Download - Court of Appeals Forcible Entry No.124921

8/18/2019 Court of Appeals Forcible Entry No.124921

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/court-of-appeals-forcible-entry-no124921 1/12

Ttarc€z€

e*e4

ffi

W

.EJi,H,:f'fliTlltl"

I,

TERESITA

R.

MARIGOMEN,

Clerk

of

Court of the

Court

of

Appeals,

do

hereby

certify

that

I

have

examined the herein document,

to

wit:

A certiJied

true

copy

of the Decision

of the Court

of

Appeals in

case

CA-G,R.

.SP

No.

124921,

Atry, Ernesto

L,

De Los

Santos

vs.

University

of

Manila, et

al.,

etc,,

promulgated

on February

24,

2016,

and

consisting

of

Eleven

(11)

pages

only.

That

the same

has bee't compared

with

the

original on

jile

in

this

Office,

and that

the same is

s true and

correct copy

thereof,

IN

WITNESS WHEREOF,

I

have

hereunto

signed my name

and affrxed the

seal

of this

Court,

this

APR

0

"i

201&

NOTE: This

certification is

not

valid

u,ithout

the signatures

of

the

certifying

officer

as well as

the

seal of the

Court on

each and

verifier

and the

is document.

MEN

ARN

.

MACAPAGAL

Chief Reporter

Verified

with the

Original

in

the custody of

the Reporter's

Division

By:

,l

/

LINA E.

PANTOLA

dPi

CI

i

i,|0

NTINOLA

By:

Prs.oo

,r"rfrgr1{+b

Stamp

paid

under

Original

Receipt No.

Pairl:

1l

q)

1JCl.r

o.R.

Nos.

Nf7ldd

.

hLFA

JZJ

Proofiead

By:

Date:

v.T,t

(

tr

ANIBEil

T.

RODELAS

Issued upon

the

request

of:

Villamie

Mantilla

1549 HDS Bldg.,

A. Mabini

St.

Ermita,

NIla.



DE LOS

Petitioner,

-uersus

-

UNIU}RSITY

OF

MANII,A,

MRS. EMILY

D.

DE

LEON,

ATTY.

DIOSDA.DO

G. II/TADRID,

JULIEWHYNN

QUEND

OZA*,

ATTY.

ERNESTO

L.

SANTOS,

JEFFREY

C.

JOCELYN

PROVTDER

Repuhrlic of

tlre

Philippines

Court

of

Appeals

MANILA

TENTH DIVISION

OLIGARTO,

OLIGARIO,

SECURTTY

CA

_

G.R.

SP

NO . I2492L

Members:

PUNZALAN

CASTILLO,

M.

P.,

Chairperson

MACALINO,

F.S., and

GALAPATE.LAGUILL

ES, 2.T.,

J,J,

:

Promulgated:

2

{

FEB

ZO16

fuim,nr

/:dtl7

AGENCY,

ROBERTO

C.,

GAUDIA,

ANGELO P.

MENDALO,

VICTORY

COMBAT

FORCE

SECURITY

.FTGENCY,

ABU

DIMAPORO,

REYNALDO

Q.

MARCIAL

and ALL

PERSONS

CLAIMING

RIGHTS

UNDER

THEM,

Respondents.

DECISION

GALAPATE-LAGUILLES,

=I,

;

An

action

for

forcible

entry is a

quieting

process

that

ls

summarg

in nature. /f

fs

designed

to recouer

phgsical

possession

in

speedA

proceedings

that are

restrictiue

in

nature, scope

and

time lirnits. xxxx

1

'

Quendoza/Quindoza

in some

part

of the

records

1

Justice Panganiban in Bongato v. Sps. Nlalvar, G.R. L4L6L4. August

1

L

A,(;,R,

C'R/C\/iSI NO.

RESITA

Ai.IGOMET.

