G.R. No. L-28156 - MARCH 1987 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-28156March 31, 1987Antonio Buenaventura vs. Geronima Halili Uy, et al. G.R. No. L-30159March 31, 1987Municipality of San Fernando, La Union vs. Mayor Timoteo Sta. Romana G.R. No. L-31189March 31, 1987Municipality of Victorias vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-38513March 31,1987Chartered Bank vs. National Government Auditing Office, et al. G.R. No. L-39767March 31, 1987Lorenzo Hernandez vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-48610March 31, 1987Soledad Provido vs. Octavio Acenas G.R. No. L-70223March 31, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Donato Petil G.R. No. L-72814March 31, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Gregorio Narajos G.R. No. L-73721March 30, 1987AHS/Philippines Employees Union [FFW] vs. National Labor Relations Com G.R. No. L-72830March 24, 1987Jesus E. Sanciangco, Jr., et al. vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-27777March 23, 1987Isabelo V. Binamira vs. Necitas Ogan-Occena G.R. No. L-41861March 23, 1987Commission of Customs vs. Court of Tax Appeals G.R. No. L-46383March 23, 1987Delia Del Valle Vda. De Ortiz vs. Land Bank of the Philippines G.R. No. L-54116March 23, 1987The People of the Philippines vs. Alberto Mañalac G.R. No. L-22590March 20, 1987Solomon Boysaw vs. Interphil Promotions, Inc. G.R. No. L-63260March 20, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Murphy Banzales G.R. No. L-74457March 20, 1987Restituto Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-64508March 19, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Miguel Lasac G.R. No. L-43292March 18, 1987Mauricio Bello vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-74816March 17, 1987Ernesto R. Rodriguez, Jr. et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. L-29701March 16, 1987Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. J. Ludivico D. Arciaga G.R. No. L-33836March 16, 1987Dra. Sofia L. Prudenciado vs. Alliance Transport System, Inc G.R. No. L-35098March 16, 1987Giacomina Marini-Gonzales vs. Hon. Guardson R. Lood G.R. No. L-36402March 16, 1987Filipino Society of Composers vs. Benjamin Tan G.R. No. L-37009March 16, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Faustino N. Hortelano and Juanito S. Paganao G.R. No. L-40402March 16, 1987Republic of the Philippines vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-40797March 16, 1987World-Wide Insurance & Surety Company Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-44484March 16, 1987Osmundo G. Rama vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-45164March 16, 1987Dominico Etcuban vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-47305March 16, 1987Virginia B. Ancheta vs. Angel A. Daquigan G.R. No. L-48639March 16, 1987Eliseo Alinsugay vs. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. L-53364-65March 16, 1987Domiciano Soco vs. Mercantile Corporation of Davao G.R. No. L-55932March 16, 1987Ignacio Domalanta vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-58036March 16, 1987Eliseo Boticano vs. Manuel Chu, Jr. G.R. No. L-60575March 16, 1987Francisco E. Pobre vs. J. Arsenio M. Gonong G.R. No. L-61404March 16, 1987Paramount Insurance Corporation vs. J. Artemon D. Luna G.R. Nos. L-75511-14March 16, 1987Agustin V. Talino vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. L-70736March 16, 1987Bonifacio L. Hilario vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-71044-45March 16, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo De La Cruz G.R. No. L-75243March 16, 1987Paz M. Dingle vs. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-68635March 12, 1987In Re: Disciplinary Action Atty. Wenceslao Laureta G.R. No. L-70853March 12, 1987Republic of The.Philippines vs. Pablo Feliciano, et Al G.R. No. L-70360March 11,1987Arevalo Gomez Corporation vs. Anders Lao Hian Liong G.R. No. L-65295March 10, 1987Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-29062March 9, 1987Philippine Refining Company vs. Enrico Palomar G.R. No. L-30644March 9, 1987Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company G.R. No. L-33952March 9, 1987Ortigas & Company, Limited Partnership vs. Vivencio M. Ruiz G.R. No. L-59974March 9, 1987Teodora Mariano, et al. vs. Hon. Judge Jesus R. De Vega, et al. G.R. No. L-65510March 9, 1987Teja Marketing vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-45129March 6, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Benjamin Relova G.R. No. L-36654March 3, 1987Francisco Novesteras vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-61931March 3, 1987Jesus Chavez vs. Employees Compensation