of
Benguet
Pines.
The1,
also
prevented
petitiorrer
from
entering
the
ancestral
house
and
Bengugt
Pines
thereafer.
In view
of
the
respondents'
acts
of
dispossession,
petitioner
was
constrairred
to
file
a
Complaint
for
Forcible
Entry
with
Damages
with
Prayer
for
the
Issuance
of
a
writ
of
Preliminary
Injunction,
appending
therein
the
police
Blotter
Certificates3
to
bolster
h.is
claim of
dis
ssion,
before
the
Municipal
Trial
Court
in
Cities
(court agr:io
City
and
3
Rollq
pp.219-224
CA.C,R.
CR/C\/iS?
NO.
rl
Proofrrrrrl
i1,l
D.
IUACAPAGAI
t/
(,'lrief
licporre
r
COUR'I'OF
API'EALS
A
VERIFIED
BV
/f
8/18/2019 Court of Appeals Forcible Entry No.124921
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/court-of-appeals-forcible-entry-no124921 5/12
CA-G.R.
SP
No,
tZ492l
DECISION
Page
4
of
11
was docketed
as
Civil Case
No.
13540,4
On September
5,
20 i
t,
the
court
Ordef
dismissing
the
Compiaint
for
lack
decretal
portion
of rvhich
states:
a
of
quo
issued
an
jurisdiction,
the
WHEREFORE, in vierv
of
the
foregoing,
this
case
is
hereby
dismissed
for want
of
jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED
The court
a
qr"ro
ratiocinated in this
wise:
A
review
of
relevant
jurisprudence
on
intra-corporate
controversies
shows
a
development in the
Ccurt's
approach
in
classifying
what
constitutes
an
intra-corporate
controversy. Initially,
the main
considera.tion
in determining
whether
a
dispute
constitutes
an
intra-corporate
controvers.;
was
limited
to
a consideration
of
the intra-corporate
relation
exisiting betrveen
or
among
the
parties.
The type of
relationship
embraced under
Section 5(b) xx>(x were
as
follows:
a)
Between
the
corporaLion,
partnership
or association
and the pubiic;
b)
Between
the corporation,
partnership
or
association
and
its
stockholders,
partners,
members or
officers;
c)
Among
the
stockholders,
partners
or
associates
tL'.emselves.
the
existence
of any of the
above intra.corporate relations
was
sutficient
to confer
jurisdiction
to
the
SEC
(now
the
RTC), regardless
of Lhe subject
matter
of
the dispute.
This
came
to
be known
as
the
relationship
test.
However,
in
the
1984
case
of
DMRC
Enterprises
v.
Esta
Del
Sol
Mountain
Reserve
Inc., the Court
introduced
the
nature
of
the
controversy
test.
It
declared
in
this
case
that
it is
not
the nrere existence
of an
intra-corporate
relationsirip that
gives
rise to
an
intra-corporate
controversy;
to
rely
on the
reiationship
test
alone
wili
divest the regular
courts
of their
jurisdiction
fbr
the sole
reason
that the
dispute
involves
a
corporation,
its directors,
officers,
or
stockholders,
Tht:y
saw
that
there is no legal
sense
in
disregarding
or
minimizing
the
value
of t ature of
the
Rollo,
pp,
195-206
Rollo,
pp.
39-46
CA.G,Ii,
CR,/I]\?SP
NO.
IGOME't
Pr,irrfr'r,,r
I
l)1':
BY:
lt/
ATTY
ARNET,
N.