Cl,erk

rl

Ptu'ln,url

llyr

BY:

ATTY

h* rt't.

t .

r\,t

Ac.\pAcAt

Chicf

Ri,0orter

ro

rter

COUR'I'OT

APPEALS

VERIFIED

[,r



CA-G.R.

SP

No,

1249?-l

DECISION

Page 2 of

11

This

Petition

for

Review

assails

the

Decision

dated

March

l, 2Ot2

of the

Regional

Trial Court,

Baguio

City,

Branch

5

in

Special

Civil

Action No.

7510-R

which

affirmed

in

toto

the

Order dated

September

5,

zALl

of

the

Municipal

Trial

Court

in

Cities, Branch 1

of

Baguro

City.

The facts

as culled

from the

records

are as

follows.

Petitioner

Atty.

Ernesto

Delos

Santos

(Delos Santos)

is

a

stockholder

of

the University

of

Manila

(UM),

owned

by

his

late

grandparents

and

parer.ts.

He is

also

the

generaL

manager of

the

Benguet Pines Tourist Inn

(Beng,uet

Pines), owned

by

UM.

Petitioner owns

a-nd

manages Pines

Shadow

Cafe, a

restaurant

located

wjthin

the

premises

of

Benguet

Pines.

Within

the

premises

of Benguet Pines is the ancestral

house

which

Delos

Santos

and

his

family had

been occupying,

even

before

the establish,naent

of

Benguet

Pkres.

Respond.ents

on

the other hand

alLege

that Delos Santos

was

merely tolerated

by the

Board

of

Trustees

(Board)

of UM to

manage

and

operate

Benguet

Pines

and to

occupy

a

room

in

the

anscestral

house

because,

not

only

because

he

is

a

stockholder

and a member

of the Board,

he is

also

willing

to

staSr

in

Baguio

City.

Sometime

in

,June

ZOLI,

the

Board

of

UM

issued

a

Resolution2,

the

pertinent portion

of

which

states:

xxx

"RESOLVED,

as

il

is

resolveC,

ttrat

effective

June

15,

2011

and for the reason

of

conflict

of

interest,

Atty.

ERNESTO

L.

DELOS

SANTOS,

he

being the owner and

operator

of

Deiy's

Inn

located

at

CTLL

Building,

110

Otek St., Baguio

City, shall

no

longer have

any

hand

in the

managbment

and

operation

of Benguet

Pines

Tourist

Inn.;

"RESOLVED,

Further,

as it

is

hereby

resolved,

that

effective

June 15,

20ll

the

rrranagement

and

Tourist

Inn,

managed

and

operat

Atty.$rnesto

L.

C^-C.R,

CR/CViS?

NO.

ITA

R:

ARIGOMEI'

Cle

0urt

BY:

A'ITY

ARNEI,

D,

ITIACAPAGAL

Clrief

ftr:

porrcr

COUR'T

OF APPEAIJ

N

VERIFIED

2

Rollo/

p.

98

l'rttrlfll'r1d

gyi



CA-G.R.

SP

No.

LZ492L

DECISION

Page

3

of

11

Delos

Santos

shall be

under

the

managemerrt

and

operation

of

the

Benguet Pines

Tourist Inn;

and that

all

appliances

owned

by Atty,

Delos

Santc.rs in

the

said

canteen

shall

be

returned

to

him

or

to his

employees;

"RESOLVED,

Furthermore,

as it is

resolved, that

effective

Junc

15, 2011

Atty.

Ernesto

L.

Delos

Santos,

Ms.

Fe

Delilah

Dagu,.insin,

Mr.

