Caniza vs. Ca

7/16/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME268
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Caiza vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R. No. 110427. February 24, 1997.
The Incompetent, CARMEN CAIZA, represented by her

legal guardian, AMPARO EVANGELISTA, petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION),
PEDRO ESTRADA and his wife, LEONORA ESTRADA,
respondents.
Actions Pleadings and Practice What determines the nature

of an action as well as which court has jurisdiction over it are the
allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought.
It is axiomatic that what determines the nature of an action as
well as which court has jurisdiction over it, are the allegations of
the complaint and the character of the relief sought. An inquiry
into the averments of the amended complaint in the Court of
origin is thus in order.
Same Same Ejectment Unlawful Detainer A complaint for
unlawful detainer is sufficient if it alleges that the withholding of
possession or the refusal to vacate is unlawful without necessarily
employing the terminology of the law.Undoubtedly, a cause of
action for desahucio has been adequately set out. It is settled that
in an action for unlawful detainer, to allege that the defendant is
unlawfully withholding possession from the plaintiff is deemed
sufficient, and a complaint for unlawful detainer is sufficient if it
alleges that the withholding of possession or the refusal to vacate
is unlawful without necessarily employing the terminology of the
law.
Same Same Same Same An owners act of allowing another
to occupy her house, rentfree, does not create a permanent and
indefeasible right of possession in the latters favor.The
argument is arrant sophistry. Caizas act of allowing the
Estradas to occupy her
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014e97967ae6cb5ff254000a0094004f00ee/p/AJZ633/?username=Guest 1/20
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
641
VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 24, 1997 641
house, rentfree, did not create a permanent and indefeasible

right of possession in the latters favor. Common sense, and the
most rudimentary sense of fairness clearly require that that act of
liberality be implicitly, but no less certainly, accompanied by the
necessary burden on the Estradas of returning the house to
Caiza upon her demand. More than once has this Court
adjudged that a person who occupies the land of another at the
latters tolerance or permission without any contract between
them is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will
vacate upon demand, failing which a summary action for
ejectment is the proper remedy against him. The situation is not
much different from that of a tenant whose lease expires but who
continues in occupancy by tolerance of the owner, in which case
there is deemed to be an unlawful deprivation or withholding of
possession as of the date of the demand to vacate. In other words,
one whose stay is merely tolerated becomes a deforciant illegally
occupying the land or property the moment he is required to
leave.
Same Same Same Same Where there had been more than
one demand to vacate, the oneyear period for filing the complaint
for unlawful detainer must be reckoned from the date of the last
demand, the reason being that the lessor has the option to waive
his right of action based on previous demands and let the lessee
remain meanwhile in the premises.It may not be amiss to point
out in this connection that where there had been more than one
demand to vacate, the oneyear period for filing the complaint for
unlawful detainer must be reckoned from the date of the last
demand, the reason being that the lessor has the option to waive
his right of action based on previous demands and let the lessee
remain meanwhile in the premises. Now, the complaint filed by
Caizas guardian alleges that the same was filed within one (1)
year from the date of the first letter of demand dated February 3,
1990. Although this averment is not in accord with law because

there is in fact a second letter of demand to vacate, dated
February 27, 1990, the mistake is inconsequential, since the
complaint was actually filed on September 17, 1990, well within
one year from the second (last) written demand to vacate.
Same Same Same Same Guardianship A judicial guardian
is clothed with authority to withdraw the wards earlier express
permission given to third persons to occupy a certain property.
The Estradas possession of the house stemmed from the owners
express permission. That permission was subsequently
withdrawn by the
642
owner, as was her right and it is immaterial that the withdrawal

