THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 243896, July 15, 2020
ARACELI REBURIANO, Petitioner, v. AUGUSTUS "JOJIT" DE VERA, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CARANDANG, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Rules), assailing the Decision2 dated July 13, 2018 and the Resolution3 dated November 23, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 108629 filed by petitioner Araceli Reburiano (Reburiano).
Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered, as follows:The MTC accorded due weight and consideration to the agreement between Reburiano and Ruth to rescind the purchase agreement.11
(a) Ordering the defendant, and all persons claiming interests under him, to vacate the premises in question and restore the possession thereof to the plaintiff;
(b) Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff reasonable compensation for his use and occupation of the premises at the rate of P10,000.00 a month from January 17, 2004 up to the time he finally vacates the property;
(c) Ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff the sum of P25,000.00, as and for attorney's fees;
(d) Ordering the defendant to pay the costs of suit; and
(e) Ordering the plaintiff to pay to Ruth de Vera and/ or the defendant, by way of refund, the sum of $20,000 less the total sum cumulatively due the plaintiff as reasonable compensation for defendant's use and occupancy of the premises as per (b) above.
Should payment of the net amount due the plaintiff under (e) above be made in the United States of America, the peso-dollar closing rate under the Philippine Dealing System as at the date of payment should be used as basis in converting the total peso amount of reasonable compensation to U.S. dollars, and both the plaintiff and Ruth de Vera are hereby directed to jointly file with this Court a Manifestation that payment of the same had been made.
Finally, since the above judgment has been rendered based on the principle of mutual restitution in cases of rescission under the Civil Code, eviction of the defendant from the premises and restoration of possession thereof to plaintiff pursuant to (a) above shall only take place after all the other dispositions in the dispositive portion of the decision ("b" to "e" above) have been duly satisfied.
SO ORDERED.10 (Underscoring in the original)
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises, you are hereby commanded to effect the execution of this Court's aforequoted judgment and/ or decision: that of the goods and chattels of plaintiff at the above-given address and elsewhere, you cause to be made the sum of $20,000.00 less the total sum cumulatively due to plaintiff as reasonable compensation for defendant's use and occupancy of the premises as per [b] above [.] together with your fees for the service of this writ, all in Philippine currency, which Defendant JOJIT DE VERA recovered in this Court on July 27, 2006 against herein plaintiff with respect to letter [e] of the dispositive portion of the Amended Decision and that you render the same to said defendant Jojit De Vera aside from your fees thereon;On September 25, 2008, Sheriff Rolando Palmares (Sheriff Palmares) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City sent a letter to Reburiano entitled "Demand to Comply Judgment"15 asking her to pay the money judgment of US$20,000.00, as follows:cralawred
In case sufficient properties of said plaintiff cannot be found to satisfy the amount of the writ and your fees hereon, you are hereby ordered to levy upon the real estate of said plaintiff and sell the same in the manner provided for by law for the satisfaction of the said balance of such amount and your fees hereon. Make a return of this writ unto this Court within sixty [60] days from receipt, indicating your action thereon.14 (Emphasis and underscoring in the original)
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that by virtue of the Writ of Execution dated September 5, 2008, issued by HON. TERESITO A. ANDOY, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court of Cainta, Rizal in the above-entitled case, undersigned Sheriff is hereby ordering you to pay within three (3) days Ruth de Vera and/or the defendant by way of refund, the sum of $20,000.00 less the total sum cumulatively due you as reasonable compensation for defendant's use and occupancy of the subject premises.On November 6, 2008, Sheriff Palmares caused the annotation of a Notice of Levy Upon Real Property on TCT No. 540832 as a result of the alleged failure of Reburiano to settle her judgment debt of US$20,000.00.17
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that based on the computations made by this court officer, you are entitled to a total of P340,000.00 reasonable monthly rentals for the use by the defendant of the subject property computed at PI0,000/ month from January 17, 2004 until it was allegedly abandoned by the defendant on November 10, 2006; the amount of P25,000.00 as and for attorney's fees and the amount P2,000 as costs of suit or a total amount of P367,000.00. Payment of the net amount due you shall be based on the peso-dollar closing rate under the Philippine Dealing System, x x x16
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint for quieting of title is ordered DISMISSED for lack of cause of action.In dismissing the complaint, the RTC ruled that Reburiano cannot validly maintain an action for quieting of title because she no longer possessed any legal or equitable title to or interest over the subject property. The RTC explained that because she failed to redeem the foreclosed property within the one-year period, she lost whatever right she had over the property. The RTC also found that Reburiano failed to show that the notice of levy and the certificate of sale are invalid or inoperative. She did not put into issue the validity of the levy on execution and the certificate of sale. Thus, the RTC concluded that even the second requisite for an action to quiet title is also absent.30
SO ORDERED.29 (Emphasis in the original)
A careful analysis of this instruction reveals that it is not one of the permissible reliefs in an ejectment case enumerated in Section 17, Rule 70 of the Rules. The instruction pertained to the restitution of the money Reburiano received from Ruth as down payment for the sale of the subject property that did not push through, a subject matter beyond the jurisdiction of the MTC to resolve and a relief more than what the MTC may award in an ejectment case.
