ANNEX-D_Sarona-vs.-Villegas-G.R.-No.-L-22984-27-March-1968.docx - ANNEX D SARONA vs VILLEGAS G.R No L-22984 EN BANC SANCHEZ J FACTS The problem arose

ANNEX-D_Sarona-vs.-Villegas-G.R.-No.-L-22984-27-March-1968.docx

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 4 pages.

ANNEX DSARONA vs. VILLEGASG.R. No. L-22984. March 27, 1968EN BANC, SANCHEZ, J.FACTS: The problem arose because on January 28, 1963, plaintiffs lodged with the Municipal Court ofPadada, Davao, against defendants as complaint, styled "Unlawful Detainer." 1 They there aver that theyare the absolute owners and in possession of a parcel of land in Paligue, Padada. They asked that they be restored into possession, and that defendants be made to pay rents, attorneys'fees, expenses of litigation, and costs.Defendants met the complaint with a motion to dismiss on the sole ground of lack of jurisdiction of themunicipal court. They say that the case is one of forcible entry, and the reglementary one-year period hadelapsed before suit was started.The municipal court overturned the motion to dismiss.On May 15, 1963, defendants registered their answer. They reiterated the court's lack of jurisdiction, andby way of affirmative defenses, stated that plaintiffs have no cause of action, and that "the presentresidential house of the defendants was transferred to the present site after plaintiffs sold to defendants aportion of their land, which includes the site of the present house and from and after said sale, defendantshave occupied the said portion legally and with the knowledge and consent of plaintiffs." Theycounterclaimed for damages.The municipal court's judgment directed defendants to vacate the premises, to pay plaintiffs a monthlyrental of P10.00, from April 1, 1958 until possession is restored, and P200.00 as attorneys' fees, and costs.Defendants, on appeal to the court of First Instance of Davao,2 renewed their bid to throw out of courtplaintiffs' complaint for want of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs' opposition and defendants' reply thereto were alsosubmitted.On December 26, 1963, the Court of First Instance of Davao dismissed the case. The court reasoned butthat the suit was one of forcible entry and was started beyond the reglementary one-year period.ISSUE(s): Is the complaint one of forcible entry or unlawful detainer? HELD:1.Section 1, Rule 70 (formerly Section 10, Rule 72) of the Revised Rules of Court, states that a persondeprived of possession of land "by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth," or a person againstwhom the possession of any land "is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of theright to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied," may at any time "within one(1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action in the properinferior court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession." The
Background image
Image of page 2

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture