6.

Director of Lands v CA, 196 S 94

7.

Dionisio v Linsangan GR 178159 March 2, 2011

FACTS:

Gorgonio M. Cruz (Cruz) owned agricultural lands inSan Rafael, Bulacan, that his
tenant, Romualdo San Mateo (Romualdo) cultivated.Upon Romualdos death, his
widow, Emiliana, got Cruzs permission to stay on the property provided she
would vacate it upon demand.
o In September 1989, spouses Vicente and Anita Dionisio (the
Dionisios) bought the property from Cruz. In April 2002, the
Dionisios found out that Emiliana had left the property and that it
was already Wilfredo Linsangan (Wilfredo) who occupied it under
the strength of a "Kasunduan ng Bilihan ng Karapatan" dated April
7, 1977.
The Dionisios, on April 22, 2002, demanded that Wilfredo vacate the land but the
latter declined, prompting the Dionisios to file an eviction suit against him before
the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Rafael, Bulacan.Wilfredo filed an answer
with counterclaims in which he declared that he had been a tenant of the land as
early as 1977.
o At the pre-trial, the Dionisios orally asked leave to amend their
complaint.The Dionisios filed their amended complaint on August 5,
2003; Wilfredo maintained his original answer.

The MTC ruled for the Dionisios and asked Wilfredo to vacate the property and
pay rent and costs.

The RTC affirmed, adding that the action was one for forcible entry.

The CA, however, reversed. The CA held that, by amending their complaint, the
Dionisios effectively changed their cause of action from unlawful detainer to
recovery of possession which fell outside the jurisdiction of the MTC.Further,
since the amendment introduced a new cause of action, its filing on August 5,
2003 marked the passage of the one year limit from demand required in
ejectment suits.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the amended complaint changed the cause of action
2. Whether or not the action is within the jurisdiction of the MTC
HELD:The petition is granted.
REMEDIAL LAW: Effect of amendment of the complaint; nature of the action.

First issue: To determine if an amendment introduces a different cause of action, the

test is whether such amendment now requires the defendant to answer for a liability
or obligation which is completely different from that stated in the original complaint.

Here, both the original and the amended complaint have identical
allegations, and required Wilfredo to defend his possession based on the
allegation that he had stayed on the land after Emiliana left out of the owners
mere tolerance and that the latter had demanded that he leave.It did not
introduce a new cause of action.

Second issue: Wilfredo points out that the MTC has no jurisdiction to hear and decide
the case since it involved tenancy relation under the DARABs jurisdiction. But
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action is determined by the allegations of
the complaint. The records show that Wilfredo failed to substantiate his claim that he
was a tenant of the land.

Second, the Court ruled that this is not an action for forcible entry, since the
complaint contained no allegation that the Dionisios were in possession of the
property before Wilfredo occupied it either by force, intimidation, threat, strategy,
or stealth, an element of that kind of eviction suit.

The Court ruled that this is an action for unlawful detainer:

(1) the defendant has possession of property by contract with or by tolerance
of the plaintiff;
(2) such possession became illegal upon plaintiffs notice to defendant,
terminating the latter's right of possession;
(3) the defendant remains in possession, depriving the plaintiff of the
enjoyment of his property; and
(4) within a year from plaintiff's last demand that defendant vacate the
property, the plaintiff files a complaint for ejectment. If the defendant had
possession of the land upon mere tolerance of the owner, such tolerance
must be present at the beginning of defendants possession.

Here, while there was no specific allegation of "tolerance" in the complaint, the
Court concedes that the rules do not require the plaintiff in an eviction suit to use
the exact language of such rules.The Dionisios alleged that Romualdo used to be
the lands tenant and that when he died, the Dionisios allowed his widow,
Emiliana, to stay under a promise that she would leave upon demand.These
allegations clearly imply the Dionisios "tolerance" of her (or any of her
assignees).

Petition is GRANTED.
The decision of the CA is reversed and that of the MTC reinstated.

o
8.

