G.R. No. 176995 - PABLO D. ACAYLAR, JR., VS. DANILO G. HARAYO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, by preponderance of evidence in favor of the [herein respondent] as against the [herein petitioner], and hereby orders: (1) For [petitioner] and all other persons who may have derived rights from him to vacate lot 741-B-1 containing an area of 30,000 square meters as shown in the sketch plan prepared by Christopher Palpagan and turn over peaceful possession thereof to [herein respondent]; (2) For [petitioner] to pay [respondent] the amount of P5,000.00 as attorney's fees and P 1,591.25 as costs of the suit. All other claims and counterclaims are hereby dismissed for lack of merit. [8] On appeal, docketed as Civil Case No. 6087, the RTC promulgated its Decision [9] dated 20 January 2006 affirming the award of possession in favor of respondent after finding that the appealed MTCC Decision was based on facts and law on the matter. The RTC declared that the sale of the subject property by the spouses Acaylar to respondent vested ownership and possession of said property in the latter. Thus, petitioner's acts of entering the subject property, cutting the tall grasses and gathering the agricultural products therein, constitute forcible entry, which gave rise to an action for ejectment. The RTC decreed: WHEREFORE, premises considered, [the RTC] finds by preponderance of evidence that [herein respondent] is in physical possession of the [subject property] that is on September 14, 2004 prior to the [herein petitioner] on September 19, 2004 and therefore affirms the decision of the Municipal Trial Court in the City of Dapitan without modification. [10] Banking on another Affidavit (Second Affidavit) executed by Zoila Acaylar, in which she recanted the statements she made in her First Affidavit denying that she designated petitioner as the administrator of her and her husband's property, petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the 20 January 2006 Decision of the RTC. The RTC, however, issued a Resolution [11] dated 18 April 2006 denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. Consequently, petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari [12] with the Court of Appeals where it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 01077-MIN. Petitioner argued in his Petition that the RTC gravely erred in ruling that respondent was in prior possession of the subject property based solely on the Deed of Sale executed by the spouses Acaylar in respondent's favor. Petitioner also asserted therein that the RTC gravely abused its discretion when it did not give credence to the Second Affidavit executed by Zoila Acaylar. [13] On 28 July 2006, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution [14] dismissing outright CA-G.R. SP No. 01077-MIN for failure of petitioner to avail himself of the correct remedy under the law. Petitioner should have filed a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Court, the proper remedy to appeal the adverse decisions rendered by the RTC in its appellate capacity. Instead, petitioner erroneously filed a