Vincent

Delos

Santos,

and/or

all employees

of

Dely's Inn andf

or

CTLL

Building are

prohibited

to

enter

and/or

stay

in

the

premises

of

the

Benguet

Pines

Tourist Inn;

'RESOLVED,

moreover,

as

it is

hereby resolved,

that

a

representative

of

the

University

of Manila

and/or

Benguet

Pines

Tourist

Inn

is

authorized

to

verify

or

look

into

reports

that

water, electricity, and

cable and

even

supplies

like

tissue,

papers,

soaps,

rice

and

others

of Dely's

Inn

andT

or

CTLL Building

are

connected

and/or

treken

from

Benguet

Pines

Tourist

Inn;

"RESOLVED,

Finaliy,

as it

is

hereby

r.esolved,

that

the

Board

passed,

approved

and

adopted

these

resoiutions

to

comply

with its

duties

under

the Corporation

Code.

xxx

In

view

thereof,

respondents

officers

of

uM, namely

Emily

De

Leon

-

President (De

Leon)

and

Atty.

Diosdado

David

-

corporate

Secretary

(Atty.

David),

sought

the

serr/ices

of

respondents

Provider

security

A.gency

arrd

victory

Combat

Force

security

Agency (security

Agencies),

to

caJry ou.t

the

mandate

of the

Board

Resolution.

Hence,

on

June

ls,

2011,

respondents

Security

Agencies

with

respondents

Juliewhynn

Quindoza,

Jocelyn

oligario

and

Jeffrey

oligario,

were

able

to

successfully removed

petitioner's personal

belongings

out

of

Benguet

Pines.

The1,

also

prevented

petitiorrer

from

entering

the

ancestral

house

and

Bengugt

Pines

thereafer.

In view

of

the

respondents'

acts

of

dispossession,

petitioner

was

constrairred

to

file

a

Complaint

for

Forcible

Entry

with

Damages

with

Prayer

for

the

Issuance

of

a

writ

of

Preliminary

Injunction,

appending

therein

the

police

Blotter

Certificates3

to

bolster

h.is

claim of

dis

ssion,

before

the

Municipal

Trial

Court

in

Cities

(court agr:io

City

and

3

Rollq

pp.219-224

CA.C,R.

CR/C\/iS?

NO.

rl

Proofrrrrrl

i1,l

D.

IUACAPAGAI

t/

(,'lrief

licporre

r

COUR'I'OF

API'EALS

A

VERIFIED

BV

/f



CA-G.R.

SP

No,

tZ492l

DECISION

Page

4

of

11

was docketed

as

Civil Case

No.

13540,4

On September

5,

20 i

t,

the

court

Ordef

dismissing

the

Compiaint

for

lack

decretal

portion

of rvhich

states:

a

of

quo

issued

an

jurisdiction,

the

WHEREFORE, in vierv

of

the

foregoing,

this

case

is

hereby

dismissed

for want

of

jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED

The court

a

qr"ro

ratiocinated in this

wise:

A

review

of

relevant

jurisprudence

on

intra-corporate

controversies

shows

a

development in the

Ccurt's

approach

in

classifying

what

constitutes

an

intra-corporate

controversy. Initially,

the main

considera.tion

in determining

whether

a

dispute

constitutes

an

intra-corporate

controvers.;

was

limited

to

a consideration

of

the intra-corporate

relation

exisiting betrveen

or

among

the

parties.

The type of

relationship

embraced under

Section 5(b) xx>(x were

as

follows:

a)

Between

the

corporaLion,

partnership

or association

and the pubiic;

b)

Between

the corporation,

partnership

or

association

and

its

stockholders,

partners,

members or

officers;

c)

Among

the

stockholders,

partners

or

associates

tL'.emselves.

the

existence

of any of the

above intra.corporate relations

was

sutficient

to confer

jurisdiction

to

the

SEC

(now

the

RTC), regardless

of Lhe subject

matter

of

the dispute.

This

came

to

be known

as

the

relationship

test.

However,

in

the

1984

case

of

DMRC

Enterprises

v.

Esta

Del

Sol

Mountain

Reserve

Inc., the Court

introduced

the

nature

of

the

controversy

test.