MACAPAGAI'
Clrief
RcPortcr
COUR'f
OF
APPEAI.S
N
VI.RIFIED 3Y:
8/18/2019 Court of Appeals Forcible Entry No.124921
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/court-of-appeals-forcible-entry-no124921 6/12
CA-G.R. SP No. L24927
DECISION
Page 5
of 11
transactions
which
give
rise to
the dispute.
xxx
To determine
whether
a
case
involves
an
intra-
corporate
controversy,
and
is to
be
heard
and
decided by
the
branches
of
the
RTC
specifically
designated
by the
Court
to
try and
decide such
cases,
two
elements
must
concur,
to
wit:
(a)
The
statrrs
of
relationship
of
the
parties
and
(b)
The natu.re of
the
question
that
is the subject
matter
of
their controversy
xxxx
Guided
by this
recent
jurisprudence,
this
first
level
court
{inds
that
it does
not
have any
jurisdiction
in
this
case
at
it involves
intra-corporate
issues; thus,
it dismisses
the
case
motu
propio.
In
addition, it
bears emphasizing
that the
jurisdiction
of a court
or
tri,:unal
over the
case
is
determined
by
the
allegations in
the
complaint and
the character
of the
relief
songht, irrespective
of
whether
or
not
the
plaintiff
is
entitled
to
recover
all or
some
of
the
claims
asserted
therein.
Moreover,
pursuant to
Section
5.2 of
Republic
Act
No.
8799
otherwise
known
as the
Securities
Regulation Code, the
jurisdiction
of
the
SEC
over
all cases enumerated
under
Section
5 of
PresiCential Decree No.
9O2-A
has
been
transferred
to RTC designated
by the
Suprerne Court
as
SCC's
pursuant
to
A.M.
No.
00-03-SC
promulgated
on
21
November
2000.
Thus, section
1(a), Rule 1 of
the
Interim
Rules
of
Procedure
Governing Intra-Corporate,
Controversies
(lnterim
Rules)
provides as follows:
"Section
1
(a)
Cases
covered. - These rules shall
govern
the
procedure
to
be
observed
in
civil
cases
involving
the
following:
(1)
Devices
or
schemes
employed
by, or
any
act
of,
the
board of directors,
business
associates, offiers
or
parties,
amounting
to
fraud
or
misrepresenLation
which may
be
detrimental to the
interest
of the
public
and/or
stockholders,
partners,
or rnernbers of
any
corporation,
partnership
or asso:iation.
t2l
Contloversies
arising
out
of
intra-corporate,
partnership,
or
association, relation
and
among
een, any or
association
associates,
stockholder, members
or
associa
,
and be
all
of
them
and
the corporation,
ership
of which they are
stockhol
,
members,
o
t
CA.G,R.
CR/CViSP
No.
--ATTY,
ERE,SITA
ARIGOMEnT
Cler
ourt
Pr'rrrfllurl
B),:
BY:
A'I'TY
ARNE'1,
D.
I\TACAPAGAL
[.,
clrirf&.cporrer
___l\l,.___
couR.r
oF Apr,EALs
I
vERIFIED
(
t
8/18/2019 Court of Appeals Forcible Entry No.124921
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/court-of-appeals-forcible-entry-no124921 7/12
CA-G,R.
SP
No.
tZqgZL
DECISION
Page
6
of
11
respectively;
(3)
Controversies
in
the
election
or appointment
of
directors,
trustees,
officers
or
marragers
of corporations,
partnerships
or
associations.
(4) Derivative
suits;
and
(5)
Inspection
of
corporare
books.
WHEREFORE,
in view
of
the
foregoing,
this
case
is
hereby
dismissed
for want
of
jurisdiction.
SC
ORDERED."
Petitioner
appealed
to
the
Regional
Trial
court
(RTC)
and
on
its
March
L,
2012
Decision,
the
latter
affirmecl
the
MTc's
Order, disposing
as
follows,
ujz:
WHEREPORE,
the
Order
dated
September
6,
2O11
of
the
Municipal
Trial
court
in
cities,
Bianch
1,
is
hereby
AFFIRMED
in
toto.
