Terana v. Hon.

Antonio de Sagun 024

GR No. 152131, 29 April 2009, Brion, J.
Digested by Erika Wijangco • Law 126 – Evidence

Petitioners Floraida Teraña

Respondents Hon. Antonio de Sagun, Presiding Judge, RTC Branch XIV, Nasugbu;
Antonio B. Simuangco
Nature of action Petition for Review on Certiorari of CA
What action below complaint for insurance proceeds

Simunagco leased his house and lot to Teraña. Teraña demolished the leased property and built
a new house, without Simuangco’s consent and in breach of the lease contract. Simuangco
initiated an action for unlawful detainer upon Teraña’s repeated refusal to vacate the premises.
MTC decided without receiving the parties’ position papers. RTC remanded the case to MTC.
CA affirmed the order of remand. SC, stating that a remand was not necessary, partially granted
the petition and ruled on the merits, denied admission of Teraña’s paper and affidavits, and
ordered Teraña to vacate and surrender possession of the property to Simuangco.

FACTS
 Simuangco leased his house and lot at 138, Laurel St., Nasugbu, Batangas, to Teraña
o The Contract of Lease stated that “the lessee obligated herself with the lessor … to keep the leased
property in such repair and condition as it was in the commencement of the Lease with the
exception of portions or parts which may be impaired due to reasonable wear and tear; … not to
make any alterations in the leased property without the knowledge and consent of the lessor”
 Teraña demolished the leased house and erected a new one in 1996
 Simuangco demanded that Teraña vacate the premises after discovering what Teraña did
o Teraña refused
o Simuangco subsequently sent a letter on 3 Feb 97 demanding Teraña to leave
o Teraña received the letter on 10 Feb
 Simuangco filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Teraña grounded on Teraña’s
violation of the lease contract (MTC)
o Teraña’s defense in her Sagot: the demolition and subsequent building were done
with the consent of Simuangco. The old house was on the verge of collapsing and
would have killed Teraña and her family
o Both parties did not file their position papers for the preliminary conference and
moved for the extension of the time to file, which the court denied for being
prohibited under the Rules of Summary Procedure
o The MTC decided in favor of Simuangco under Art 1672 (3) of the Civil Code.
According to the court, Teraña failed to produce evidence that Simuangco gave
her prior permission to demolish the leased house and construct a new one and
that Teraña failed to give specific details about the alleged consent.
o Teraña filed a letter Kahilingan (with position paper and witness affidavits), not
knowing that the court had already rendered the above decision
  Denied by the MTC for being mooted by the decision. Teraña appealed.
 The RTC initially affirmed the MTC decision, but reconsidered its decision and
remanded the case to MTC after Simuangco files his position paper and witness affidavits
o Teraña MR and Motion for New Trial: Simuangco failed to prove his allegations
in the complaint and Teraña’s late filing was excusable negligence (late due to the
distance of her witnesses’ residence)
o The RTC noted that the MTC decision was rendered before Teraña filed her
position paper and affidavits, and relaxed the rules on equitable considerations;
otherwise, would result to miscarriage of justice
 Teraña challenged the order of remand and demanded a new trial, according to Rule 37,
Section 6 of the Rules of Court.
o RTC denied this MR. A lawsuit is best resolved on its full merits. Remand
allowed under Sec 6, Rule 135. Trial de novo at the appellate level may no longer
be conducted under RA 6031
 The CA affirmed the RTC. The remand was based on Rule 135, Sec 6, and not just on
equity and substantial justice.
 Hence, the petition
o Teraña claims that she was demanded to vacate the property because Simuangco’s
relatives needed it and would only vacate the premises upon reimbursement. She
argues that Simuangco had the burden of proving his allegation after her denial
o Simuangco joins Teraña’s prayer for a ruling based on the records instead of a
remand to the MTC. Argues that the MTC ruled on the basis of the pleadings,
stipulation of facts during the preliminary conference, and the records

ISSUES & HOLDING

 Should the case be remanded to the MTC after failure to submit evidence to support his
complaint? –NO
 Should the court appreciate Teraña’s position paper and affidavits? –NO
 Should the complaint for unlawful detainer be dismissed? –NO

RATIO
 Remand is not necessary
o Remand would delay the overdue resolution of the case (filed 16 Apr 97) and
would run counter to the spirit and intent of the Rules on Summary Procedure
 Cannot admit Teraña’s position paper and witness affidavits
o The intent and terms of the RSP speak against liberality prayed for
 RSP purpose: achieve expeditions and inexpensive determination of cases
 Prohibits motions and pleadings that could delay
 As stated in Don Tino Realty v Florentino: to admit a late answer is to put
a premium on dilatory measures, the very mischief that the rules seek to
redress
o Failure of one party to submit his position paper does not bar MTC from deciding
  Sec 10 of the RSP: Rendition of judgment. Within 30 days after recipt of
the last affidavits and position papers, or the expiration of the period for
filing the same, the court shall render judgment. Xxx
 Position paper not indispensable to court’s authority to render judgment
 RSP: court may decide on basis of pleadings and stipulations and
admissions made by the parties, without need for further
proceedings
 What would be extant in the record and bases for judgement would
be the complaint, answer, and the record of the preliminary
conference
 The complaint for unlawful detainer should be given due course
o Requisites:
(1) fact of lease by virtue of a contract, Duly established by the contract of
express or implied lease. Undisputed
(2) expiration or termination of the
possessor’s right to hold possession
(3) withholding by the lessee of For determination (below)
possession after expiration or
termination of right to possess
(4) letter of demand upon lessee to pay Duly established by letter of demand
the rental or comply with the terms of received by Teraña
the lease and vacate the premises
(5) filing of action within one year Duly established. Letter of demand sent
from date of last demand on 3 Feb 97; action filed 16 Apr 97

o Right to hold possession has terminated; possession withheld

 There was a violation of the terms of the Contract of Lease
 Under Sec 1673 (3) of the Civil Code, the lessor may terminate the
lease contract for violation of any of the conditions or terms agreed
upon and may judicially eject the lessee
 The fact of alteration in this case is not disputed. Teraña
demolished the old house and built a new one
 Crucial issue, instead: whether the demolition was known and
consented to by Simuangco. -NO
o Under Rule 8, Sec 10, the material allegations in a
complaint must be specifically denied by the defendant in
his answer
o Rule 8, Sec 11 further provides that material allegations in
the complaint not specifically denied are deemed admitted
o A denial made without setting forth the substance of the
matters relied upon in support of the denial, even when to
do so is practicable, does not amount to a specific denial
 o In this case, the denial of Teraña in her answer is not
specific.
 “maliban sa personal na katangian at tirahan ng
nasasakdal, ay walang katotohanan ang mga
isinasakdal; na hindi lumabag sa kasunduan ang
nasasakda; na ang pagpapagawa ng bahay na
inuupahan ay sa kaalaman at kapahintulutan ng
nasasakdal…”
 Did not allege how and why consent was given
o Teraña’s general denial cannot be given more weight than
an affirmative assertion
 No reimbursement for either party because damages recoverable in an unlawful detainer
action are limited to rentals or reasonable compensation for the use of property only.
o The only issue in an ejectment case is that of rightful possession (Araos v CA)

DISPOSITIVE
Partially granted. Reversed and set
aside. Vacate and surrender
possession of the property.