It

declared

in

this

case

that

it is

not

the nrere existence

of an

intra-corporate

relationsirip that

gives

rise to

an

intra-corporate

controversy;

to

rely

on the

reiationship

test

alone

wili

divest the regular

courts

of their

jurisdiction

fbr

the sole

reason

that the

dispute

involves

a

corporation,

its directors,

officers,

or

stockholders,

Tht:y

saw

that

there is no legal

sense

in

disregarding

or

minimizing

the

value

of t ature of

the

Rollo,

pp,

195-206

Rollo,

pp.

39-46

CA.G,Ii,

CR,/I]\?SP

NO.

IGOME't

Pr,irrfr'r,,r

I

l)1':

BY:

lt/

ATTY

ARNET,

N.

MACAPAGAI'

Clrief

RcPortcr

COUR'f

OF

APPEAI.S

N

VI.RIFIED 3Y:



CA-G.R. SP No. L24927

DECISION

Page 5

of 11

transactions

which

give

rise to

the dispute.

xxx

To determine

whether

a

case

involves

an

intra-

corporate

controversy,

and

is to

be

heard

and

decided by

the

branches

of

the

RTC

specifically

designated

by the

Court

to

try and

decide such

cases,

two

elements

must

concur,

to

wit:

(a)

The

statrrs

of

relationship

of

the

parties

and

(b)

The natu.re of

the

question

that

is the subject

matter

of

their controversy

xxxx

Guided

by this

recent

jurisprudence,

this

first

level

court

{inds

that

it does

not

have any

jurisdiction

in

this

case

at

it involves

intra-corporate

issues; thus,

it dismisses

the

case

motu

propio.

In

addition, it

bears emphasizing

that the

jurisdiction

of a court

or

tri,:unal

over the

case

is

determined

by

the

allegations in

the

complaint and

the character

of the

relief

songht, irrespective

of

whether

or

not

the

plaintiff

is

entitled

to

recover

all or

some

of

the

claims

asserted

therein.

Moreover,

pursuant to

Section

5.2 of

Republic

Act

No.

8799

otherwise

known

as the

Securities

Regulation Code, the

jurisdiction

of

the

SEC

over

all cases enumerated

under

Section

5 of

PresiCential Decree No.

9O2-A

has

been

transferred

to RTC designated

by the

Suprerne Court

as

SCC's

pursuant

to

A.M.

No.

00-03-SC

promulgated

on

21

November

2000.

Thus, section

1(a), Rule 1 of

the

Interim

Rules

of

Procedure

Governing Intra-Corporate,

Controversies

(lnterim

Rules)

provides as follows:

"Section

1

(a)

Cases

covered. - These rules shall

govern

the

procedure

to

be

observed

in

civil

cases

involving

the

following:

(1)

Devices

or

schemes

employed

by, or

any

act

of,

the

board of directors,

business

associates, offiers

or

parties,

amounting

to

fraud

or

misrepresenLation

which may

be

detrimental to the

interest

of the

public

and/or

stockholders,

partners,

or rnernbers of

any

corporation,

partnership

or asso:iation.

t2l

Contloversies

arising

out

of

intra-corporate,

partnership,

or

association, relation

and

among

een, any or

association

associates,

stockholder, members

or

associa

,

and be

all

of

them

and

the corporation,

ership

of which they are

stockhol

,

members,

o

t

CA.G,R.

CR/CViSP

No.

--ATTY,

ERE,SITA

ARIGOMEnT

Cler

ourt

Pr'rrrfllurl

B),:

BY:

A'I'TY

ARNE'1,

D.

I\TACAPAGAL

[.,

clrirf&.cporrer

___l\l,.___

couR.r

oF Apr,EALs

I

vERIFIED

(

t



CA-G,R.

SP

No.

tZqgZL

DECISION

Page

6

of

11

respectively;

(3)

Controversies

in

the

election

or appointment

of

directors,

trustees,

officers

or

marragers

of corporations,

partnerships

or

associations.

(4) Derivative

suits;

and

(5)

Inspection

of

corporare

books.