SO
ORDERED,
His
motion
for
reconsideration
having
been
denied
pursuant
to
the
RTc's
order6
dated
April
80,
20
12,
petitioner
is
nov/
before
this
court,
praying
among
others
that
tkre
Decision
of
the
RTc
be
reversed
and
set
asride
and
that
we
remand
the
case
to
the
ccurt
a
quo
for
further
proceedings.
He
raised
the
following
issues
for
our
resolution:
I.
,IHE
REGIONAL
TRIAI,
COURT,
BAGUiO
CITY
BRANCH
5
GRIEVOUSLY
ERRBD
IN
DECLARING
THAT
PETITIONER
S
MOTION
FOR
RECONSIDBRATION
DATED
MARCH
22,20L2
DOES
NOT
CONTAIN
A
NOTICE
OF HEARING
II.
THE
REGIONAL
TRIAI,
COURT,
BAGUIO
CITY
BRANCH
5
GRIEVOUSLY
ERI1ED
IN
DISMISSING
THE
COMPLAINT
FOR
WANT
OF
JURISDICTION
III.
THE
REGIONAL
GRIEVOUSLY
COMPLAINT
IS
CONTROVERSY
TRIAL
COURT,
BAGUIO
CITY
BRANCH
5
ERRED
IN
DECLARING
THAT
THE
CA,G,i,
CR/CV/S?
NO,
*-
A'ITY,
ARIGOMEII
Court
p11,11f
1,'1;l
[lf
i
l]Y:
ATTY
APNE
T}. il(ACAPAGAL
Clrief
ii.r,i,or(er
COURT
OF
nPPEAl-3
4
VERIFIED
BYt
6
Rollo,
p,
193
8/18/2019 Court of Appeals Forcible Entry No.124921
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/court-of-appeals-forcible-entry-no124921 8/12
CA-G.R,
SP No, 124921
DECISION
Page
7
of 11
IV.
THE
REGIONAL
TzuAL
COURT,
BAGUIO
CITY
BRANCH
5
GRIEVOUSLY
ERRED
IN
AFFIRMI}'IG
THE
MUNICIPAL
TRIAL
COURT
II\ CITIES,
BRANCH
1
IN
NOT
RESOLVING
PETITIONER'S
URGENT OMNIBUS
MOTION
FOR
INHIBITION
AND
DEFERMENT
OF
PROCEEDINGS
PENDING
RESOLI.JTION
OF THE
MOTION
FOR
INHIBITION.
Simply stated,
the
crux of
the
controversy
is
whether
or
not the
RTC
was correct
in
affirming
th=
Order
of
the
MTC
which
d.ismissed
the
case for
want
of
jurisdiction.
The
appeal
is meritorious.
Settled
is
the
rule
that
th.e
allegations
in
the
corriplaint
and the reliefs
prayed
for are
the
determinants
of
the
nature
of
the action
and
of
which
court
has
jurisdiction
over
the
matter.T ,{s a
necessary
consequence,
the
jurisdiction
of
the
court
cannot
be made to depend
upon
the
defenses
set
up
in
the answer or upon the motion
to dismiss,
for
otherwise,
the
question
of
jurisdiction
would
depend
almost
entirely
upon
the
defendant.s
The
courrt
a.
qtrc,
according
to
Batas
Bilang
129,
hns the
exclusive
jurisdicti,cn
over
forcible entry
and
unlawful
detainer
cases,e
the
main
issue
being
is
merely
possessLoil
de
facto,
independent
of any claim of ownership or
possession
de
jure
that
either
party
lnay
set
fbrth
in
his
pleading.l0
To
make out a
Forcible
Entry
case, the
complaint
must
necessarily
allege that one
in
physical
possession
of a
land
or
building
has been
depriv'ed
of that
possession
by
another
through force, intimidation, threat., strates/
or stealth.
