Sumalinog, Jaz Ann T.

67. Muñoz v Atty. Yabut, G.R. 142676 & 1476718

.
PETITIONER: Emerita MUÑOZ
RESPONDENT:Atty. Victoriano YABUT, Jr. and Samuel GO CHAN
DATE: June 26, 2011
PONENTE: Leonardo-De Castro, J.
TOPIC: General Provisions

FACTS:
● The subject property in this case was formerly owned by the spouses Ching. Petitioner
Muñoz (sister of the wife Ching) lived with the spouses.
● Subsequently, the spouses agreed to transfer said property to Muñoz for the latter’s
valuable service to the spouses. A Deed of Absolute Deed was executed and a TCT was
issued under the name of Muñoz.
● However, the same property was purportedly sold by Muñoz to her sister. With this, a
new TCT was issued under Ching’s name. Meanwhile, Ching sold the property to
spouses Go and a new TCT was issued under the latter’s name.
● Muñoz registered her adverse claim to the subject property and filed a complaint for the
annulment of the deeds of absolute sale in favor of Ching and the spouses Go and for
the restoration and revival of TCT under her name. She also caused the annotation of a
notice of lis pendens on TCT of the spouses Go.
● RTC, however, granted spouses Go’s motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction and ordered the sheriff to put to them the possession of the subject property.
CA dismissed Muñoz’petition.
● On the other hand, the Ching’s filed a motion to intervene and for the issuance of TRO.
CA issued TRO but later, denied the motion to intervene.
● Subsequently, Muñoz’s adverse claim and notice of lis pendens was cancelled based on
the alleged final judgment in favor of spouses Go.
● With this, spouses Go later obtained loan from BPI and executed REM over the subject
property in favor of the latter. When the spouses failed to pay their obligation, the
mortgaged property was foreclosed and sold at public auction. BPI then was able to
register the property in its name. BPI then sold the property to spouses Chan.
● In relation to Muñoz’s complaint, RTC ruled in her favor and held that her signature on
the Deed of Absolute Sale was forged; that she never sold the property to her sister; and
that the spouses Go were not innocent purchasers for value.
● On appeal, CA affirmed RTC’s decision and ordered the spouses Go and their
successors-in-interest and assigns and those acting on their behalf to vacate the subject
property.
● The Chings failed to file their petition thus, decision became final and executory and the
same was entered in the Book of Entries of Judgment.
● A writ of execution was issued 2 months after. With this, the spouses Chan filed an
Urgent Motion to Stop Execution claiming ownership and possession of the subject
property on the basis of a clean title registered in their names. They further contended
that the final judgment could not be executed against them since they were not parties to
the said case.
● It was only at this point that Muñoz discovered that her adverse claim and notice of lis
pendens were cancelled as well as the subsequent transfer and registration of the title to
 the subject property from the spouses Go, to BPI Family, and finally, to the spouses
Chan.
● Acting of spouses Chan’s motion, the same was denied by the RTC. Later, an Alias Writ
of Execution was issued in favor of Muñoz.
● Pending resolution of the spouses Chan’s MR, Muñoz filed a Complaint for Forcible
Entry with prayer for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction before MeTC against Chan and
Atty. Yabut alleging that they ousted her of her possession over the subject property by
stealth, threat, force, and intimidation.
● MeTC ruled in favor of Muñoz which was questioned by Chan and Yabut. RTC later
issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the implementation of MeTC’s order. It
ruled in favor of Chan and Yabut and found that the MeTC committed GAD in not
dismissing Muñoz's complaint for forcible entry on the ground of "lis pendens," as the
issue as to who between Muñoz and the spouses Chan had the better right to
possession of the subject property was the subject of the pending proceeding. This was
affirmed by CA.
● GR No. 146718: Muñoz filed a Motion to Cute the Register of Deeds in Contempt of
Court for the failure of the Register of Deeds to restore her title over the proeprty despite
the serving of writ of execution of the judgment in her favor. She also filed Motion for
Contempt against Chan and Yabut. However, RTC denied her motions. CA also
dismissed her petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not it was proper to dismiss Muñoz’s complaint for forcible entry against
Chan and Yabut. NO

RULING:
There is forcible entry or desahucio when one is deprived of physical possession of land or
building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. In such cases, the possession
is illegal from the beginning and the basic inquiry centers on who has the prior possession de
facto . In filing forcible entry cases, the law tells that two allegations are mandatory for the
municipal court to acquire jurisdiction: first, the plaintiff must allege prior physical possession of
the property, and second, he must also allege that he was deprived of his possession by any of
the means provided for in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, i.e., by force, intimidation,
threat, strategy, or stealth. It is also settled that in the resolution thereof, what is important is
determining who is entitled to the physical possession of the property. Indeed, any of the parties
who can prove prior possession de facto may recover such possession even from the owner
himself since such cases proceed independently of any claim of ownership and the plaintiff
needs merely to prove prior possession de facto and undue deprivation thereof.

In this case, RTC erred in dismissing the case even before completion of the proceedings before
the MeTC. When the case was dismissed by the RTC, the MeTC had only gone so far as holding
a hearing on and eventually granting Muñoz's prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction. The factual issue of who was in prior possession of the subject property
should be litigated between the parties regardless of whether or not the final judgment in 1 st case
she filed extended to the spouses Chan. Hence, the pendency of the latter issue in 1 st case did
not warrant the dismissal of forcible entry case before the MeTC on the ground of litis pendentia.
The two cases could proceed independently of one another.

Moreover, forcible entry case is governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. The
purpose of the Rule on Summary Procedure is to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive
determination of cases without regard to technical rules. Pursuant to this objective, the Rule
prohibits petitions for certiorari, like a number of other pleadings, in order to prevent unnecessary
delays and to expedite the disposition of cases

DISPOSITION: Petition GRANTED and MeTC was directed to reinstate the forcible entry
complaint filed by Muñoz.