WHEREFORE,

in view

of

the

foregoing,

this

case

is

hereby

dismissed

for want

of

jurisdiction.

SC

ORDERED."

Petitioner

appealed

to

the

Regional

Trial

court

(RTC)

and

on

its

March

L,

2012

Decision,

the

latter

affirmecl

the

MTc's

Order, disposing

as

follows,

ujz:

WHEREPORE,

the

Order

dated

September

6,

2O11

of

the

Municipal

Trial

court

in

cities,

Bianch

1,

is

hereby

AFFIRMED

in

toto.

SO

ORDERED,

His

motion

for

reconsideration

having

been

denied

pursuant

to

the

RTc's

order6

dated

April

80,

20

12,

petitioner

is

nov/

before

this

court,

praying

among

others

that

tkre

Decision

of

the

RTc

be

reversed

and

set

asride

and

that

we

remand

the

case

to

the

ccurt

a

quo

for

further

proceedings.

He

raised

the

following

issues

for

our

resolution:

I.

,IHE

REGIONAL

TRIAI,

COURT,

BAGUiO

CITY

BRANCH

5

GRIEVOUSLY

ERRBD

IN

DECLARING

THAT

PETITIONER

S

MOTION

FOR

RECONSIDBRATION

DATED

MARCH

22,20L2

DOES

NOT

CONTAIN

A

NOTICE

OF HEARING

II.

THE

REGIONAL

TRIAI,

COURT,

BAGUIO

CITY

BRANCH

5

GRIEVOUSLY

ERI1ED

IN

DISMISSING

THE

COMPLAINT

FOR

WANT

OF

JURISDICTION

III.

THE

REGIONAL

GRIEVOUSLY

COMPLAINT

IS

CONTROVERSY

TRIAL

COURT,

BAGUIO

CITY

BRANCH

5

ERRED

IN

DECLARING

THAT

THE

CA,G,i,

CR/CV/S?

NO,

*-

A'ITY,

ARIGOMEII

Court

p11,11f

1,'1;l

[lf

i

l]Y:

ATTY

APNE

T}. il(ACAPAGAL

Clrief

ii.r,i,or(er

COURT

OF

nPPEAl-3

4

VERIFIED

BYt

6

Rollo,

p,

193



CA-G.R,

SP No, 124921

DECISION

Page

7

of 11

IV.

THE

REGIONAL

TzuAL

COURT,

BAGUIO

CITY

BRANCH

5

GRIEVOUSLY

ERRED

IN

AFFIRMI}'IG

THE

MUNICIPAL

TRIAL

COURT

II\ CITIES,

BRANCH

1

IN

NOT

RESOLVING

PETITIONER'S

URGENT OMNIBUS

MOTION

FOR

INHIBITION

AND

DEFERMENT

OF

PROCEEDINGS

PENDING

RESOLI.JTION

OF THE

MOTION

FOR

INHIBITION.

Simply stated,

the

crux of

the

controversy

is

whether

or

not the

RTC

was correct

in

affirming

th=

Order

of

the

MTC

which

d.ismissed

the

case for

want

of

jurisdiction.

The

appeal

is meritorious.

Settled

is

the

rule

that

th.e

allegations

in

the

corriplaint

and the reliefs

prayed

for are

the

determinants

of

the

nature

of

the action

and

of

which

court

has

jurisdiction

over

the

matter.T ,{s a

necessary

consequence,

the

jurisdiction

of

the

court

cannot

be made to depend

upon

the

defenses

set

up

in

the answer or upon the motion

to dismiss,

for

otherwise,

the

question

of

jurisdiction

would

depend

almost

entirely

upon

the

defendant.s

The

courrt

a.

qtrc,

according

to

Batas

Bilang

129,

hns the

exclusive

jurisdicti,cn

over

forcible entry

and

unlawful

detainer

cases,e

the

main

issue

being

is

merely

possessLoil

de

facto,

independent

of any claim of ownership or

possession

de

jure

that

either

party

lnay

set

fbrth

in

his

pleading.l0

To

make out a

Forcible

Entry

case, the

complaint

must

necessarily

allege that one

in

physical

possession

of a

land

or

building

has been

depriv'ed

of that

possession

by

another

through force, intimidation, threat., strates/

or stealth.