It
is
not
essential,
however, that the complaint should
expressly
employ
the
language
of
the law,
but
it
would suffice
that
facts
are set
up
sho'wing
that
dLspossession
took
place
under
said
conditions. In other
yvords,
the
plaintiff
must
allege
that
he,
prior
to
the defendant's
act
of
dispossession
by
force,
intimidation,
threat,
strategXr or s[ealth,
had
been
in
pri,cr
physical possession
of the
property. tfris requirement
is
jurisdictional,
and as
long
as
the allegations
demonstrate
a
cause
of action
for
forcible entry,
the
court
acquires
Del
Rosario
v. Gerry
Roxas
Foundation, 551
SCRA
414
See
Ganadin
vs.
Ramos,99
SCRA
621
See BP 129,
The
Judiciary
Reorganiza:ion Act
of
1980
See
Alvir vs. Vera,
130
SCRA
357
C,r"G.R,
CR/CV/SI,
No.
--ATTY.
T
7
I
q
10
0lrief
Rcporter
couRT OF
APPEAII
n
VERIFIED
BYI
TY
Prrtu(r,'0(l
8t':
8/18/2019 Court of Appeals Forcible Entry No.124921
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/court-of-appeals-forcible-entry-no124921 9/12
CA-G.R,
SP No. LZ492L
DECISION
Page
B
of
lt
jurisdiction
over
the
subject
matter.ll The
sole
question
for
resolution
hinges
on
the
physical
or
material
posse$sion
of
the
property.
Ejectment
cases
proceed
independently of
any clzum
of
ownership,
and
the
plaintiff
merely
to
prove
prior
possession
de
facto
and
undue
deprivation thereof.12
With
these
in
mind, We
examine
the
petitioner's
Complaint,
which
essentially states:
8. Within
the
compound
of
Benguet
Pines
Tourist Inn,
particularly
the old building
fronting the orchidarium
is an
ancestral
land
of
the
f)elos
Santos family
which
plaintiff,
his family
members
and
personal
staff have
been
staying
in
or
occu.pying for
several
years/decades
even before
the
establlshment of
Benguet
Pines
Tourist
Inn.
9.
As
a
brief
background,
University
of
Manila, which
owlls Benguet
Pines
Tourist Inn
is a family corporatic.rn
owned by
plaintiffs
late
grandparents
and
parents.
Prior
to
the death
of his
father
Dr,
Virgilio
D. delos
Santos
on
Januaqr
21,
2008,
plaintiff
had continuously
operated
PINES
SHADOW
CAFE which
was
separertcly
registered
in
his
name,
as
p:roof
thereof plaintiff
is
submitting
herewith
a copy
of the
Permit
to
Engage in
Business
of
PINES
SHADOW
CAFE
which
is
registered
trnder
his
name
to
form
an
integral
part
of
this
complaint.
10. Sornetime
on
,fune
15,
2011 while
plaintiff
was in
Manila,
the
defendants
took advantage
of
his
absence
and
defendants
security
guards
Roberto
c.
Gaudia
and
Angelo
P.
Mendalo
assisted
by
defendants
Juliewhynn
Quendoza,
Jocelyn
Oligario
and
Jeffrey
Oligario,
claiming
that
they
were
authorized
by
defendant
Mrs. Emily
De
Leon,
physically
removed
his
personal
belongings,
kitchen
equipment
and
cooking
utensils
ancl other
things from
PINES SHADOW CAFE.
xxxx
12.
On
the
mere
clairrr
of the
defendant that
there
is
,a
Board
Resolution,
defenclants
stealthily
and
forcibly
removJd
the
possessions
of the
plaintiff.
Thus, he was
unduly
deprived
of
his
property
rights
and
t-o
due
process
which
are
well-protected
by the Philippine
Constitution.
Granting,
for
the
sake
of
argurnent,
that
the
said Board Resol0tion
was
in
fact
passed
or
approved,
defendants
took
u
1Z
Sqe
Gachon v. Devera
Jr.,
274
SCRA
540, June 20, L997
See Pagadora
v, Ilao,
G.R. No. 165769, December
L2,2O1L
C^.c,R,
Ci,/CV/Sp
No.
