SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 180687. October 6, 2010.]

ESMERALDO C. ROMULLO, PEDRO MANGUNDAYAO, MAXIMO

ANES, ELVIRA BONZA, ROBERTO BELARMINO, TELESPORO
GARCIA, BETH ZAIDA GIMENEZ, CELSO LIBRANDO, MICHAEL
DELA CRUZ, and ROBERTO ARAWAG , petitioners, vs.
SAMAHANG MAGKAKAPITBAHAY NG BAYANIHAN
COMPOUND HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
represented by its President, PAQUITO QUITALIG ,
respondent.

DECISION

NACHURA, ** J : p

Before this Court is a Petition for Certiorari 1 under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Civil Procedure, seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision
2 dated August 22, 2007.

Culled from the records, the facts, as narrated by the CA, are as
follows:
In its Complaint, respondent [Samahang Magkakapitbahay ng
Bayanihan Compound Homeowners Association, Inc., represented by
its President, Paquito Quitalig] alleged that since it was qualified to
avail of the benefits under the Community Mortgage Program of the
government, it secured a loan from the National Home Mortgage
Finance Corporation Development Fund (NHMFCDF) for the purchase of
a land known as Bayanihan Compound located in Santan Street,
Parang, Marikina. Said land would thereafter be distributed to
members/beneficiaries of the respondent under its housing program.
After the sale was consummated, two Transfer Certificates of Title were
issued in the name of the respondent and the land was distributed in
portions to respondent's members/beneficiaries. However, despite
demand, petitioners [Esmeraldo C. Romullo, Pedro Mangundayao,
Maximo Anes, Elvira Bonza, Roberto Belarmino, Telesporo Garcia, Beth
Zaida Gimenez, Celso Librando, Michael dela Cruz, and Roberto
Arawag] refused to pay their monthly dues and legal fees as well as
the deposits and amortizations for their respective lot allocations.
Resultantly, respondent approved a Resolution expelling the petitioners
as its members and disqualifying them as beneficiaries of the housing
project and in another Resolution, also approved the substitution of
petitioners by qualified members/beneficiaries in accordance with the
Rules and Regulations Implementing the Community Mortgage
Program.

Despite notice of disqualification, petitioners continued to occupy

the lots alloted to them and refused to execute a waiver of their lot
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 allotments. The matter was referred to the barangay for conciliation
but still no settlement was reached. Thus, final and formal demands
were made by respondent on each of the petitioners to vacate and
surrender peacefully [the] possession and control of their lots. Still,
petitioners refused and failed to comply. Ultimately, respondent sought
the eviction of the petitioners based on the provisions of the
Implementing Corporate Circular of the NHMFCDF on Community
Mortgage Program under RA [No.] 7279, specifically Sections 8.5.4 and
12.3.5 by filing an ejectment case against the petitioners praying that
they vacate the premises and pay the sum of PhP3,000.00 as
reasonable compensation until such time that they vacate the lots in
question. TESDcA

In their Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim, petitioners

alleged that respondent neither informed them of the status of the
housing project and its scheduled meetings, nor were they notified of
respondent's registration with the Home Insurance Guaranty
Corporation (HIGC), wherein some of them were excluded in the master
list of members/beneficiaries. Petitioners further argued that the board
resolutions expelling them as members and disqualifying them as
beneficiaries of the respondent's housing project were null and void as
the terms of office of the members of the Board of Directors who
passed the said resolutions had already expired at the time the
meeting was held. Moreover, they maintained that the case should
have been suspended due to a prejudicial question brought about by
the filing of another suit by some of them with the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) entitled "Esmeraldo C. Romul[l]o, et al.
v. Paquito Quitalig, et al." As counterclaims, petitioners sought awards
of moral and exemplary damages as well as litigation expenses.

In its Decision, the M[e]TC gave more weight to the arguments

raised by the petitioners and the Complaint was dismissed without
prejudice for alleged lack of jurisdiction in view of the pending case
before the HLURB involving the same parties and issues. Petitioners'
counterclaims were likewise dismissed for lack of merit. However, this
judgment was reversed by the RTC on appeal. The dispositive portion
of the RTC's Decision reads:
"WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the
appealed Decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Marikina City,
Branch 75 in Civil Case No. 04-7591 is hereby REVERSED. The
plaintiff-appellant is hereby declared the lawful possessor of the
premises in question and judgment is hereby rendered against
the defendants-appellees, as follows:

1. Ordering the defendants-appellees and all persons

claiming rights and interest under them to vacate the
lots they are occupying located at Bayanihan
Compound, Santan Street, Parang, Marikina City and
surrender peaceful possession thereof unto the
plaintiff-appellant;

2. Ordering the defendants-appellees to pay plaintiff-

appellant the amount of P1,000.00 each per month
as reasonable compensation for the use of the lots
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 they occupy starting February 19, 2004, until such
time that possession thereof is restored to the
plaintiff-appellant;

3. Ordering the defendants-appellees to pay the

amount of P20,000.00, as and by way of attorney's
fees plus costs of the suit.

