By: Maymay D. Tocalo, August 16, 2018
FACTS:
On February 6, 1997 petitioner Don Tino Realty filed against the respondent Florentino an ejectment suit. In its complaint, Don Tino alleged that it is the owner and in peaceful possession of a parcel of land. By means of force, strategy and stealth, respondent occupied a portion of the said parcel of land and built his house thereon. Falling within the provisions of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, summons were served upon respondent on February 13, 1997 requiring him to answer within ten (10) days from receipt thereof.
On February 24, 1997 respondent filed his answer through Alvear, president of the Samahang Magkakapitbahay ng RMB. The trial court set the case for preliminary conference on April 13, 1997. The answer is not verified. On March 21, 1997 Don Tino filed a motion for rendition of judgment and motion to cancel the preliminary conference on the ground that the answer of respondent was defective and filed out of time. On March 26, 1997, the trial court granted the motions. It declared that respondent failed to comply with Section 3 (b) and Section 5 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
ISSUE:
Whether or not under the facts of the case, the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure may be liberally interpreted in order to allow the admission of an answer filed one (1) day late.
HELD:
Forcibly entry and unlawful detainer cases are summary proceedings designed to provide for an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or the right to possession of the property involved. It does not admit of a delay in the determination thereof. It is a time procedure designed to remedy the situation.
The Rule on Summary Procedure was promulgated pursuant to Section 36 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 which provides:
SEC. 36. Summary procedures in special cases.- xxx. The Supreme Court shall adopt special rules or procedures applicable to such cases in order to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination thereof without regard to technical rules. Such simplified procedure may provide that affidavits and counter-affidavits may be admitted in lieu of oral testimony and that the periods of filing pleadings shall be non-extendible.
The provisions of the rule on Summary Procedure which are in point are as follows:
Sec. 5. Answer.-Within ten (10) days from service of summons, the defendant shall file his answer to the complaint and serve a copy thereof to the plaintiff. xxx.
Sec. 6. Effect of failure to answer.- Should the defendant fail to answer the complaint within the period above provided, the court, motu proprio, or upon motion of the plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for therein: xxx.
In the said case, however, the defendant raised in his answer that the MCTC had no jurisdiction over the ejectment case as he is a holder of an Agricultural Leasehold Contract and a Certificate of Agricultural Leasehold. Although this did not automatically divest the court of its jurisdiction, we held that it should receive the evidence presented for the purpose of determining whether or not it possesses jurisdiction over the case. Moreover, his defense of lack of jurisdiction may be raised in a motion to dismiss as an exception to the rule on prohibited pleadings.
In the case at bar, no satisfactory explanation was offered by respondent why he was not able to file his answer on time. His allegation that he is economically destitute fails to convince as he did not even wait for the Municipal Trial Court to resolve his motion where he alleged such fact. Thus, the Municipal Trial Court acted correctly when it refused to admit his answer. Consequently, it did not err when it proceeded to render judgment in accordance with section 6 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
FACTS:
On February 6, 1997 petitioner Don Tino Realty filed against the respondent Florentino an ejectment suit. In its complaint, Don Tino alleged that it is the owner and in peaceful possession of a parcel of land. By means of force, strategy and stealth, respondent occupied a portion of the said parcel of land and built his house thereon. Falling within the provisions of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, summons were served upon respondent on February 13, 1997 requiring him to answer within ten (10) days from receipt thereof.
On February 24, 1997 respondent filed his answer through Alvear, president of the Samahang Magkakapitbahay ng RMB. The trial court set the case for preliminary conference on April 13, 1997. The answer is not verified. On March 21, 1997 Don Tino filed a motion for rendition of judgment and motion to cancel the preliminary conference on the ground that the answer of respondent was defective and filed out of time. On March 26, 1997, the trial court granted the motions. It declared that respondent failed to comply with Section 3 (b) and Section 5 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
ISSUE:
Whether or not under the facts of the case, the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure may be liberally interpreted in order to allow the admission of an answer filed one (1) day late.
HELD:
Forcibly entry and unlawful detainer cases are summary proceedings designed to provide for an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or the right to possession of the property involved. It does not admit of a delay in the determination thereof. It is a time procedure designed to remedy the situation.
The Rule on Summary Procedure was promulgated pursuant to Section 36 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 which provides:
SEC. 36. Summary procedures in special cases.- xxx. The Supreme Court shall adopt special rules or procedures applicable to such cases in order to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination thereof without regard to technical rules. Such simplified procedure may provide that affidavits and counter-affidavits may be admitted in lieu of oral testimony and that the periods of filing pleadings shall be non-extendible.
The provisions of the rule on Summary Procedure which are in point are as follows:
Sec. 5. Answer.-Within ten (10) days from service of summons, the defendant shall file his answer to the complaint and serve a copy thereof to the plaintiff. xxx.
Sec. 6. Effect of failure to answer.- Should the defendant fail to answer the complaint within the period above provided, the court, motu proprio, or upon motion of the plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for therein: xxx.
In the said case, however, the defendant raised in his answer that the MCTC had no jurisdiction over the ejectment case as he is a holder of an Agricultural Leasehold Contract and a Certificate of Agricultural Leasehold. Although this did not automatically divest the court of its jurisdiction, we held that it should receive the evidence presented for the purpose of determining whether or not it possesses jurisdiction over the case. Moreover, his defense of lack of jurisdiction may be raised in a motion to dismiss as an exception to the rule on prohibited pleadings.
In the case at bar, no satisfactory explanation was offered by respondent why he was not able to file his answer on time. His allegation that he is economically destitute fails to convince as he did not even wait for the Municipal Trial Court to resolve his motion where he alleged such fact. Thus, the Municipal Trial Court acted correctly when it refused to admit his answer. Consequently, it did not err when it proceeded to render judgment in accordance with section 6 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