It

is

not

essential,

however, that the complaint should

expressly

employ

the

language

of

the law,

but

it

would suffice

that

facts

are set

up

sho'wing

that

dLspossession

took

place

under

said

conditions. In other

yvords,

the

plaintiff

must

allege

that

he,

prior

to

the defendant's

act

of

dispossession

by

force,

intimidation,

threat,

strategXr or s[ealth,

had

been

in

pri,cr

physical possession

of the

property. tfris requirement

is

jurisdictional,

and as

long

as

the allegations

demonstrate

a

cause

of action

for

forcible entry,

the

court

acquires

Del

Rosario

v. Gerry

Roxas

Foundation, 551

SCRA

414

See

Ganadin

vs.

Ramos,99

SCRA

621

See BP 129,

The

Judiciary

Reorganiza:ion Act

of

1980

See

Alvir vs. Vera,

130

SCRA

357

C,r"G.R,

CR/CV/SI,

No.

--ATTY.

T

7

I

q

10

0lrief

Rcporter

couRT OF

APPEAII

n

VERIFIED

BYI

TY

Prrtu(r,'0(l

8t':



CA-G.R,

SP No. LZ492L

DECISION

Page

B

of

lt

jurisdiction

over

the

subject

matter.ll The

sole

question

for

resolution

hinges

on

the

physical

or

material

posse$sion

of

the

property.

Ejectment

cases

proceed

independently of

any clzum

of

ownership,

and

the

plaintiff

merely

to

prove

prior

possession

de

facto

and

undue

deprivation thereof.12

With

these

in

mind, We

examine

the

petitioner's

Complaint,

which

essentially states:

8. Within

the

compound

of

Benguet

Pines

Tourist Inn,

particularly

the old building

fronting the orchidarium

is an

ancestral

land

of

the

f)elos

Santos family

which

plaintiff,

his family

members

and

personal

staff have

been

staying

in

or

occu.pying for

several

years/decades

even before

the

establlshment of

Benguet

Pines

Tourist

Inn.

9.

As

a

brief

background,

University

of

Manila, which

owlls Benguet

Pines

Tourist Inn

is a family corporatic.rn

owned by

plaintiffs

late

grandparents

and

parents.

Prior

to

the death

of his

father

Dr,

Virgilio

D. delos

Santos

on

Januaqr

21,

2008,

plaintiff

had continuously

operated

PINES

SHADOW

CAFE which

was

separertcly

registered

in

his

name,

as

p:roof

thereof plaintiff

is

submitting

herewith

a copy

of the

Permit

to

Engage in

Business

of

PINES

SHADOW

CAFE

which

is

registered

trnder

his

name

to

form

an

integral

part

of

this

complaint.

10. Sornetime

on

,fune

15,

2011 while

plaintiff

was in

Manila,

the

defendants

took advantage

of

his

absence

and

defendants

security

guards

Roberto

c.

Gaudia

and

Angelo

P.

Mendalo

assisted

by

defendants

Juliewhynn

Quendoza,

Jocelyn

Oligario

and

Jeffrey

Oligario,

claiming

that

they

were

authorized

by

defendant

Mrs. Emily

De

Leon,

physically

removed

his

personal

belongings,

kitchen

equipment

and

cooking

utensils

ancl other

things from

PINES SHADOW CAFE.

xxxx

12.

On

the

mere

clairrr

of the

defendant that

there

is

,a

Board

Resolution,

defenclants

stealthily

and

forcibly

removJd

the

possessions

of the

plaintiff.

Thus, he was

unduly

deprived

of

his

property

rights

and

t-o

due

process

which

are

well-protected

by the Philippine

Constitution.

Granting,

for

the

sake

of

argurnent,

that

the

said Board Resol0tion

was

in

fact

passed

or

approved,

defendants

took

u

1Z

Sqe

Gachon v. Devera

Jr.,

274

SCRA

540, June 20, L997

See Pagadora

v, Ilao,

G.R. No. 165769, December

L2,2O1L

C^.c,R,

Ci,/CV/Sp

No.

Clrief Re

porter

COUR'T

OF AP?EALS

VERIFIED

By'

Prrh.

ti'r'rrl

'tr,:

nto

their



CA-G,R,

SP

No.

L24921

DECISION

Page 9 of 11

own

hands by

ousting

plaintiff

therefrom

through

the use

of

force, intimidation,

steaith, strategr and threats.xxx

xxxx

16.

At

present

plaintiff

is still

prevented

from

entering

the

ancestral

house

as

well

as the

premises

of

pINES

SHADOW

CAFE

especially

after

defendant

Reynaldo

a.

Marcial

stated

that

plaintiff

must

be careful

as

he

might be

shot

which

was

overheard

by sP03

Samuel

poe

and

Nelso

Domingo

and

otners

present

thereat.

(ernphasis

Ours)

'lhe

foregoing

clearly

demonstrate

that

the

required

jurisdictional

averment::

to

establish.

a cause

of

action

for

forcible

entry

were

all

complied

with

by

petitioner,

From

the

relerrant

details

found

in

the

Cornptaint,

the

means

by which

petitioner's

dispossession

\vas

effected

c?rlrr,Dt

be

said

to

have

been

insufficiently

alleged

but

which

the lower

courts

unfortunately

failed

to

recognize.

The

"how"

(through

force

and

itrtimidation

by

utilizing

security guards

to

effect

the

dispossession),

"when"

(June

25,

Zbt

t;,

anrl

,,where,,

(anscestral

house

and

Pines

shad,cw

cafe)

of

the

d"ispossession

all

appear

on

the

face

of

the

complaint.

The

said

complaint

was

in

fact

amply

substantiated

by

petitioner

by

appending

thereto

the

certifications

issued

by

the

Baguio

Police

office

that

on

the

said

deite (June

2s

,

20

L r)

,

the

respondents

removed

hun

from

the

ancestral

house

and the

Pines

Shadow

Ca_fe.13

It

cannot

also

be

denied

that

Delos

santos

was

in

prior

possession

of

the

anscestral

house

ar:.d

the

pines

Shadow

Cafe

before

he was

unceremoniously

"removed"

therefrom

by the

respondents.

Delos

Santos

merely

seeks

to

be reinstated

to

the

"possession"

of

the

anscestral

house

and.

pines

shadow

Ca-fe

and

whatever

claims

of

owrrership

both

parties

may

have

to

these

properties,

the

sa-rne

can

be

properly

threshed

out in

a more

appropriate

proceeding.

Admittedly,

while

respondent

UM

owned

Benguet

Pines,

it

cannot

be

amiss

that petitioner

occupied

Pines

Shado',v

Cafe

and

the

ancestral

house

prior

to

his

ouster.

CA-G.R,

CR/CV/SP

No,

MARIGOMEX

Court

P

rrr

ri

I

rt,

H

ATTY

ARNEI,

D.

MACAPACA\

Chirf

Re

porter

COUR,I OF APPEAH

T1

vE[tlFIED

BY:

13

Supra

note

3



CA-G,R.

SP

tlo. 72492I

DECISION

Page

10

of

tt

Moreover,

even

respond.ents

UM

seem

to

recOgntze

that

petitioner

was

allowed

to

occupy

a

portion

of

Benguet

Pines

for

-Pirr",

Shadow

Cafe

and

it

"tolLra.ted"

his

stay

in

the

ancestral

house.la These

ad.missions

all

the

more support

petitioner's

claim

that

he

was

indeed.

in

prior

possession

of

the

aforestated

properties.

