G.R. NO. 155343 - BENGUET CORPORATION, VS. CORDILLERA CARABALLO MISSION, INC., HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, GREG BERNABE, JR., TEOFILO "BOY" DICANG AND GREG BERNABE, JR.. DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, we find no compelling need to attach other portions of the records. Besides, the appellate court can always refer to the records transmitted [13] by the clerk of the trial court if it wanted to verify the allegations. The Rules of Civil Procedure should be applied with reason and liberality [14] to promote its objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. Rules of procedure are used to help secure and not override substantial justice. Thus, the dismissal of an appeal on a purely technical ground is frowned upon especially if it will result in unfairness. [15] No such result happened here. Anent the second issue, which goes to the merits of the instant controversy, petitioner asserts that it specifically alleged the acts constituting forcible entry and it points to paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of the complaint as well as to the annexed photographs. For its part, the respondent defends the ruling of the RTC that petitioner failed to state sufficiently a cause of action in the complaint before the MTC. The pertinent portion of the complaint reads: . . . The plaintiff is the owner as well as lawful and peaceful possessor of a parcel of land covered by PILO Mineral Claim shown in the approved plan hereto attached as Annex "A" hereof. Sometime in the later part of September 1997, plaintiff's caretaker noticed an ongoing bulldozing and ground leveling activities within Pilo Mineral Claim . His investigation revealed that the illegal activity was being undertaken by individual defendants who were supervising the heavy equipment owned by one Pio Wasit. When confronted, said defendant represented themselves to be representatives of defendant Cordillera Caraballo Mission, Inc. To this effect, hereto attached.... The defendants were warned of their unlawful entry in the above-described property of the plaintiff but defendants refused to stop to the damage and prejudice of the plaintiff herein. In fact, in the process of forcible entry in the property, the defendants destroyed young and full grown pine trees alike which your plaintiff had been protecting and spending considerable amount therefor. The unlawful activities by the defendants and their refusal to stop despite demand prompted plaintiff to send them demand letter dated October 1, 1997, copy of which is hereto attached as Annex "G" , but in spite of the receipt of said letter, the defendants ignored it and continued in their activities dispossessing plaintiff of its peaceful possession over the property. In fact, the defendants even proceeded in laying the foundation of the construction of a building as shown in the photographs hereto attached as Annex "H" . [16] In actions for forcible entry, it may be stressed, two allegations are mandatory for the municipal court to acquire jurisdiction. First, the plaintiff must allege his prior physical possession of the property. Second, he must also allege that he was deprived of his possession by any o