was made through her judicial guardian, the latter being
indisputably clothed with authority to do so. Nor is it of any
consequence that Carmen Caiza had executed a will bequeathing
the disputed property to the Estradas that circumstance did not
give them the right to stay in the premises after demand to vacate
on the theory that they might in the future become owners
thereof, that right of ownership being at best inchoate, no transfer
of ownership being possible unless and until the will is duly
probated.
Same Same Same Same Where the issue is possession de
facto, not de jure, the proper remedy is ejectment, not accion
publiciana.In any case, the only issue that could legitimately be
raised under the circumstances was that involving the Estradas
possession by tolerance, i.e., possession de facto, not de jure. It is
therefore incorrect to postulate that the proper remedy for Caiza
is not ejectment but accion publiciana, a plenary action in the
RTC or an action that is one for recovery of the right to possession
de jure.
Wills and Succession A will is essentially ambulatoryat any
time prior to the testators death, it may be changed or revoked,
and until admitted to probate, it has no effect whatever and no
right can be claimed thereunder An owners intention to confer
title in the future to persons possessing property by his tolerance is
not inconsistent with the formers taking back possession in the
meantime for any reason deemed sufficient.A will is essentially

ambulatory at any time prior to the testators death, it may be
changed or revoked and until admitted to probate, it has no effect
whatever and no right can be claimed thereunder, the law being
quite explicit: No will shall pass either real or personal property
unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of
Court (ART. 838, id.). An owners intention to confer title in the
future to persons possessing property by his tolerance, is not
inconsistent with the formers taking back possession in the
meantime for any reason deemed sufficient. And that in this case
there was sufficient cause for the owners resumption of
possession is apparent: she needed to generate income from the
house on account of the physical infirmities afflicting her, arising
from her extreme age.
Guardianship The ward has no right to possession or control
of his property during his or her incompetency.Amparo
Evangelista was appointed by a competent court the general
guardian of both the person and the estate of her aunt, Carmen
Caiza. Her Letters of
643
VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 24, 1997 643
Guardianship dated December 19, 1989 clearly installed her as

the guardian over the person and properties of the incompetent
CARMEN CAIZA with full authority to take possession of the
property of said incompetent in any province or provinces in which
it may be situated and to perform all other acts necessary for the
management of her properties **. By that appointment, it
became Evangelistas duty to care for her aunts person, to attend
to her physical and spiritual needs, to assure her wellbeing, with
right to custody of her person in preference to relatives and
friends. It also became her right and duty to get possession of, and
exercise control over, Caizas property, both real and personal, it
being recognized principle that the ward has no right to
possession or control of his property during her incompetency.
That right to manage the wards estate carries with it the right to
take possession thereof and recover it from anyone who retains it,
and bring and defend such actions as may be needful for this
purpose.
Actions Ejectment Even when, in forcible entry and unlawful

detainer cases, the defendant raises the question of ownership in
his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved
without deciding the issue of ownership, the Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts nevertheless have the undoubted competence to resolve the
issue of ownership only to determine the issue of possession.It
may be pointed out in relation to the Estradas defenses in the
ejectment action, that as the law now stands, even when, in
forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, the defendant raises
the question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of
possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of
ownership, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts,
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts nevertheless have the
undoubted competence to resolve the issue of ownership ** only
to determine the issue of possession.
Same Same Parties An ejectment case survives the death of
a party.To be sure, an ejectment case survives the death of a
party. Caizas demise did not extinguish the desahucio suit
instituted by her through her guardian. That action, not being a
purely personal one, survived her death her heirs have taken her
place and now represent her interests in the appeal at bar.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
644

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Priscilla A. Villacorta for petitioner.
Montilla Law Office for private respondents.
NARVASA, C.J.:
On November 20, 1989, being then ninetyfour (94) years of

age, Carmen Caiza, a spinster, a retired pharmacist, and
former professor of the College of Chemistry and Pharmacy
of the University of the 1
Philippines, was declared
incompetent by judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 107, in a guardianship3 proceeding
instituted by her niece, Amparo A. Evangelista. She was so
adjudged because of her advanced age and physical

infirmities which included cataracts in both eyes and senile
dementia. Amparo A. Evangelista was appointed legal
guardian of her person and estate. Caiza was the owner of
a house and lot at No. 61 Tobias St., Quezon City. On
September 17, 1990, her guardian Amparo Evangelista
commenced a suit in the Metropolitan Trial Court
(MetroTC) of Quezon City (Branch 35) to eject the spouses
4
Pedro and Leonora Estrada from said premises. The
complaint was later amended to identify the incompetent
Caiza as plaintiff, suing through her legal guardian,
Amparo Evangelista. 5
The amended Complaint pertinently alleged that
plaintiff Caiza was the absolute owner of the property in
question, covered by TCT No. 27147 that out of kindness,
she had allowed the Estrada Spouses, their children,
grandchildren and
_______________
1 Petition, Annex D, Rollo, pp. 4143.