Commission The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Antonio Buenaventura vs. Geronima Halili Uy, et al.Municipality of San Fernando, La Union vs. Mayor Timoteo Sta. RomanaMunicipality of Victorias vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Chartered Bank vs. National Government Auditing Office, et al.Lorenzo Hernandez vs. Court of AppealsSoledad Provido vs. Octavio AcenasPeople of the Philippines vs. Donato PetilPeople of the Philippines vs. Gregorio NarajosAHS/Philippines Employees Union [FFW] vs. National Labor Relations ComJesus E. Sanciangco, Jr., et al. vs. People of the PhilippinesIsabelo V. Binamira vs. Necitas Ogan-OccenaCommission of Customs vs. Court of Tax AppealsDelia Del Valle Vda. De Ortiz vs. Land Bank of the PhilippinesThe People of the Philippines vs. Alberto MañalacSolomon Boysaw vs. Interphil Promotions, Inc.People of the Philippines vs. Murphy BanzalesRestituto Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtPeople of the Philippines vs. Miguel LasacMauricio Bello vs. Workmen's Compensation CommissionErnesto R. Rodriguez, Jr. et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. J. Ludivico D. ArciagaDra. Sofia L. Prudenciado vs. Alliance Transport System, IncGiacomina Marini-Gonzales vs. Hon. Guardson R. LoodFilipino Society of Composers vs. Benjamin TanPeople of the Philippines vs. Faustino N. Hortelano and Juanito S. PaganaoRepublic of the Philippines vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.World-Wide Insurance & Surety Company Inc. vs. Court of AppealsOsmundo G. Rama vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Dominico Etcuban vs. Court of AppealsVirginia B. Ancheta vs. Angel A. DaquiganEliseo Alinsugay vs. Court of AppealsDomiciano Soco vs. Mercantile Corporation of DavaoIgnacio Domalanta vs. Court of AppealsEliseo Boticano vs. Manuel Chu, Jr.Francisco E. Pobre vs. J. Arsenio M. GonongParamount Insurance Corporation vs. J. Artemon D. LunaAgustin V. Talino vs. SandiganbayanBonifacio L. Hilario vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtPeople of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo De La CruzPaz M. Dingle vs. Hon. Intermediate Appellate CourtIn Re: Disciplinary Action Atty. Wenceslao LauretaRepublic of The.Philippines vs. Pablo Feliciano, et AlArevalo Gomez Corporation vs. Anders Lao Hian LiongPhoenix Construction, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtPhilippine Refining Company vs. Enrico PalomarCommissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Fireman's Fund Insurance CompanyOrtigas & Company, Limited Partnership vs. Vivencio M. RuizTeodora Mariano, et al. vs. Hon. Judge Jesus R. De Vega, et al.Teja Marketing vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtPeople of the Philippines vs. Benjamin RelovaFrancisco Novesteras vs. Court of AppealsJesus Chavez vs. Employees Compensation CommissionThe Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-28156 March 31, 1987
ANTONIO BUENAVENTURA,plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
GERONIMA HALILI UY, SYLVIA TE, FELY TE, HELEN TE, REGINO TE, BENJAMIN TE, LUIS TE, BELEN TE LIM, MANUEL LIM, VIRGINIA TE DUY, CHARLIE DUY, LOURDES TE LIM, SEGUNDO LIM, and HENRY TE,defendants-appellees.
Cañete, Tolentino, Arcangel & Guyo Law Office for plaintiff- appellant.
PARAS,J.:
This is an appeal from the Order of the Court of First Instance of Davao in Civil Case No. 5076
The undisputed facts of this case as found by the City Court of Davao City are as follows:
Plaintiff-appellant Antonio Buenaventura by virtue of a written contract of lease, leased unto the defendant-appellee Geronima Halili Uy and her husband a portion consisting of 144 square meters of his residential lot located at Bolton Street, Davao City, where the latter constructed their residential house. The consideration is P50.00 a month for a period of twenty five (25) years. The appellees however, occupied an area of 279 square meters or 135 square meters in excess of the leased premises. Upon discovery of this unauthorized occupancy, appellant notified appellees to remove the additional construction on the excess portion. However, appellees agreed to pay an additional rent of P30.00 a month for the area in question and appellant allowed them to occupy the same until the time he would need the premises. Sometime later, this need arose and appellant thru counsel demanded that appellees vacate the excess portion. Upon refusal to vacate, an action was filed for "forcible entry and detainer," before the City Court of Davao City, docketed as Civil Case No. 603-A, entitled "Antonio Buenaventura vs. Geronima Halili Uy, et al" (Record on Appeals, pp. 5-11).