Clrief Re
porter
COUR'T
OF AP?EALS
VERIFIED
By'
Prrh.
ti'r'rrl
'tr,:
nto
their
8/18/2019 Court of Appeals Forcible Entry No.124921
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/court-of-appeals-forcible-entry-no124921 10/12
CA-G,R,
SP
No.
L24921
DECISION
Page 9 of 11
own
hands by
ousting
plaintiff
therefrom
through
the use
of
force, intimidation,
steaith, strategr and threats.xxx
xxxx
16.
At
present
plaintiff
is still
prevented
from
entering
the
ancestral
house
as
well
as the
premises
of
pINES
SHADOW
CAFE
especially
after
defendant
Reynaldo
a.
Marcial
stated
that
plaintiff
must
be careful
as
he
might be
shot
which
was
overheard
by sP03
Samuel
poe
and
Nelso
Domingo
and
otners
present
thereat.
(ernphasis
Ours)
'lhe
foregoing
clearly
demonstrate
that
the
required
jurisdictional
averment::
to
establish.
a cause
of
action
for
forcible
entry
were
all
complied
with
by
petitioner,
From
the
relerrant
details
found
in
the
Cornptaint,
the
means
by which
petitioner's
dispossession
\vas
effected
c?rlrr,Dt
be
said
to
have
been
insufficiently
alleged
but
which
the lower
courts
unfortunately
failed
to
recognize.
The
"how"
(through
force
and
itrtimidation
by
utilizing
security guards
to
effect
the
dispossession),
"when"
(June
25,
Zbt
t;,
anrl
,,where,,
(anscestral
house
and
Pines
shad,cw
cafe)
of
the
d"ispossession
all
appear
on
the
face
of
the
complaint.
The
said
complaint
was
in
fact
amply
substantiated
by
petitioner
by
appending
thereto
the
certifications
issued
by
the
Baguio
Police
office
that
on
the
said
deite (June
2s
,
20
L r)
,
the
respondents
removed
hun
from
the
ancestral
house
and the
Pines
Shadow
Ca_fe.13
It
cannot
also
be
denied
that
Delos
santos
was
in
prior
possession
of
the
anscestral
house
ar:.d
the
pines
Shadow
Cafe
before
he was
unceremoniously
"removed"
therefrom
by the
respondents.
Delos
Santos
merely
seeks
to
be reinstated
to
the
"possession"
of
the
anscestral
house
and.
pines
shadow
Ca-fe
and
whatever
claims
of
owrrership
both
parties
may
have
to
these
properties,
the
sa-rne
can
be
properly
threshed
out in
a more
appropriate
proceeding.
Admittedly,
while
respondent
UM
owned
Benguet
Pines,
it
cannot
be
amiss
that petitioner
occupied
Pines
Shado',v
Cafe
and
the
ancestral
house
prior
to
his
ouster.
CA-G.R,
CR/CV/SP
No,
MARIGOMEX
Court
P
rrr
ri
I
rt,
H
ATTY
ARNEI,
D.
MACAPACA\
Chirf
Re
porter
COUR,I OF APPEAH
T1
vE[tlFIED
BY:
13
Supra
note
3
8/18/2019 Court of Appeals Forcible Entry No.124921
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/court-of-appeals-forcible-entry-no124921 11/12
CA-G,R.
SP
tlo. 72492I
DECISION
Page
10
of
tt
Moreover,
even
respond.ents
UM
seem
to
recOgntze
that
petitioner
was
allowed
to
occupy
a
portion
of
Benguet
Pines
for
-Pirr",
Shadow
Cafe
and
it
"tolLra.ted"
his
stay
in
the
ancestral
house.la These
ad.missions
all
the
more support
petitioner's
claim
that
he
was
indeed.
in
prior
possession
of
the
aforestated
properties.
Respondents'
Answerl5
to
the
Complaint
reveals
the
following,
to
wit:
'2O.