Santos v Lumbao 519 S 408 (2007)

In the "Bilihan ng Lupa," dated 17 August 1979, the signatures of petitioners

Virgilio and Tadeo appeared thereon. Moreover, in petitioners Answer and
Amended Answer to the Complaint for Reconveyance with Damages, both
petitioners Virgilio and Tadeo made an admission that indeed they acted as
witnesses in the execution of the "Bilihan ng Lupa," dated 17 August 1979.

However, in order to avoid their obligations in the said "Bilihan ng Lupa,"

petitioner Virgilio, in his cross-examination, denied having knowledge of the sale
transaction and claimed that he could not remember the same as well as his
appearance before the notary public due to the length of time that had passed.

Facts:

Respondent spouses Lumbao filed an action for reconveyance with damages

against petitioners. Petitioners are survivors and legitimate heirs of Rita Santos
who allegedly sold 2 parcels of land to respondents when she was alive by virtue
of a document called bilihan ng lupa,
o The repsondents even claimed that the execution of the document
was signed and witnessed by petitioners Virgilio and Tadeo.

After having acquired the subject property, respondents Spouses Lumbao took
actual possession and built a house which they occupied as exclusive owners up
to the present.
o The respondents Spouses Lumbao made several verbal demands
upon Rita, during her lifetime, and thereafter upon herein
petitioners, to execute the necessary documents to effect the
issuance of a separate title in their favor.

Respondents Spouses Lumbao alleged that prior to her death, Rita informed
respondent Proserfina Lumbao she could not deliver the title to the subject
property because the entire property inherited by her and her co-heirs from Maria
had not yet been partitioned.

Finally, the respondents Lumbao claimed that petitioners, acting fraudulently and
in conspiracy with one another, executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement,
adjudicating and partitioning among themselves and the other heirs, the estate
left by Maria, which included the lot already sold to them. Due to refusal of
petitioners to convey the said propert, the spouses filed the action.

The lower court (RTC) dismissed the complaint of ground of lack of cause of
action as the spouses allegedly did not comply with the required barangay
conciliation. The CA granted and ordered the petititoners to convey the land to
the spouses, hence this petition.

Issue: Whether or not the admissions made are admissible and binding
YES. As a general rule, facts alleged in a partys pleading are deemed admissions of
that party and are binding upon him, but this is not an absolute and inflexible rule.

An answer is a mere statement of fact which the party filing it expects to prove,
but it is not evidence. And in spite of the presence of judicial admissions in a
partys pleading, the trial court is still given leeway to consider other evidence
presented.
o However, in the case at bar, petitioners had not adduced any other
evidence to override the admission made in their answer that
Virgilio and Tadeo actually signed the [Bilihan ng Lupa.

Hence, the general rule that the admissions made by a party in a

pleading are binding and conclusive upon him applies in this case.

As a general rule, facts alleged in a party's pleading are deemed admissions of

that party and binding upon it, but this is not an absolute and inflexible rule. An
Answer is a mere statement of fact which the party filing it expects to prove, but it
is not evidence.
9.

Gardner v CA 131 S 585

Facts:

The case involve several transfers of the subject real property. It appears that
petitioners the Gardner spouse enter into an agreement with Respondent
spouses, the Santoses to subdivide 2 parcels of land and executed an absolute
deed of sale in favor of the latter.
o The real truth is that what occurred was a sale in trust since the
petitioner obtained an amount of money from the respondents,
who inturn promised to improve the land.

Apparently, the Santoses transferred the properties to the Cuencas who in turn
transferred it to the Verroyas who executive a mortgage over the lot. Then
Verroya executed a deed of transfers to the Natividads.
o Note that from the titles of the Cuencas (the Second Transferees)
to the titles of the Natividads (the Fourth Transferee), the Adverse
Claim of the Gardners continued to be carried, and that throughout
the successive transfers, the petitioners continued to remain in
possession, cultivation and occupation of the disputed properties.

In their Answer, the Santoses claimed that the sale to them was conditional in the
sense that the properties were to be considered as the investment of the
petitioners in the subdivision venture and that in the event that this did not
materialize they were to reconvey the lots to petitioners upon reimbursement by
the latter of all sums advanced to them; and that the deed of sale was to be
registered for the protection of the Santoses considering the moneys that the
latter would be advancing.