2 Presided over by Judge Delilah VidallonMagtolis
3Docketed as SP, PROC. No. Q892603 of Branch 107, entitled
Petition for Guardianship of the Person and Estate of the Incompetent
Carmen Caiza, Amparo A. Evangelista, Petitioner.
4 Docketed as Civil Case No. 3410 for Ejectment with Damages.
5 Petition, Annex K, Rollo, pp. 5559.
645
VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 24, 1997 645

sonsinlaw to temporarily reside in her house, rentfree

that Caiza already had urgent need of the house on
account of her advanced age and failing health, so funds
could be raised to meet her expenses for support,
maintenance and medical treatment that through her
guardian, Caiza had asked the Estradas verbally and in
writing to vacate the house but they had refused to do so
and that by the defendants act of unlawfully depriving
plaintiff of the possession of the house in question, they **
(were) enriching themselves at the expense of the
incompetent, because, while they ** (were) saving money
by not paying any rent for the house, the incompetent **
(was) losing much money as her house could not be rented

by others. Also alleged was that the complaint was filed
within one (1) year from the date of first letter of demand
dated February 3, 1990.
In their Answer with Counterclaim, the defendants
declared that they had been living in Caizas house since
the 1960s that in consideration of their faithful service
they had been considered by Caiza as her own family, and
the latter had in fact executed a holographic will on
September 4, 1988 by which she bequeathed to the
Estradas the house and lot in question.
Judgment was rendered 6
by the MetroTC on April 13,
1992 in Caizas favor, the Estradas being ordered to
vacate the premises and pay Caiza P5,000.00 by way of
attorneys fees. 7
But on appeal, the decision was reversed 8
by the Quezon
City Regional Trial Court, Branch9
96. By judgment
rendered on October 21, 1992, the RTC held that the
action by which the issue of defendants possession should
be resolved is accion publiciana, the obtaining factual and
legal situation ** demanding adjudication by such plenary
action for recovery of possession cognizable in the first
instance by the Regional Trial Court.
_______________
6 Petition, Annex B, Rollo, pp. 3335.

7 Docketed as Civil Case No. Q9212554.
8 Presided Over by Judge Lucas P. Bersamin.
9 Rollo, pp. 3640.
646

Caiza sought to have the Court of Appeals reverse the

decision of10October 21, 1992, but failed in that attempt. In
a decision
11
promulgated on June 2, 1993, the Appellate
Court affirmed the RTCs judgment in toto. It ruled that
(a) the proper remedy for Caiza was indeed an accion
publiciana in the RTC, not an accion interdictal in the
MetroTC, since the defendants have not been in the
subject premises as mere tenants or occupants by
tolerance, they have been there as a sort of adopted family
of Carmen Caiza, as evidenced by what purports to be

the holographic will of the plaintiff and (b) while said will,
unless and until it has passed probate by the proper court,
could not be the basis of defendants claim to the property,
** it is indicative of intent and desire on the part of
Carmen Caiza that defendants are to remain and are to
continue in their occupancy and possession, so much so
that Caizas supervening incompetency can not be said to
have vested in her guardian
12
the right or authority to drive
the defendants out.
Through her guardian, Caiza came to this Court
praying for reversal of the Appellate Courts judgment. She
contends in the main that the latter erred in (a) holding
that she should have pursued an accion publiciana, and not
an accion interdictal and in (b) giving much weight to a
xerox copy of an alleged 13
holographic will, which is
irrelevant to this case.
In the responsive
14
pleading filed by them on this Courts
requirement, the Estradas insist that the case against
them was really not one of unlawful detainer they argue
that since possession of the house had not been obtained by
them by any contract, express or implied, as
contemplated by Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court,
their occupancy of the premises could not be deemed one
terminable upon mere demand (and
_______________
10 Rollo, pp. 2732.