Defendants filed a Motion To Dismiss on the grounds of: (a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the complaint not having been verified and the supposed forcible entry having taken place almost seventeen (17) years ago and (b) lack of cause of action (Ibid.,pp. 14-22).
The City Court allowed counsel for plaintiff to amend his complaint and the defendants' motion to dismiss was denied (Ibid.,pp. 23-24).
Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint duly verified with its caption changed to "Ejectment" but the ultimate facts remained materially the same as those in the original complaint (Ibid.,pp. 24-31; Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellant, p. 3).
From the evidence presented the City Court rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff; the dispositive portion of which reads.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, sentencing the defendants:
(1) To vacate the excess portion in question and to restore the possession thereof to the plaintiff;
(2) To pay the plaintiff the agreed monthly rental at the rate of P 30 a month from June, 1965 until they vacate the premises; and
(3) To pay the costs.
Defendants' counterclaim for damages and attorney's fees not having been substantiated, is hereby dismissed. (Record on Appeal, pp. 40-45)
On appeal, the Court of First Instance of Davao sustained the position of counsel for the defendant and dismissed the case, (Ibid.,pp. 69-73) and denied the motion for reconsideration of said Order filed by the plaintiff (Ibid,pp. 129-230).
Hence this appeal.
In his brief appellant raised the following assignment of errors:
1. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT INASMUCH AS THE ACTION WAS NOT BROUGHT WITHIN THE ONE YEAR PERIOD PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 1, RULE 70, OF THE RULES OF COURT, THE CITY COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINANT
2. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ABSENCE OF VERIFICATION OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT;
3. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SINCE THE CITY COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE COMPLAINT IT HAD NECESSARILY NO JURIST DICTION TO ORDER ITS AMENDMENT; and
4. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT.
The main issue in this case which in effect combines the four errors assigned is whether or not the suit instituted by the herein plaintiff-appellant is a forcible entry or an unlawful detainer case.
The Supreme Court inDikit v. Ycasiano(89 Phil. 46-49 [1951]) clearly laid down some distinctions between the two actions, as follows: (1) As to possession: the possession of the intruder or person who deprives another of the possession of a land or building in forcible entry is illegal from the beginning because his entry into or taking possession thereof is made against the will or without the consent of the former possessor; while in unlawful detainer, the possession of the detainer is originally legal or lawful but it becomes illegal after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession of the land or building by virtue of a contract; (2) As to demand to vacate: in forcible entry, no previous demand to vacate is required by law before the filing of the action; while in an action for unlawful detainer by a landlord against his tenant, such demand is required.
Coming back to the case at bar, there is no question that the action filed by herein plaintiff-appellant is not one of forcible entry but of unlawful detainer.ℒαwρhi৷For it is clear that when appellant asked appellees to vacate the excess portion of the land (which excess had been the subject of the additional lease agreement) because of his need for the premises, and the appellees refused, their continued possession of the excess becameunlawful —the filing of the complaint within the one-year statutory period makes the case fall under the jurisdiction of the City Court.
Likewise, it is settled that the requirement regarding verification of a pleading is a formal not a jurisdictional requisite. It is simply intended to secure an assurance that what are alleged in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith. Thus, the court may order the correction of the pleading if not verified, (Oshita v. Republic, 19 SCRA 700 [1967]). The defect was merely format It did not affect the validity and efficacy of the pleading, much less the jurisdiction of the court(Gadit v. Feliciano, Sr., 69 SCRA 388, 389 [1976]).
In the case at bar the City Court correctly denied the motion to dismiss and allowed the amendment of the complaint by the verification of the same.
PREMISES CONSIDERED,the assailed Order of the Court of First Instance of Davao is herebySET ASIDE,and the decision of the City Court of Davao City is herebyREINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Padilla, Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.
Footnotes