That
the
Benguet
Pines
Tourist
Inn,
which
housed
the
pINES
SHApOW
Cepp,
the
ancestral
house
and the
land
which
they stand,
are
owned
by
the
university
of
Manila
rvhich
is a
juridical
entitv
duly
incorporated
under
Philippine
Laws;
2I.
xx>(
22.
That
ptaintiff
Rrnesto
Delos Santos
managed
and
operated
BENGUET
PINES
TOURIST
INN
which
housed
PINES SHADOW
CAFE,
by
toleration
from
the
members
of
the Board
of
Trustees
In
as
much
as he
is
alos
a
member
of
the
Board
of
Trustees
and
at
the
same
time the
Vice
Presid.ent
of
LI.M.
And
he
is
willing
to
stay
in
Baguio
city;
and as such
manaEler
and
operator
of
BENGUET
TOURIST
INN said
plaintiff
is toterated
also
to occupy
a
room
in
the alleged
ancestral
house
while
hls
employees
tn
PINES
SHADOW
CAFE
wene
allowed to
stay
in the
annex
structure
of
the
ancestral
house;
(emphasis Ours)
The
foregoing
clearly
state
that UM
recognizes
petitioner's
occupation of the said
properties
prior
to his
unlawful
ouster
by
respondents.
i
Meanwhile,
though
We agree
with
respondents
that
UM
may
Fossess
the
power
to issure a Board
Resolution
in order
to
carry
into
effect
its
legitimate
powers
under
the
Corporation
Code,
the
same, however,
rnust
be carried
out
in
the
proper
and
lega1
mannel:.
Lts
act
of dispossessing
Delos
Santos
from
Pines Shadow
Cafe
and
the ancestral
hou.se,
granting
it owns
these
propertiesr,
should
have
been
implemented
within
the
means sanctioned
by law.
In
sum,
petitioner
was
able
to
present in
his
Complaint
before
the
coutt a
quo
tlne
necessary
averments
to establish
a
cause
of action for F orcible
Entry
and
the
same
should
have
been
heard by the court
a.
quo,
rather
ishiss
it
for
lack
14
Rollo,
pp.375-376
and
p.298
ls
Rollo,
p.
124
Ce-G.R.
CR/CVTSP
No.
ATTY.
ARIGOME,\
Pr0olrr,trt
ltr':
tlY:
,l
\
ATT
v
T,
N,
MACAPAGA\
Chief Reporter
COURT OF
APPEAI.S
rt
VERIFIED
BY:
8/18/2019 Court of Appeals Forcible Entry No.124921
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/court-of-appeals-forcible-entry-no124921 12/12
CA-G.R. SP No. L74921
DECISiON
Page 11
of
11
of
jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE,
premi.ses considel'ed,
the
appeal
is
GRAI{TED
and
the
case
is
REIVIANDED
to the Municipal
Tria-l
Court
in Cities,
Branch
1,
Baguio
City
for disposition
of
the
rnerits
of the
case
with dispatch.
SO
ORDERED,
WE
CONCUR:
,#(otft*;^rs?^ffEs
Associate
Justice
ory-z-4/
MARTFL
OX
v/huNZALAI{
CASTILLO
CER'TIFICITTION
Pursuant to
Article
VIII, Section
13
of the Constitution,
it
is
hereby certified
that
the conclusions
in
the above
decision
were reached
in
con.sultation
before
the
case
was assigned
to
the
writer
of
the opinion
of
the
Court.
Associate
Justice
O S.
MACALINO
Associate Justice
MARIFLOR
P. PUN
Associ
Justice
Chairperso
,
Tenth
Divi
CA.G.R,
CR/CV/SP
No.
_-ATTY
ERESITA
TILLO
on
ARIGOMET{
Cter ourl
p;1111fr'l,11
,1
t11,,
BY:
ATTY
I.,
Chief
Re{)orter