The Facts: The Case Before The MCTC

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari [1] assailing the Decision[2] dated 6 March
2012 and the Resolution[3] dated 31 May 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
120649. In fine, the CA affirmed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 22, Narvacan,
Ilocos Sur (RTC), in Civil Case No. 3211-N that the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Narvacn-
Nagbukel, Ilocos Sur (MCTC) had no jurisdiction over petitioner Pablo B. Hidalgo's (petitioner)
Complaint for Unlawful Detainer and Damages, which was filed and docketed in said trial court
as Civil Case No. 636-N.
We required[4] the parties to submit their respective comment[5] and reply.[6] They complied.
THE FACTS
At controversy is the possession of a Three Hundred Fifty-Two (352) square meters piece of
residential land in Brgy. Santa Lucia, Municipality of Narvacan, Province of Ilocos Sur,
denominated as Cadastral Lot No. 77.
Petitioner claims that in year 2000 its previous owner, the late Juana H. Querubin, executed a
Deed of Donation in his favor, conveying three (3) parcels of land unto him, including Cadastral
Lot No. 77; consequently, Tax Declaration No. 92-001-00987[7] was issued in his name.
Sometime in January 2005, petitioner visited Cadastral Lot No. 77 and saw, to his surprise, that
herein respondent Sonia Velasco (respondent) was in possession of the property. He sent several
letters demanding that she vacate; the last demand letter was dated 9 January 2006. Respondent
replied. In a letter dated 2 February 2006, she informed petitioner that per the instructions of one
Josefina Reintegrado Baron, whom she claimed was the property's owner and from whom she
derived her rights, she was not to allow petitioner to take its possession.[8]
The case before the MCTC
On 8 December 2006, petitioner filed before the MCTC, a complaint for Unlawful Detainer with
Damages against respondent, docketed as Civil Case No. 636-N. As the averments of this
ejectment complaint are the focus of the present review, the Complaint for Unlawful Detainer
with Damages is pertinently reproduced below in full, viz:
COMPLAINT
[Petitioner], through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court respectfully alleges
that:
1. [Petitioner] is of legal age, married, Filipino citizen and a resident of No. 504-A Mabini
Street, Caloocan City while [respondent] is also of legal age, married, Filipino Citizen and a
resident of Barangay Sta. Lucia Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, where summons and other processes of
this Honorable Court may be served;
2. On August 3, 2000 Juana H. Querubin executed a Deed of Donation over three (3)
parcels of land in favor of [petitioner] duly acknowledged by Atty. Roman Mario V. Panem,
Notary Public, with Document No. 189, Page No. 39, Book No. XIV, Series of 2000 which
instrument was registered with the Register of Deeds with Entry No. 1070, Page 68, Volume
73, on December 15, 2000. Copy of the Deed of Donation is hereto attached and marked as
Annex "A" and is made an integral part of this Complaint.
3. By virtue of the said Deed of Donation, ownership over the three (3) parcels of land
subject of donation have been transferred unto [petitioner] who has all the legal rights to
exercise the attributes of ownership provided to him under the law;
4. Sometime on January 2005 when [petitioner] had the occasion to visit one (1) of the three
(3) parcels of land which has been donated unto him, more particularly described as follows:
Cadastral Lot No. 77
"A residential land situated at Sta. Lucia, Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, bounded on the North by
Rizal Street; on the East by Lot No. 78; on the South by Lot No. 761; And on the West by Lot
No. 76 containing an area of THREE HUNDRED FIFTY TWO (352) square meters more or
less, with Tax Declaration No. 92-001-00987 in the name of Pablo Hidalgo."
he was surprised to know that [respondent] had been occupying the same without his
permission to his prejudice. Copy of the Tax Declaration of said lot is hereto attached and
marked as Annex "B;"
5. As the lawful owner of the above described property, [petitioner] demanded the
[respondent] to vacate the same by sending several demand letters, the most recent of which
was on January 9, 2006. Copies of the demand letters are hereto attached and marked as
Annexes "C" and "C-1;"
6. All of the said demand letters sent by [petitioner] have been received and acknowledged
by the [respondent] as evidenced by her reply, attached herewith and marked as Annexes "D"
and "D-1," where she categorically sated that she will NOT VACATE the property subject of
this suit thereby unlawfully and illegally withholding possession of the property of the
[petitioner];
7. The refusal and continued refusal of the [respondent] to vacate the premises of the subject
property has deprived [petitioner] to hold possession and beneficial use of the property for
which [respondent] should be made to pay a monthly rental of Five Thousand Pesos
(Php5,000) per month from the year 2005 up to the final determination of this case;
8. Due to the [respondent's] malicious and wanton refusal to vacate the property in suit,
[petitioner] was constrained to hire the services of a lawyer to protect his rights and interests
for a fee of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php20,000.00) for which [respondent] should
be made answerable to [petitioner];
9. Herein [petitioner] has suffered anxiety, sleepless nights and wounded feelings for having
been unlawfully deprived of possession over the subject property for which [respondent] is
liable to [petitioner] moral damages in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(PhP50,000.00).
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, WITH ALL THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed unto this
Honorable Court that judgment be rendered:
1. Ordering the [respondent] to vacate the subject property;
2. Ordering the [respondent] to pay the [petitioner] the amount of Five Thousand Pesos
(Php5,000.00) as reasonable compensation for the use of the subject property from January .
2005, until the subject property is vacated and restored to the [petitioner];
3. Ordering the [respondent] to pay [petitioner] the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos for
and as attorney's fees;
4. Ordering the [respondent] to pay [petitioner the amount of] Fifty Thousand Pesos by way
of moral damages.
5. Ordering [respondent] to pay the cost of the suit.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise prayed for.[9]

The Facts: The Case Before The MCTC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Facts: The Case Before The MCTC

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

The Facts: The Case Before The MCTC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari [1] assailing the Decision[2] dated 6 March

5. Ordering [respondent] to pay the cost of the suit.

You might also like