G.R. No. 161973 - FRANCISCO RAMOS, VS. STATELAND INVESTMENT CORPORATION.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, defendant STATELAND INVESTMENT CORPORATION, by counsel, respectfully prays that a status quo Order be issued ordering: a) Plaintiffs to immediately vacate the previous owners residence in its condition prior to the filing of the complaint; b) Plaintiffs limit its illegal planting and sowing on the area which they have previously illegally planted and sown immediately prior to the filing of the complaint; and c) Plaintiffs to stop its physical harassment and provocation on SICs security personnel. All other reliefs just and equitable are hereby sought. [6] Francisco Ramos opposed the motion, alleging that he had possessed the two-storey house since 1974 and had the right to stay therein. This led the SIC to believe that Ramoss possession of the house had no connection with his claim of being a tenant on the property; hence, the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) had jurisdiction over his eviction therefrom. [7] Consequently, on November 26, 1997, SIC filed a Motion in DARAB Case No. 4471 for the partial withdrawal of its prayer in the September 23, 1997 Urgent Motion regarding the complainants eviction from the property. [8] The SIC also sent a Letter dated November 25, 1997 to Ramos, where it demanded that he vacate the house within five days, otherwise, it would take the appropriate legal action to protect its rights and interests. [9] Ramos, however, still refused to vacate the house. On January 15, 1998, the SIC filed a complaint [10] for ejectment against Ramos with the MTC of San Jose del Monte. It alleged therein that it had purchased the five parcels of land, including the two-storey concrete house, and that despite oral and written demands Ramos refused to leave. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 443-98. In his answer [11] to the complaint, Ramos admitted that SIC was the owner of the house and the landholding, but alleged that he had been a tenant on the land since 1974, and that the house was assigned to him by the ARC as his residence. By way of special and affirmative defenses, he alleged that the MTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint, and that DARAB Case No. 4471 was pending before the DARAB. He further averred that the SIC had filed in the said case an Urgent Motion dated September 23, 1997 praying for recovery of possession of the questioned land and building, and appended a copy thereof to his Answer. He pointed out that the SIC filed the instant case against him without awaiting the resolution of the said motion. [12] The parties were unable to arrive at an amicable settlement during the preliminary conference. They were then required to submit their respective position papers under the Rules on Summary Procedure. The parties did not adduce any evidence. On May 13, 1998, the MTC rendered a decision in favor of the SIC. The fallo of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant and all persons claiming rig