(e) Ordering the plaintiff to pay to Ruth de Vera and/ or the defendant, by way of refund, the sum of $20,000 less the total sum cumulatively due the plaintiff as reasonable compensation for defendant's use and occupancy of the premises as per (b) above.45
Section 8. Questions that may be decided. - No error which does not affect the jurisdiction over the subject matter or the validity of the judgment appealed from or the proceedings therein will be considered unless stated in the assignment of errors, or closely related to or dependent on an assigned error and properly argued in the brief, save as the court may pass upon plain errors and clerical errors.46As a rule, a judgment of a court upon a subject within its general jurisdiction, which is not before it by any statement or claim of the parties, and is foreign to the issues submitted for its determination, is a nullity.47 No error which was not assigned and argued may be considered unless such error is closely related to or dependent on an assigned error or it affects the jurisdiction over the subject matter on the validity of the judgment.48 We have settled that the courts have ample authority to rule on matters not raised by the parties in their pleadings if such issues are indispensable or necessary to the just and final resolution of the pleaded issues.49 In Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees' Association v. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd.,50 it was explained that:cralawred
The Supreme Court has ample authority to review and resolve matters not assigned and specified as errors by either of the parties in the appeal if it finds the consideration and determination of the same essential and indispensable in order to arrive at a just decision in the case. This Court, thus, has the authority to waive the lack of proper assignment of errors if the unassigned errors closely relate to errors properly pinpointed out or if the unassigned errors refer to matters upon which the determination of the questions raised by the errors properly assigned depend.In this case, the resolution of the propriety of the reliefs awarded by the MTC in a related ejectment case, which appears to not be among the permissible reliefs the MTC may award, is indispensable and crucial to the determination of the rights and liabilities of Reburiano and Jojit. Thus, the Court is accorded a broad discretionary power to waive the lack of proper assignment of errors and to consider errors not assigned, including those affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter.
The same also applies to issues not specifically raised by the parties. The Supreme Court, likewise, has broad discretionary powers, in the resolution of a controversy, to take into consideration matters on record which the parties fail to submit to the Court as specific questions for determination. Where the issues already raised also rest on other issues not specifically presented, as long as the latter issues bear relevance and close relation to the former and as long as they arise from matters on record, the Court has the authority to include them in its discussion of the controversy as well as to pass upon them. In brief, in those cases wherein questions not particularly raised by the parties surface as necessary for the complete adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties and such questions fall within the issues already framed by the parties, the interests of justice dictate that the Court consider and resolve them.51 (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied)
But what is the character of these damages? Since the only issue in actions for forcible entry and detainer is physical possession, the damages which plaintiff is entitled to are such as he may have sustained as a mere possessor. Material possession involves only the enjoyment of the thing possessed, its uses and the collection of its fruits, and these are the only benefits which the possessor is deprived of in losing his possession. In other words, plaintiff is entitled only to those damages which are caused by his loss of the use and occupation of the property, and not to such damages as are caused to the land or building during the unlawful possession, which he may recover only if he were the owner of the property, and he cannot be declared as such in an action for forcible entry and detainer. Damages to property may be recovered only by the owner in an ordinary action.53 (Emphasis supplied)This description is instructive in determining the nature of monetary award that may be granted and remains applicable in the present rules governing ejectment cases and limits the monetary award in ejectment cases to losses incurred for the use and occupation of the property.