11 Special First Division composed of Vailoces, J., ponente, with Lantin
and Mabutas, Jr., JJ., concurring.
12 CA Decision, p. 4, Rollo, p. 30.
13 Petition, p. 11, Rollo, p. 18.
14 Rollo, pp. 97112.
647
VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 24, 1997 647

hence never became unlawful) within the context of the

law. Neither could the suit against them be deemed one of
forcible entry, they add, because they had been occupying
the property with the prior consent of the real owner,
Carmen Caiza, which occupancy can even ripen into full
ownership once the holographic will of petitioner Carmen

Caiza is admitted to probate. They conclude, on those
postulates, that it is beyond the power of Caizas legal
guardian to oust them from the disputed premises.
15
Carmen Caiza died on March 19, 1994, and her heirs
the aforementioned guardian, Amparo Evangelista, and
Ramon C. Nevado, her niece and nephew, respectively
16
were by this Courts leave, substituted for her.
Three issues have to be resolved: (a) whether or not an
ejectment action is the appropriate judicial remedy for
recovery of possession of the property in dispute (b)
assuming desahucio to be proper, whether or not
Evangelista, as Caizas legal guardian had authority to
bring said action and (c) assuming an affirmative answer
to both questions, whether or not Evangelista may continue
to represent Caiza after the latters death.
It is axiomatic that what determines the nature of an

action as well as which court has jurisdiction over it, are
the allegations of the complaint and the character of the
relief
_______________
15 Manifestation dated March 25, 1994.

16 Second Division Resolution dated June 20, 1994.
648

17
sought. An inquiry into the averments of the 18
amended
complaint in the Court of origin is thus
19
in order.
The amended Complaint alleges:
6. That the plaintiff, Carmen Caiza, is the sole and

absolute owner of a house and lot at No. 61 Scout
Tobias, Quezon City, which property is now the
subject of this complaint
** ** **
9. That the defendants, their children, grandchildren
and sonsinlaw, were allowed to live temporarily in

the house of plaintiff, Carmen Caiza, for free, out
of her kindness
10. That the plaintiff, through her legal guardian, has
duly notified the defendants, for them to vacate the
said house, but the two (2) letters of demand were
ignored and the defendants refused to vacate the
same. **
11. That the plaintiff, represented by her legal
guardian, Amparo Evangelista, made another
demand on the defendants for them to vacate the
premises, before Barangay Captain Angelina A.
Diaz of Barangay Laging Handa, Quezon City, but
after two (2) conferences, the result was negative
and no settlement was reached. A photocopy of the
Certification to File Action dated July 4, 1990,
issued by said Barangay Captain is attached,
marked Annex D and made an integral part
hereof
12. That the plaintiff has given the defendants more
than thirty (30) days to vacate the house, but they
still refused to vacate the premises, and they are up
to this time residing in the said place
13. That this complaint is filed within one (1) year from
the date of first letter of demand dated February 3,
1990 (Annex B) sent by the plaintiff to the
defendants, by her legal guardianAmparo
Evangelista
_______________
17 Sumulong vs. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 372 [1994], citing Abrin
vs. Campos, 203 SCRA 420 [1991] Mariategui vs. Court of Appeals, 205
SCRA 337 [1992] Abad vs. Court of First Instance, 206 SCRA 567 [1992]
Del Castillo vs. Aguinaldo, 212 SCRA 169 [1992] Santos vs. Court of
Appeals, 214 SCRA 162 [1992] Ganadin vs. Ramos, 99 SCRA 613 (1980)
Ramirez v. Chit, 21 SCRA 1364 [1967] Mediran vs. Villanueva, 37 Phil.
752 [1918].
18 Sarmiento vs. Court of Appeals, 150 SCRA 108 [1995].
19 Rollo, pp. 5657, underscoring in original text.
649
VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 24, 1997 649
14. By the defendants act of unlawfully depriving the

plaintiff of the possession of the house in question,
they are enriching themselves at the expense of the
incompetent plaintiff, because, while they are
saving money by not paying any rent for the house,
the plaintiff is losing much money as her house
could not be rented by others
15. That the plaintiffs health is failing and she needs
the house urgently, so that funds could be raised to
meet her expenses for her support, maintenance
and medical treatment
16. That because of defendants refusal to vacate the
house at No. 61 Scout Tobias, Quezon City, the
plaintiff, through her legal guardian, was compelled
to go to court for justice, and she has to spend
P10,000.00 as attorneys fees.
20
Its prayer is quoted below:
WHEREFORE, in the interest of justice and the rule of law,

