G.R. No. 152438 - LOLITA R. AYSON, VS. MARINA ENRIQUEZ VDA. DE CARPIO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, FOREGOING PREMISES CONSI-DERED, this petition is DENIED DUE COURSE and accordingly DISMISSED . [4] The assailed Resolution denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. The Facts The facts were summarized by the appellate court as follows: Petitioner was the owner of three (3) parcels of land in Manibang, Porac, Pampanga covered respectively by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. 147096-R, 155262-R and 155362-R. Petitioner has been in possession of the aforesaid properties being the owner thereof. On August 29, 1980, petitioner mortgaged said properties to the Philippine National Bank, Angeles City Branch (Bank). These were subsequently foreclosed by the Bank. After failing to redeem within the prescribed period, petitioners TCTs were canceled and new ones were issued in the name of the Bank on May 14, 1985, to wit: a) TCT No. 220195-R (from 147096-R); b) TCT No. 220196-R (from 155262-R); c) TCT No. 220197-R (from 155362-R). On April 14, 1999, the Bank sold the property covered by TCT No. 220195-R to the respondent herein and is now covered by TCT No. 466519-R in favor of the respondent. On October 22, 1999, petitioner filed a Complaint (docketed as Civil Case No. 9582) before the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City for the annulment of TCT No. [466519-R] and the deed of sale between the Bank and the respondent as well as for reconveyance and damages. With said Civil Case No. 9582 still pending, respondent, on January 3, 2000, sent demand letters dated December 29, 1999 demanding petitioner to vacate the premises covered by TCT No. 466519-R. On March 7, 2000, respondent filed a complaint with the MTC for ejectment with damages. On June 23, 2000, the MTC rendered a decision in favor of respondent ordering petitioner to vacate the subject property. On appeal, the RTC rendered a decision affirming with modification the MTCs decision. Respondent then filed a Motion with the RTC on February 1, 2001 for issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal. [5] Consequently, petitioner interposed an appeal to the CA, assigning only one error: The trial court had no jurisdiction over the action. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court affirming the trial courts decision is accordingly erroneous and consequently null and void. [6] Ruling of the Court of Appeals The appellate court held that the continued possession of the property by petitioner had merely been tolerated by respondent. Possession by petitioner became unlawful when she was divested of her ownership of the premises. Holding that a summary action for ejectment was the proper remedy against her, the CA explained that the parties were not precluded from ventilating their grievances in another action based on a separate and distinct cause involving ownership of the land. [7] Hence, this Petition. [8] The Issue In her Memorandum, [9] petitioner raises the following issues for our consideration: I. Whether the Decision of the Court of Appeals is not in accord wit