J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2016-0018: TRAVEL & TOURS ADVISERS, INCORPORATED VS. ALBERTO CRUZ, SR., EDGAR HERNANDEZ and VIRGINIA MUNOZ (GR. No. 199282, 14 MARCH 2016, PERALTA, J) (SUBJECT/S: DAMAGES RESULTING FROM CAR ACCIDENT) (BRIEF TITLE: TRAVEL AND TOURS VS. ALFREDO CRUS JR. ET AL)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, dated December 28, 2011, of petitioner Travel & Tours Advisers, Inc. is DENIED. However, the Decision dated May 16, 2011 of the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED . . .  (PLEASE READ THE CONTINUATION IN THE DECISION).

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT REGARDING CASES ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS?

THE SUPREME COURT IS LIMITED TO THE REVIEW OF ERRORS OF LAW.

REASON: BECAUSE THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE DEEMED CONCLUSIVE.

CONSEQUENCE: SUPREME COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANALYZE AND WEIGH ALL OVER AGAIN THE EVIDENCE CONSIDERED BY THE LOWER COURTS.

ARE  THERE  EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RULE?

YES.

THESE EXCEPTIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

 ( 1) WHEN THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE TRIAL COURT ARE CONTRADICTORY;

(2) WHEN THE FINDINGS ARE GROUNDED ENTIRELY ON SPECULATION, SURMISES, OR CONJECTURES;

(3) WHEN THE INFERENCE MADE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FROM ITS FINDINGS OF FACT IS MANIFESTLY MISTAKEN, ABSURD, OR IMPOSSIBLE;

( 4) WHEN THERE IS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN THE APPRECIATION OF FACTS;

(5) WHEN THE APPELLATE COURT, IN MAKING ITS FINDINGS, GOES BEYOND THE ISSUES OF THE CASE, -AND SUCH FINDINGS ARE CONTRARY TO THE ADMISSIONS OF BOTH APPELLANT AND APPELLEE;

(6) WHEN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS PREMISED ON A · MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS;

(7) WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS FAILS TO NOTICE CERTAIN RELEVANT FACTS WHICH, IF PROPERLY CONSIDERED, WILL JUSTIFY A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION;

(8) WHEN THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE THEMSELVES ·CONFLICTING;

(9) WHEN THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT CITATION OF THE SPECIFIC EVIDENCE ON WHICH THEY ARE BASED; AND

(10) WHEN THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE PREMISED ·ON THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE BUT SUCH FINDINGS ARE CONTRADICTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD.

THE BUS VEERED AWAY FROM ITS USUAL ROUTE TO AVOID TRAFFIC. DID IT VIOLATE ITS FRANCHISE?

NO. VEERING AWAY IS DIFFERENT FROM BEING OUT OF LINE.

ITS FRANCHISE SPECIFIED ITS ROUTE AS: from Manila-Ilocos Norte/Cagayan-Manila. thus, the bus is allowed to traverse any point between Manila-Ilacos Norte/Cagayan-Manila. THE BUS WAS WELL WITHIN THIS ROUTE.

HOW ABOUT THE PASSENGER JEEPNEY?

IT WAS TRAVERSING OUTSIDE ITS ALLOWED ROUTE.

IS THIS A CASE OF PARI DELICTO?

NO.

SINCE THIS IS NOT A CASE OF  PARI DELICTO, THEN WHAT PROVISION OF LAW APPLIES?

IT WOULD SEEM THAT  ARTICLE  2185 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE IS· APPLICABLE WHERE IT PROVIDES THAT:

Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person dfiving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.

BUT SUCH PROVISION DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE IT IS ONLY A PRESUMPTION WHICH CAN BE OVERCOME BY EVIDENCE.

BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE COLLISION IS THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE DRIVER OF PETITIONER’S BUS.

WHY?

BECAUSE THE JEEPNEY WAS BUMPED AT THE LEFT REAR PORTION. BASE ON PAST SC RULING DRIVERS OF VEHICLES WHO BUMP THE REAR· OF ANOTHER VEHICLE ARE PRESUMED TO BE THE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, UNLESS CONTRADICTED BY OTHER EVIDENCE.

WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THIS PRESUMPTION?

THE DRIVER OF THE REAR VEHICLE HAS FULL CONTROL OF THE SITUATION AS HE IS IN A POSITION TO OBSERVE THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF HIM.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2016-0018-TRAVEL AND TOURS

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2016-0017: MILAGROS DIAZ, EDUARDO Q. CATACUTAN, DANTE Q. CATACUTAN, REPRESENTED BY THEIR COMMON ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, FERNANDO Q. CATACUTAN, PETITIONERS, -VERSUS SPOUSES GAUDENCIO PUNZALAN AND TERESITA PUNZALAN, (G.R. NO. 203075, 16 MARCH 2016, PERALTA, J.) (SUBJECT/S: UNLAWFUL DETAINER; FORCIBLE ENTRY; JURISDICTION) (BRIEF TITLE: DIAZ ET AL VS. SPOUSES PUNZALAN)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals; dated February 17, 2012, and its Resolution dated July 25, 2012 in CA-G.R. SP No. 112959, are hereby AFFIRMED. 

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

IN EJECTMENT CASES HOW IS THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT DETERMINED?

BY THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT AND THE CHARACTER OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT.

WHAT STATEMENTS OF FACTS SHOULD BE STATED?

SUCH FACTS AS TO BRING THE PARTY CLEARLY WITHIN THE CASES COVERED BY SECTION 1, RULE 70 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE?

WHAT DOES SECTION 1, RULE 79 PROVIDES?

SECTION 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when. -Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives  or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action !n the proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming ·under them, for the restitution of such possession,  together with damages and costs.

UNDER THE AFOREQUOTED RULE, WHAT ARE POSSIBLE CAUSES OF ACTION?

THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT AND DIFFERENT CAUSES OF ACTION:

1)A CASE FOR FORCIBLE ENTRY, WHICH IS AN ACTION TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF A PROPERTY FROM THE DEFENDANT WHOSE OCCUPATION THEREOF IS ILLEGAL FROM THE BEGINNING AS HE ACQUIRED POSSESSION BY INTIMIDATION, THREAT, STRATEGY OR STEALTH; AND

 2) A CASE FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER, WHICH IS AN ACTION FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION FROM THE DEFENDANT WHICH POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WAS LAWFUL AT THE INCEPTION BY VIRTUE OF A CONTRACT WITH THE PLAINTIFF, BE IT EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY BECAME ILLEGAL WHEN HE CONTINUED HIS POSSESSION DESPITE THE TERMINATION OF HIS RIGHT OR AUTHORITY.

WHAT ARE THE FACTS TO BE STATED IN A CASE FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER?

THE COMPLAINT MUST STATE THE FOLLOWING:

(1) THE DEFENDANT’S INITIAL POSSESSION ,OF THE PROPERTY WAS LAWFUL, EITHER BY CONTRACT WITH OR BY TOLERANCE OF THE PLAINTIFF;

(2) EVENTUALLY, SUCH POSSESSTON BECAME ILLEGAL UPON THE PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT OF THE TENNINATION OF THE LATTER’S RIGHT OF POSSESSION;

(3) THEREAFTER, THE  DEFENDANT REMAINED IN POSSESSION AND DEPRIVED THE PLAINTIFF OF THE ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY; AND

( 4) THE PLAINTIFF INSTITUTED THE COMPLAINT FOR EJECTMENT WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR FROM THE LAST DEMAND TO VACATE THE PROPERTY.

WHAT ARE THE FACTS TO BE STATED IN A CASE FOR FORCIBLE ENTRY?