plaintiff, Carmen Caiza, represented by her legal guardian,
Amparo Evangelista, respectfully prays to this Honorable Court,
to render judgment in favor of plaintiff and against the
defendants as follows:
1. To order the defendants, their children, grandchildren,

sonsinlaw and other persons claiming under them, to
vacate the house and premises at No. 61 Scout Tobias,
Quezon City, so that its possession can be restored to the
plaintiff, Carmen Caiza and
2. To pay attorneys fees in the amount of P10,000.00
3. To pay the costs of the suit.
In essence, the amended complaint states:
1) that the Estradas were occupying Caizas house by

tolerancehaving been allowed to live temporarily
** (therein) for free, out of ** (Caizas) kindness
2) that Caiza needed the house urgently because
her health ** (was) failing and she ** (needed)
funds ** to meet her expenses for her support,
maintenance and medical treatment
3) that through her general guardian, Caiza
requested the Estradas several times, orally and in

writing, to give back possession of the house
_______________
20 Rollo, pp. 5758.
650

4) that the Estradas refused and continue to refuse to

give back the house to Caiza, to her continuing
prejudice and
5) that the action was filed within one (1) year from
the last demand to vacate.
Undoubtedly, a cause of action for desahucio has been

adequately set out. It is settled that in an action for
unlawful detainer, it suffices that the defendant is
unlawfully withholding
21
possession from the plaintiff is
deemed sufficient, and a complaint for unlawful detainer
is sufficient if it alleges that the withholding of possession
or the refusal to vacate is unlawful22 without necessarily
employing the terminology of the law.
The Estradas first proffered defense derives from a
literal construction of Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of
Court which inter alia authorizes the institution of an
unlawful detainer suit when the 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. They contend that since they
did not acquire possession of the property in question by
virtue of any contract, express or impliedthey having
been, to repeat, allowed to live temporarily ** (therein) for
free, out of ** (Caizas) kindnessin no sense could there
be an expiration or termination of ** (their) right to hold
possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied.
Nor would an action for forcible entry lie against them,
since there is no claim that they had deprived (Caiza) of
the possession of ** (her property) by force, intimidation,
threat, strategy, or stealth.
_______________
21 Sumulong vs. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 372 [1994], citing

Maddamu vs. Judge of Municipal Court of Manila, 74 Phil. 230 [1943].
22 Sumulong vs. Court of Appeals, supra, citing Co Tiamco vs. Diaz, 75
Phil. 672 [1946] Valderama Lumber Manufacturers Co. vs. L.S.
Sarmiento Co., 5 SCRA 287 [1992] Pangilinan vs. Aguilar, 43 SCRA 136
[1972].
651
VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 24, 1997 651

The argument is arrant sophistry. Caizas act of allowing

the Estradas to occupy her house, rentfree, did not create
a permanent and indefeasible right of possession in the
latters favor. Common sense, and the most rudimentary
sense of fairness clearly require that that act of liberality
be implicitly, but no less certainly, accompanied by the
necessary burden on the Estradas of returning the house to
Caiza upon her demand. More than once has this Court
adjudged that a person who occupies the land of another at
the latters tolerance or permission without any contract
between them is necessarily bound by an implied promise
that he will vacate upon demand, failing which a summary 23
action for ejectment is the proper remedy against him.
The situation is not much different from that of a tenant
whose lease expires but who continues in occupancy by
tolerance of the owner, in which case there is deemed to be
an unlawful deprivation or withholding24
of possession as of
the date of the demand to vacate. In other words, one
whose stay is merely tolerated becomes a deforciant
illegally occupying25 the land or property the moment he is
required to leave. 26 Thus, in Asset Privatization Trust vs.
Court of Appeals, where a company, having lawfully
obtained possession of a plant upon its undertaking to buy
the same, refused to return it after failing to fulfill its
promise of payment despite demands, this Court held that
(a)fter demand and its repudiation, ** (its) continuing
possession ** became illegal and the complaint for unlawful
detainer filed by the ** (plants owner) was its proper
remedy.
_______________
23 Yu vs. de Lara, 6 SCRA 785 [1962] Pangilinan vs. Aguilar, 43 SCRA

