G.R. No. 238892 - SPOUSES AURORA TOJONG SU AND AMADOR SU, VS. EDA BONTILAO, PABLITA BONTILAO, AND MARICEL DAYANDAYAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, it ordered respondents and all persons claiming rights under them to immediately vacate the subject property, to surrender the peaceful possession thereof to petitioners, and to jointly and severally pay them the amount of P10,000.00 as attorney's fees. [31] In so ruling, the MTCC found that being the registered owners of the subject property covered by TCT No. 29490, petitioners have the right of possession over the same, being one of the attributes of ownership. Moreover, the actual possession and occupation of respondents was by mere tolerance of petitioners, hence, respondents were bound to peacefully vacate upon demand. The MTCC noted that respondents failed to present any countervailing evidence to support their claim of ownership or, at the least, possession of the subject property. Their allegation that they are the legitimate heirs of Mariano, who they averred was the original owner of the subject property, cannot be given credence as the same would amount to a collateral attack on the title of petitioners. [32] Dissatisfied, respondents appealed to the RTC. The RTC Ruling In a Decision [33] dated December 2, 2016, the RTC affirmed the MTCC Decision in toto, reiterating its ruling that a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading only if it seeks reconsideration of a judgment rendered on the merits. Since the order of dismissal issued by the RTC was based on a technicality, the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners' counsel was therefore not prohibited. Moreover, it sustained the MTCC's ruling that pre-trial briefs may be submitted suppletorily but not mandatorily. [34] On the substantive issue, the RTC affirmed the MTCC's finding that respondents' occupation of the subject property was by mere tolerance of petitioners, who were the registered owners thereof and therefore, entitled to its possession as an attribute of ownership upon demand. As regards the issues of lack of jurisdiction, laches and prescription, the RTC held that respondents never raised the same in their answer or in the proceedings before the MTCC; thus, they are now barred from raising the same. [35] Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration [36] while petitioners moved for the issuance of a writ of execution. In an Order [37] dated April 26, 2017, the RTC denied respondents' motion. On the other hand, it granted petitioners' motion for the issuance of a writ of execution without prejudice, however, to a further appeal that may be taken by respondents. Accordingly, respondents filed an appeal before the CA. In their petition for review, [38] respondents prayed for the outright dismissal of the complaint on account of the non-appearance of petitioners and their counsel during the first scheduled preliminary conference, their failure to file a pre-trial brief, and the lack of a satisfactory explanation therefor. On the substantive aspect, they maintained that they are the legitimate heirs of Mariano, the original owner of the subject