Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 38 views

    PHARMA INDUSTRIES, vs. HONORABLE MELITON PAJARILLAGA

    Uploaded by

    Philip Suplico
    The plaintiff filed a complaint for ejectment against the defendant to remove her from a piece of land owned by the plaintiff. The defendant claimed she had an agreement with the plaintiff to pay her obligation on the land. The trial court dismissed the case, finding it did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that ejectment under the Rules of Court was the proper remedy, not an accion publiciana. Ejectment can be filed in a municipal court to obtain possession within one year if unlawful possession, as was the case here where the defendant refused to vacate after her right to the land expired.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PHARMA INDUSTRIES, vs. HONORABLE MELITON PAJARILLAGA

    Uploaded by

    Philip Suplico
    38 views2 pages
    The plaintiff filed a complaint for ejectment against the defendant to remove her from a piece of land owned by the plaintiff. The defendant claimed she had an agreement with the plaintiff to pay her obligation on the land. The trial court dismissed the case, finding it did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that ejectment under the Rules of Court was the proper remedy, not an accion publiciana. Ejectment can be filed in a municipal court to obtain possession within one year if unlawful possession, as was the case here where the defendant refused to vacate after her right to the land expired.

    Original Description:

    CivPro

    Original Title

    526. PHARMA INDUSTRIES, vs. HONORABLE MELITON PAJARILLAGA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiff filed a complaint for ejectment against the defendant to remove her from a piece of land owned by the plaintiff. The defendant claimed she had an agreement with the plaintiff to pay her obligation on the land. The trial court dismissed the case, finding it did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that ejectment under the Rules of Court was the proper remedy, not an accion publiciana. Ejectment can be filed in a municipal court to obtain possession within one year if unlawful possession, as was the case here where the defendant refused to vacate after her right to the land expired.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    38 views2 pages

    PHARMA INDUSTRIES, vs. HONORABLE MELITON PAJARILLAGA

    Uploaded by

    Philip Suplico
    The plaintiff filed a complaint for ejectment against the defendant to remove her from a piece of land owned by the plaintiff. The defendant claimed she had an agreement with the plaintiff to pay her obligation on the land. The trial court dismissed the case, finding it did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that ejectment under the Rules of Court was the proper remedy, not an accion publiciana. Ejectment can be filed in a municipal court to obtain possession within one year if unlawful possession, as was the case here where the defendant refused to vacate after her right to the land expired.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    526. PHARMA INDUSTRIES, vs.

    HONORABLE MELITON PAJARILLAGA

    FACTS: This is a complaint for Ejectment filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. The plaintiff in its complaint alleges
    that on November 12, 1977, the defendant Sergia A. del Rosario executed in favor of the plaintiff a Deed of Sale with
    Right to repurchase over a piece of land duly registered and situated at Cabanatuan City, together with all improvements
    and which land is covered with TCT No. 12481, now TCT No. 35940, that the defendant Sergia del Rosario executed to
    exercise her right of redemption in accordance with the Provision of Annex A, Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase,
    which expired November 12, 1978, and despite notice to her, the plaintiff was constrained to file a petition for
    consolidation of ownership, Annex B; that on April 3, 1979, the Honorable Virgilio D. Pobre-Yñigo, promulgated a decision
    in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, declaring the plaintiff to be the full owner of the property and ordering
    the Register of Deeds of Cabanatuan City, to cancel the old title; and issue a new title, TCT No. L-35940 in the name of
    the plaintiff; that on June 8, 1979, the plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant and all person claiming ownership, to vacate
    the premises in question; that despite receipt of Annex E, by the defendant on June 13, 1979, she failed and refused and
    still fails to vacate the premises without justification.

    The defendant filed her answer, alleging that the defendant thru her representative Alfredo del Rosario verbally agreed to
    the counsel of the plaintiff, that after recomputation of the amount demanded being enormous and unconscionable, the
    latter should pay her obligation but contrary to the agreement to plaintiff thru counsel, did not honor the same and still
    continued the prosecution in this case, until the decision was rendered by this Court, to the damage and prejudice of the
    defendant, who is ready and able to pay her obligation;

    On November 28, 1979, the plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleading, on the ground that the defendant
    admitted all the material averments of the complaint and does not tender at all an issue. The defendant filed an opposition
    to the motion of judgment on the pleading, and a motion to dismiss, on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction, and
    that it is the Court of First Instance, which has jurisdiction over the action, (Roman Catholic Bishop of Cebu versus
    Mangaron, 6 Philippines 286, 291). The complaint filed by the plaintiff is for ejectment. There are three kinds of action in
    ejecting a person from the land. It is clear in the complaint that the plaintiff is intending to eject the defendant from the land
    under the kind of ejectment, forcible entry or detainer, but it must be alleged in the complaint prior possession of the land
    by the plaintiff. But in the complaint it is alleged that the defendant is in possession of the land and not the plaintiff, and
    therefore the complaint should be for recovery of the right to possess the land, and the action should be filed in the Court
    of First Instance and not in this Court. The three kinds of action are the following: (1) The summary action for forcible entry
    or detainer by denominated action interdictal, under the former law of procedure (Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil) which seeks
    the recovery of only physical possession, and is brought within one year in the Justice of the Peace Court; (2) The accion
    publiciana which is intended for the recovery of the right to possess and is a plenary action in an ordinary civil proceeding,
    before the Court of First Instance and (3) Action de revindication which seeks the recovery of ownership which of course
    included the Jus utendi and jus fruendi also brought in the Court of First Instance. Of these three kinds of action should be
    brought under No. 2 which is accion publiciana intended to recovery of the right to possess possession from the
    defendant, because it is the defendant who is in possession of the premises. The Court in its opinion, held that the
    complaint must be filed with the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, because it is for a recovery of possession which is
    under the law, belong to the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija.

    ISSUE: Whether ejectment or accion publiciana is the proper remedy?

    HELD: The proper remedy is ejectment under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court and not accion publiciana. Sec. 1 of said Rule
    provides:

    SECTION 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when. — Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, a
    person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a landlord,
    vendor, vendee, or other person against whom 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, or the legal
    representatives or assigns of any such landlord, vendor, vendee, or other persons, may, at any time within one (1) year
    after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper inferior court against the person
    or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming under them, for the
    restitution of such possession, together with damages and costs. The complaint must be verified.
    It should be noted that the summary action provided above is one to obtain possession only, filed in a municipal court
    within one year after the unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession complained of has taken place. It should also
    be noted that the remedy provides for two distinct causes of action: (1) forcible entry in which the defendant's possession
    of the property is illegal ab initio, and (2) unlawful detainer wherein the defendant's possession was originally lawful but
    ceased to be so by the expiration of his right to possess.

    The present case which is to obtain possession only is one for unlawful detainer because Sergia A. del Rosario, the
    vendor a retro, failed to repurchase the property and after the consolidation of title in favor of the vendee a retro had been
    confirmed, she refused to vacate the property upon demand and after her right to possess it had ceased to be lawful. That
    a demand to vacate was made on Sergia A. del Rosario on June 13, 1979, and the action to eject was filed on October
    22, 1979, well within the one-year period, are borne by the record. The mistake of the respondent judge in his belief that
    the cause of action is forcible entry wherein it is necessary to alleged prior possession and forcible deprivation thereof.
    But as stated above, the cause of action in this case is for unlawful detainer and it is sufficient to allege, as was done, that
    the defendant was unlawfully withholding possession from the plaintiff. (See 3 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court,
    302 [1970].)

    You might also like