THE COMPLAINT MUST STATE THE FOLLOWING:

 (1) THE PLAINTIFF MUST ALLEGE PRIOR PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY;

(2) THE PLAINTIFF WAS DEPRIVED OF POSSESSION BY FORCE, INTIMIDATION, THREAT, STRATEGY OR STEALTH; AND

(3) THE ACTION MUST BE FILED WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR FROM THE DATE OF ACTUAL ENTRY ON THE LAND, EXCEPT THAT WHEN THE ENTRY IS THROUGH STEALTH, THE ONE (1 )-YEAR PERIOD IS COUNTED FROM THE TIME THE PLAINTIFF-OWNER OR LEGAL POSSESSOR LEARNED OF THE DEPRIVATION OF THE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY.

IT IS NOT NECESSARY, HOWEVER, FOR THE COMPLAINT TO EXPRESSLY USE THE EXACT LANGUAGE OF THE LAW. FOR AS LONG AS IT IS SHOWN THAT THE DISPOSSESSION TOOK PLACE UNDER SAID CONDITIONS, IT IS CONSIDERED AS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS.  

THE PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT THEIR CASE WAS NOT FORCIBLE ENTRY BECAUSE THEY TOLERATED THE OCCUPATION OF THE PROPERTY BY SPOUSES PUNZALAN. IT WAS ONLY AFTER THEY DEMANDED THAT THEY LEAVE BUT THEY REFUSED TO LEAVE THAT SPOUSES PUNZALAN COMMITTED UNLAWFUL DETAINER. IS THIS CLAIM CORRECT?

NO.

WHEN SPOUSES PUNZALAN CONSTRUCTED THEIR DWELLING HOUSE ON SUBJECT LOT WITHOUT PETITIONER’S KNOWLEDGE THEIR ACT FALLS UNDER STEALTH WHICH IS DEFINED AS ANY SECRET, SLY OR CLANDESTINE ACT TO AVOID DISCOVERY AND TO GAIN ENTRANCE INTO, OR TO REMAIN WITHIN RESIDENCE OF ANOTHER WITHOUT PERMISSION.

PETITIONER’S TOLERANCE CAME LATER, NOT FROM INCEPTION AS REQUIRED BY THE RULES.

IS THERE A SIMILAR CASE APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE?

YES. ZACARIAS V. ANACAY (G.R. NO. 202354, SEPTEMBER 24, 2014, 736 SCRA 508, 521)

IN SAID CASE THE  PETITIONER ARGUED THAT UNLAWFUL DETAINER WAS THE PROPER REMEDY, CONSIDERING THAT SHE MERELY TOLERATED RESPONDENTS’ STAY IN THE PREMISES AFTER DEMAND TO VACATE WAS MADE UPON THEM. THEY HAD, IN FACT, ENTERDD ·INTO AN AGREEMENT .AND SHE WAS ONLY FORCED TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION WHEN RESPONDENTS RENEGED ON THEIR PROMISE TO VACATE THE PROPERTY AFTER THE LAPSE OF THE PERIOD AGREED UPON. THE COURT HELD THAT THE. MCTC CLEARLY HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE AS THE COMPLAINT DID NOT SATISFY THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF A VALID CAUSE FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER.

 WHAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER?

THE NATURE OF THE DEFENDANT’S ENTRY INTO OR INITIAL POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY.

IN FORCIBLE ENTRY, DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION IS ILLEGAL AT THE START.

IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER, DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION IS LEGAL BUT BECAME ILLEGAL DUE TO THE EXPIRATION OR T”ERMINATION OF THE RIGHT TO POSSESS.

WHEN SHOULD THE ONE YEAR PERIOD STARTS IN FORCIBLE ENTRY?

FROM DATE OF ENTRY. IN CASE ENTRY WAS BY STEALTH, FROM DATE OF DISCOVERY.  BECAUSE FORCIBLE ENTRY IS AN OPEN CHALLENGE TO THE RIGHT OF THE POSSESSOR. VIOLATION OF THAT RIGHT AUTHORIZES A SPEEDY REDRESS.

WHAT IS THE REMEDY OF THE PETITIONER?

HE MAY FILE AN ACCION PUBLICIANA OR ACCION REIVINDICATORIA WITH THE PROPER RTC.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2016-0017-DIAZ

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.