Respondents'

Answerl5

to

the

Complaint

reveals

the

following,

to

wit:

'2O.

That

the

Benguet

Pines

Tourist

Inn,

which

housed

the

pINES

SHApOW

Cepp,

the

ancestral

house

and the

land

which

they stand,

are

owned

by

the

university

of

Manila

rvhich

is a

juridical

entitv

duly

incorporated

under

Philippine

Laws;

2I.

xx>(

22.

That

ptaintiff

Rrnesto

Delos Santos

managed

and

operated

BENGUET

PINES

TOURIST

INN

which

housed

PINES SHADOW

CAFE,

by

toleration

from

the

members

of

the Board

of

Trustees

In

as

much

as he

is

alos

a

member

of

the

Board

of

Trustees

and

at

the

same

time the

Vice

Presid.ent

of

LI.M.

And

he

is

willing

to

stay

in

Baguio

city;

and as such

manaEler

and

operator

of

BENGUET

TOURIST

INN said

plaintiff

is toterated

also

to occupy

a

room

in

the alleged

ancestral

house

while

hls

employees

tn

PINES

SHADOW

CAFE

wene

allowed to

stay

in the

annex

structure

of

the

ancestral

house;

(emphasis Ours)

The

foregoing

clearly

state

that UM

recognizes

petitioner's

occupation of the said

properties

prior

to his

unlawful

ouster

by

respondents.

i

Meanwhile,

though

We agree

with

respondents

that

UM

may

Fossess

the

power

to issure a Board

Resolution

in order

to

carry

into

effect

its

legitimate

powers

under

the

Corporation

Code,

the

same, however,

rnust

be carried

out

in

the

proper

and

lega1

mannel:.

Lts

act

of dispossessing

Delos

Santos

from

Pines Shadow

Cafe

and

the ancestral

hou.se,

granting

it owns

these

propertiesr,

should

have

been

implemented

within

the

means sanctioned

by law.

In

sum,

petitioner

was

able

to

present in

his

Complaint

before

the

coutt a

quo

tlne

necessary

averments

to establish

a

cause

of action for F orcible

Entry

and

the

same

should

have

been

heard by the court

a.

quo,

rather

ishiss

it

for

lack

14

Rollo,

pp.375-376

and

p.298

ls

Rollo,

p.

124

Ce-G.R.

CR/CVTSP

No.

ATTY.

ARIGOME,\

Pr0olrr,trt

ltr':

tlY:

,l

\

ATT

v

T,

N,

MACAPAGA\

Chief Reporter

COURT OF

APPEAI.S

rt

VERIFIED

BY:



CA-G.R. SP No. L74921

DECISiON

Page 11

of

11

of

jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE,

premi.ses considel'ed,

the

appeal

is

GRAI{TED

and

the

case

is

REIVIANDED

to the Municipal

Tria-l

Court

in Cities,

Branch

1,

Baguio

City

for disposition

of

the

rnerits

of the

case

with dispatch.

SO

ORDERED,

WE

CONCUR:

,#(otft*;^rs?^ffEs

Associate

Justice

ory-z-4/

MARTFL

OX

v/huNZALAI{

CASTILLO

CER'TIFICITTION

Pursuant to

Article

VIII, Section

13

of the Constitution,

it

is

hereby certified

that

the conclusions

in

the above

decision

were reached

in

con.sultation

before

the

case

was assigned

to

the

writer

of

the opinion

of

the

Court.

Associate

Justice

O S.

MACALINO

Associate Justice

MARIFLOR

P. PUN

Associ

Justice

Chairperso

,

Tenth

Divi

CA.G.R,

CR/CV/SP

No.

_-ATTY

ERESITA

TILLO

on

ARIGOMET{

Cter ourl

p;1111fr'l,11

,1

t11,,

BY:

ATTY

I.,

Chief

Re{)orter