136 [1972] Dakudao vs. Consolacion, 122 SCRA 877 [1983] Peran vs.
Presiding Judge, Br. II, CFI, Sorsogon, 125 SCRA 78 [1983] Banco de Oro
Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA 464 [1990].
24 Vda. de Catchuela vs. Francisco, 98 SCRA 172 [1980] citing
Calubayan vs. Pascual, 21 SCRA 146, 148 [1967].
25 Odsigue vs. Court of Appeals, 233 SCRA 626 [1994].
26 229 SCRA 627, 636 [1994].
652

It may not be amiss to point out in this connection that

where there had been more than one demand to vacate, the
oneyear period for filing the complaint for unlawful
detainer 27 must be reckoned from the date of the last
demand, the reason being that the lessor has the option to
waive his right of action based on previous demands28
and let
the lessee remain meanwhile in the premises. Now, the
complaint filed by Caizas guardian alleges that the same
was filed within one (1) year from the date of the first
letter of demand dated February 3, 1990. Although this
averment is not in accord with law because there is in fact
a second letter of demand to vacate, dated February 27,
1990, the mistake is inconsequential, since the complaint
was actually filed on September 17, 1990, well within one
year from the second (last) written demand to vacate.
The Estradas possession of the house stemmed from the
owners express permission. That permission was
subsequently withdrawn by the owner, as was her right
and it is immaterial that the withdrawal was made
through her judicial guardian, the latter being indisputably
clothed with authority to do so. Nor is it of any consequence
that Carmen Caiza had executed a will bequeathing the
disputed property to the Estradas that circumstance did
not give them the right to stay in the premises after
demand to vacate on the theory that they might in the
future become owners thereof, that right of ownership
being at best inchoate, no transfer of ownership being
possible unless and until the will is duly probated.
Thus, at the time of the institution of the action of
desahucio, the Estradas had no legal right to the property,
whether as possessors by tolerance or sufferance, or as
owners. They could not claim the right of possession by

sufferance that had been legally ended. They could not
assert any right
_______________
27 Sarmiento vs. Court of Appeals, 250 SCRA 108 [1995] citing Sarona,
et al. vs. Villegas, et al., 22 SCRA 1257 [1968].
28 Penas, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 233 SCRA 744 [1994] citing Racaza
vs. Susana Realty, Inc., 18 SCRA 1172 [1966].
653
VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 24, 1997 653

of possession flowing from their ownership of the house

their status as owners is dependent on the probate of the
holographic will by which the property had allegedly been
bequeathed to theman event which still has to take place
in other words, prior to the probate of the will, any
assertion of possession by them would be premature and
inefficacious.
In any case, the only issue that could legitimately be
raised under the circumstances was that involving the
Estradas possession by tolerance, i.e., possession de facto,
not de jure. It is therefore incorrect to postulate that the
proper remedy for Caiza is not ejectment but accion
publiciana, a plenary action in the RTC or an action that is
one for recovery of the right to possession de jure.
II
The Estradas insist that the devise of the house to them by

Caiza clearly denotes her intention that they remain in
possession thereof, and legally incapacitated her judicial
guardian, Amparo Evangelista, from evicting them
therefrom, since their ouster would be inconsistent with
the wards will.
A will is essentially ambulatory at any time 29prior to the
testators death, it may be changed or revoked and until
admitted to probate, it has no effect whatever and no right
can be claimed thereunder, the law being quite explicit:
No will shall pass either real or personal property unless
it is proved and allowed30

in accordance with the Rules of
Court (ART. 838, id.). An owners intention to confer title
in the future to persons possessing property by his
tolerance, is not inconsistent with the formers taking back
possession in the meantime for any reason deemed
sufficient. And that in this case there was sufficient cause
for the owners resumption of possession is apparent: she
needed to generate income from the house on account of the
physical infirmities afflicting her, arising from her extreme
age.
_______________
29 ART. 828, Civil Code.

