G.R. No. 202217 - PABLO C. HIDALGO, V. SONIA VELASCO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, WITH ALL THE FOREGOING , it is respectfully prayed unto this Honorable Court that judgment be rendered: Ordering the [respondent] to vacate the subject property; 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]; Ordering the [respondent] to pay [petitioner] the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos for and as attorney's fees; Ordering the [respondent] to pay [petitioner the amount of] Fifty Thousand Pesos by way of moral damages. Ordering [respondent] to pay the cost of the suit. Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise prayed for. [9] x x x x In her Answer, respondent contended, in the main, that the MCTC had no jurisdiction over the Complaint for Unlawful Detainer with Damages, and raised the additional defenses, to wit: first , that Josefina Reintegrado Baron had not been impleaded as party defendant; second , that the ejectment complaint was not compliant with the one-year filing period for unlawful detainer cases; and, third , that petitioner was guilty of laches. [10] After a preliminary hearing held for the purpose of dealing with the jurisdictional issue, on 30 July 2008 the MCTC issued an order [11] upholding its jurisdiction over the ejectment complaint. Trial ensued, during which, incidentally, the parties presented evidence on their respective ownership claims. Petitioner's documentary evidence in this regard includes the Deed of Donation allegedly executed by Juana H. Querubin, Tax Declaration No. 92-001-00987, tax receipts, and a certification issued by the Municipal Assessor on petitioner's payment of the realty taxes on Cadastral Lot No. 77 from 1994 to 2009. [12] Respondent's documentary submissions include, among others, tax declarations in her name, an affidavit by a certain Atty. Roman Mario Panem alleging that there was a mistake in the Deed of Donation executed by Juana H. Querubin, and a Deed of Quitclaim executed for Josefina Reintegrado Baron. On 21 June 2010, and after the filing of position papers, [13] the MCTC issued a ruling. It resolved the ejectment suit in petitioner's favor. [14] The MCTC disclosed that it had conducted a preliminary inquiry into the ownership of Cadastral Lot No. 77 and found that it was petitioner's evidence, not respondent's, that was preponderant. [15] The court took pains to emphasize that its ruling in this regard was merely provisional, and that the matter of the ownership of Cadastral Lot No. 77 should best be ventilated and resolved in a separate action, where ownership was specifically placed at issue. [16] The MCTC further r ruled that Josefina Reintegrado Baron was not an indispensable party in the present case as the issue to be resolved therein, being an ejectment case, was who between the parties had the better right to possess Cadastral Lot No. 77