Hence, the Gardners filed an action for declaration of Nullity, Rescission and
damages against the 5 transferres and mortgagees. The RTC ruled in favor of
petitioners declaring the transfers null and void. The CA affirmed in toto the RTC
but reconsidered it decision and ruled that the sale of land to Natividads are
valid.

Issue: Whether or not the admissions made by Santos in the pleadings are
admissible
NO.

The testimony of Ariosto Santos is at variance with the allegations in his Answer.

Santos himself, in open Court, had repudiated the defenses raised in his answer
and against his own interest, his testimony is deserving of weight and credence.
Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court believed in his credibility and we find
no reason to overturn their findings thereon. Santos likewise admitted against his
own interest that the petitioners did not receive from him any consideration,
which corroborated the declarations of the petitioners.
o

The Subdivision Joint Venture Agreement and the Supplemental

Agreement express that the true and real nature of the agreement
between the parties, which was for a subdivision and not a sale
transaction.

All Five Transfers were absolutely simulated and fictitious and were, therefore,
void ab initio and inexistent. Contracts of sale are void and produce no effect
whatsoever where the price, which appears therein as paid, has, in fact, never
been paid by the purchaser to the vendor.

10. San Pedro Cineplex v Heirs of Enano GR 190754 November 17, 2010

Loss of standing in court, the forfeiture of one's right as a party litigant,

contestant or legal adversary, is the consequence of an order of default. A
party in default loses his right to present his defense, control the proceedings,
and examine or cross-examine witnesses. He has no right to expect that his
pleadings would be acted upon by the court nor may be object to or refute
evidence or motions filed against him.
A defendant who has been declared in default is precluded from raising
any other ground in his appeal from the judgment by default, since
otherwise, he would then be allowed to adduce evidence in his defense,
which right he had lost after he was declared in default. Indeed, he is
proscribed in the appellate tribunal from adducing any evidence to
bolster his defense against the plaintiff's claim.

Remedies to a party who has been declared in default:

1. The defendant in default, may, at any time after discovery thereof and
before judgment, file a motion under oath, to set aside the order of
default on the ground that his failure to answer was due to fraud,
mistake, accident, or excusable neglect, and that he has meritorious
defense;
2. If the judgment has already been rendered when the defendant
discovered the default, but before the same has become final and
executory, he may file a motion for new trial (Rule 37);
3. If defendant has discovered the default after the judgment has become
final and executor, he may file a petition for relief (Rule 38); or
4. He may also appeal from the judgment rendered against him as
contrary to the evidence or the law, even if no petition to set aside the
order of default has been presented by him.

11. Otero v Tan 678 S 583

(Effect of Default; Remedies Thereof)
Facts:

Tan filed a complaint for collection of sum of money and damages in the MTCC
Cagayan de Oro City against Otero, for the latter's failure to pay his obligations
arising from purchased on credit petroleum products from Tan's Petron outlet.

Despite receipts of summons which was served to Otero's wife, no answer was
filed. This prompted Tan to file a motion to declare him in default. Otero opposed
on the ground that he never received the summons.

Hence, a hearing on the motion was set. However, Otero failed to appear on the
day of the hearing. The Court, thus, declared him in default. Tan then allowed to
present his evidence ex parte. In due time, MTCC ruled in favor of Tan, ordering
Otero to pay Tan a sum of money. The decision was affirmed by the RTC and
CA. Hence this, instant petition.

Otero's contention: The statements of account presented by Tan as pieces of

evidence were not authenticated. Hence, inadmissible before the court.

Issue: Whether or not Otero, having been declared in default by the MTCC, may, in
the appellate proceedings, still raise the failure of Tan to authenticate the statements
of account which was adduced in evidence.
Held: YES he may raise that issue, but it would not modify the ruling of declaring him
liable to Tan.

- [Otero availed of the 4th remedy. True indeed, it was erroneous for the lower courts
to rely on the statements of account, as they were inadmissible in evidence. The
statements of account presented by Tan, which are private documents, were merely
hearsay as the genuineness and due execution of the same were not established.
Nevertheless, Otero's obligation to pay was still proven by a preponderance of
evidence, through the direct testimonies of Tan's employees. Hence, judgment
affirmed.]