30 ART. 838, Civil Code.
654

Amparo Evangelista was appointed by a competent court

the general guardian of both the person and the estate of 31
her aunt, Carmen Caiza. Her Letters of Guardianship
dated December 19, 1989 clearly installed her as the
guardian over the person and properties of the
incompetent CARMEN CAIZA with full authority to take
possession of the property of said incompetent in any
province or provinces in which it may be situated and to
perform all other32 acts necessary for the management of her
properties **. By that appointment, it became
Evangelistas duty to care for her aunts person, to attend
to her physical and spiritual needs, to assure her wellbeing,
with right to custody 33
of her person in preference to
relatives and friends. It also became her right and duty to
get possession of, and exercise control over, Caizas
property, both real and personal, it being recognized
principle that the ward has no right to possession
34
or control
of his property during her incompetency. That right to
manage the wards estate carries with it the right to take
possession
35
thereof and recover it from anyone who retains
it, and bring and36
defend such actions as may be needful
for this purpose.
Actually, in bringing the action of desahucio,
Evangelista was merely discharging the duty to attend to
the comfortable and suitable maintenance of the ward

explicitly imposed on her by Section 4, Rule 96 of the Rules
of Court, viz.:
_______________
31 Petition, Annex E, Rollo, p. 44.

32 Emphasis supplied.
33 Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, 1970 Ed.,
Vol. VB, p. 457, citing Exparte Fletcher, 142 So. 30 39 C.J.S. 86.
34 Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, 1970 Ed.,
Vol. VB. p. 458, citing 39 C.J.S. 114115.
35 Castillo v. Bustamante, 64 Phil. 839 [1937], cited in Moran,
Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 3, 1980 ed., p. 570.
36 Conchita Juachon vs. Felix Manalo, G.R. No. L42, 77 Phil. 1092,
[January 20, 1947, unreported], cited in Moran, Comments on the Rules of
Court, 1979 Ed., Volume I, p. 176.
655
VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 24, 1997 655

SEC. 4. Estate to be managed frugally, and proceeds applied to

maintenance of ward.A guardian must manage the estate of his
ward frugally and without waste, and apply the income and
profits thereof, so far as may be necessary, to the comfortable and
suitable maintenance of the ward and his family, if there be any
and if such income and profits be insufficient for that purpose, the
guardian may sell or encumber the real estate, upon being
authorized by order to do so, and apply to such of the proceeds as
may be necessary to such maintenance.
Finally, it may be pointed out in relation to the Estradas

defenses in the ejectment action, that as the law now
stands, even when, in forcible entry and unlawful detainer
cases, the defendant raises the question of ownership in his
pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved
without deciding the issue of ownership, the Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts nevertheless have the undoubted
competence to resolve the issue 37of ownership ** only to
determine the issue of possession.
III
As already stated, Carmen Caiza passed away during the

pendency of this appeal. The Estradas thereupon moved to
dismiss the petition, arguing that Caizas death
automatically terminated the guardianship, Amparo
Evangelista lost all authority as her judicial guardian, and
ceased to have legal personality to represent her in the
present appeal. The motion is without merit.
While it is indeed wellestablished rule that the
relationship of guardian and ward is necessarily
terminated
38
by the death of either the guardian or the
ward, the rule affords no advantage to the Estradas.
Amparo Evangelista, as niece of
_______________
37 Sec. 3, R.A. No. 7691, amending Sec. 33 of B.P. 129 SEE Wilmon
Auto Supply Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 208 SCRA 108 [1992].
38 Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court in the Phils., Vol. VB, 1970
Ed., citing 25 Am. Jur. 37.
656

Carmen Caiza, is one of the latters only two (2) surviving

heirs, the other being Caizas nephew, Ramon C.39 Nevado.
On their motion and by Resolution of this Court of June
20, 1994, they were in fact substituted as parties in the
appeal at bar in place of the deceased, in accordance
40
with
Section 17, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, viz.:
SEC. 18. Death of a party.After a party dies and the claim is not
thereby extinguished, the court shall order, upon proper notice,
the legal representative of the deceased to appear and be
substituted for the deceased within a period of thirty (30) days, or
within such time as may be granted. If the legal representative
fails to appear within said time, the court may order the opposing
party to procure the appointment of a legal representative of the
deceased within a time to be specified by the court, and the
representative shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the
interest of the deceased. The court charges involved in procuring
such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be

recovered as costs. The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be
substituted for the deceased, without requiring the appointment of
an executor or administrator and the court may appoint guardian
ad litem for the minor heirs.
To be sure, an ejectment case survives the death of a party.