x x x [T]he prevailing rule is that where there is want of jurisdiction over a subject matter, the judgment is rendered null and void. A void judgment is in legal effect no judgment, by which no rights are divested, from which no right can be obtained, which neither binds nor bars any one, and under which all acts performed and all claims flowing out are void. It is not a decision in contemplation of law and, hence, it can never become executory. It also follows that such a void judgment cannot constitute a bar to another case by reason of res judicata.59 (Italics in the original)Considering that the Amended Decision of the MTC is partially void, it cannot be the basis for the issuance of the Writ of Execution, Notice of Levy Upon Judgment and Certificate of Sale. The Writ of Execution, which stemmed from the partially void judgment of the MTC and gave rise to the sale of the property in an auction, is likewise partially void insofar as it enforces the rescission of the purchase agreement by awarding the sum of US$20,000.00 less the reasonable compensation for Jojit's use and occupancy of the subject property. Hence, the Register of Deeds of Rizal is ordered to cancel the Notice of Levy Upon Real Property and the Certificate of Sale annotated on TCT No. 540832.
Article 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.Pursuant to the principle of unjust enrichment, the amount of US$20,000.00, which constitutes the undisputed amount Reburiano received from Ruth as down payment for the sale of the subject property worth US$60,000.00 that did not materialize, should be returned to Ruth in exchange for the subject property. Although the parties did not enter into a lease agreement, a forced lease was created. Thus, the occupant, Jojit, is still liable to pay rent to the property owner, Reburiano, as a result of the forced lease created by the former's use and occupation of the latter's property.60
Very truly yours, | ||
(Sgd.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III | ||
Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 3-15.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Jhosep Y. Lopez concurring; id. at 20-29.
3 Id. at 46-47.
4 CA rollo, p. 87.
5 Id.
6Rollo, p. 49.
7 Id. at 49, 54.
8 Id. at 50-51.
9 Penned by Presiding Judge Teresito A. Andoy; id. at 48-57.
10 Id. at 56-57.
11 Id. at 56.
12 Id. at 58.
13 Id. at 61-63.
14 Id. at 62-63.
15 Id. at 64; CA rollo, p. 134.
16 Id.
17Rollo, p. 8.
18 Id. at 102-103.
19 Id. at 8.
20 Id. at 65-66.
21 Id. at 92-93.
22 Id. at 89.
23 CA rollo, pp. 92-95.
24 Id. at 94.
25Rollo, pp. 48-57.
26 Id. at 22.
27 Id. at 22-23.
28 Penned by Presiding Judge Ma. Consejo Gengos-Ignalaga; CA rollo, pp. 40-46.
29 Id. at 46.
30 Id.
31 Supra note 2.
32Rollo, pp. 28-29.
33 Id. at 27-28.
34 Id. at 64.
35 Id. at 26-27.
36 Id. at 24.
37 Supra note 3.
38Rollo, pp. 30-36.
39 Id. at 47.
40 Id. at 3-11.
41 Id. at 9.
42 Id. at 10.
43 Id. at 108-112.
44 Id. at 111.
45 Id. at 57.
46 RULES OF COURT, Rule 51, Sec. 8.
47Lam v. Chua, 469 Phil. 852, 863-864 (2004).
48Multi-Realty Development Corp. v. Makati Tuscany Condominium Corp., 524 Phil. 318, 335-336 (2006).
49Hi-Tone Marketing Corp. v. Baikal Realty Corp, 480 Phil. 545 (2004).
50 166 Phil. 505, 518-519(1977).
51 Id.
52 Rules of Court, Rule 70, Sec. 17.
53 2 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1957 ed., p. 301, cited in Reyes v. Court of Appeals 148 Phil. 135, 146(1971).
54 Rules of Court, Rule 47. Sec. 2.
55 Id.
56Diona v. Balangue, 701 Phil. 19, 30-31 (2013).
57 Id.
58 807 Phil. 738,743 (2017).
59 Id.
60Midler v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 2 15922, October 1, 2018.
61 CA rollo, p. 82.
62 Id. at 85.