Caizas demise did not extinguish the 41
desahucio suit
instituted by her through her guardian. That action, not
being a purely personal one, survived her death her heirs
have taken her place and now represent her interests in
the appeal at bar.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision
of the Court of Appeals promulgated on June 2, 1993
affirming the Regional Trial Courts judgment and
dismissing petitioners petition for certiorariis
REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the Decision dated April
13, 1992 of the Metro
_______________
39 Second Division SEE footnote 17, supra.

40 Emphasis supplied.
41 Vda. de Salazar vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 250 SCRA 305 (Nov. 23,
1995) citing Vda. de Haberes vs. Court of Appeals, 104 SCRA 534 [1981]
Republic vs. Bagtas, 6 SCRA 242 [1962] Florendo, Jr. vs. Coloma, 129
SCRA 304 [1984].
657
VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 26, 1997 657

Nazareno vs. Almario
politan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 35, in Civil

Case No. 3410 is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED. Costs
against private respondents.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., Melo, Francisco and Panganiban, JJ.,

concur.
Petition granted. Judgment reversed and set aside, that

of the court a quo reinstated and affirmed.
Notes.An action for annulment of a contract entered

into by minors or other incapacitated persons shall be
brought within four years from the time the guardianship

ceases. (Causapin vs. Court of Appeals, 233 SCRA 615
[1994])
No contract may be entered into upon a future
inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law
such a contract is not valid and cannot be the source of any
right nor the creator of any obligation between the parties.
(Taedo vs. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 80 [1996])
o0o
Copyright2015CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

Caniza vs. Ca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Caniza vs. Ca

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Caniza vs. Ca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7/16/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME268

640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Incompetent, CARMEN CAIZA, represented by her

Actions Pleadings and Practice What determines the nature

VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 24, 1997 641

Caiza vs. Court of Appeals

house, rentfree, did not create a permanent and indefeasible

1990. Although this averment is not in accord with law because

642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Caiza vs. Court of Appeals

owner, as was her right and it is immaterial that the withdrawal

meantime for any reason deemed sufficient.A will is essentially

VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 24, 1997 643

Caiza vs. Court of Appeals

Guardianship dated December 19, 1989 clearly installed her as

Actions Ejectment Even when, in forcible entry and unlawful

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

On November 20, 1989, being then ninetyfour (94) years of

adjudged because of her advanced age and physical

1 Petition, Annex D, Rollo, pp. 4143.

VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 24, 1997 645

sonsinlaw to temporarily reside in her house, rentfree

(was) losing much money as her house could not be rented

6 Petition, Annex B, Rollo, pp. 3335.

646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Caiza sought to have the Court of Appeals reverse the

of Carmen Caiza, as evidenced by what purports to be

10 Rollo, pp. 2732.

VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 24, 1997 647

hence never became unlawful) within the context of the

ownership once the holographic will of petitioner Carmen

It is axiomatic that what determines the nature of an

15 Manifestation dated March 25, 1994.

648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

6. That the plaintiff, Carmen Caiza, is the sole and

and sonsinlaw, were allowed to live temporarily in

VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 24, 1997 649

Caiza vs. Court of Appeals

14. By the defendants act of unlawfully depriving the

WHEREFORE, in the interest of justice and the rule of law,

1. To order the defendants, their children, grandchildren,

In essence, the amended complaint states:

1) that the Estradas were occupying Caizas house by

requested the Estradas several times, orally and in

20 Rollo, pp. 5758.

650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

4) that the Estradas refused and continue to refuse to

Undoubtedly, a cause of action for desahucio has been

21 Sumulong vs. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 372 [1994], citing

VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 24, 1997 651

The argument is arrant sophistry. Caizas act of allowing

23 Yu vs. de Lara, 6 SCRA 785 [1962] Pangilinan vs. Aguilar, 43 SCRA

652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

It may not be amiss to point out in this connection that

owners. They could not claim the right of possession by

VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 24, 1997 653