SO ORDERED." 3

Aggrieved, petitioners went to the CA with a prayer for the issuance of

a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, claiming
that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) erred in not affirming the dismissal of the
complaint by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) for lack of jurisdiction.
On August 22, 2007, the CA ruled in favor of respondent. The CA held
that the complaint filed by respondent against petitioners contained
assertions that clearly established a cause of action for unlawful detainer
which was well within the jurisdiction of the MeTC. Undaunted, petitioners
and their counsel filed two separate Motions for Reconsideration which the
CA both denied in its Resolution 4 dated November 22, 2007 for lack of
merit.
Hence, this petition. Petitioners assign the following as issues:
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE LOWER COURT HAD
JURISDICTION TO TRY THE INSTANT CASE; AND

II. WHETHER OR NOT THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN

NOT SUSTAINING PETITIONERS' ARGUMENT THAT THE RULING OF THE
RTC MUST BE SET ASIDE DUE TO THE PENDENCY OF A CASE BEFORE
THE HLURB INVOLVING THE SAME PARTIES AND ISSUES. 5

At the outset, petitioners manifest that the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (HLURB) case is on appeal before the Office of the
President (OP). 6 Petitioners asseverate that the CA arrogated unto itself, as
the RTC did, the task of resolving the issue on the legality and propriety of
petitioners' alleged disqualification as members/beneficiaries of respondent
despite the fact that the determination of such issue is necessarily
intertwined with the issue of whether or not a case of ejectment would
prosper against petitioners. Petitioners opine that the CA is devoid of
competence to decide on the following issues, namely: i) whether or not the
corporate officers who passed the board resolution expelling/disqualifying
petitioners from their membership with respondent acted within their
authority; and (ii) whether or not the disqualification was valid and legal. It is
petitioners' position that these issues could have been best resolved by the
HLURB and/or the Home Insurance Guaranty Corporation, considering the
administrative agencies' expertise on the matter and considering the
pendency of petitioners' case against respondent before these bodies.
Invoking the same ruling in Quiambao v. Hon. Osorio, 7 petitioners claim that
the more prudent course in this case is to hold the ejectment proceedings in
abeyance until after the determination of the administrative case because of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 the intimate correlation between the two proceedings, stemming from the
fact that petitioners' ejectment from the property depends primarily on the
resolution of the administrative case. 8 CAcDTI

On the other hand, respondent asserts that the complaint filed before
the MeTC contains ample allegations for the latter to exercise jurisdiction
over the case in accordance with the rules and prevailing jurisprudence.
Respondent also claims that the issue involves questions of fact which were
adequately passed upon by both the RTC and the CA when they made the
finding that petitioners failed to perform their obligation under the
Community Mortgage Program by refusing to pay their monthly dues,
deposits, and amortizations for their allotted portions over the community
property. Respondent insists that the factual findings of both the RTC and
the CA must not only be accorded respect but also finality. Moreover,
respondent stands by the ruling of the RTC and the CA that there exist no
issues of litis pendentia and prejudicial question in this case since the HLURB
case and the ejectment proceedings do not involve the same issues nor pray
for the same reliefs. 9 Finally, respondent manifests that the HLURB case
filed by petitioners was already dismissed, which the OP affirmed on appeal.
10 Thus, any matter related thereto has become moot and academic.

Respondent submits that this case is a simple ejectment case which is well
within the MeTC's jurisdiction.
The petition is bereft of merit.
A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment, final order, or
resolution of the CA, as in this case, may file before this Court a verified
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure
within 15 days from notice of the judgment, final order, or resolution
appealed from. Petitioners, instead of a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45, filed with this Court the instant petition for certiorari under
Rule 65, an improper remedy. By availing of a wrong or inappropriate mode
of appeal, the petition merits outright dismissal. 11
Even on the merits, the petition must fail.
Settled is the rule that jurisdiction in ejectment cases is determined by
the allegations pleaded in the complaint. It cannot be made to depend on
the defenses set up in the answer or pleadings filed by the defendant.
Neither can it be made to depend on the exclusive characterization of the
case by one of the parties. The test for determining the sufficiency of those
allegations is whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a
valid judgment in accordance with the prayer of the plaintiff. 12
An action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer is governed by Rule 70
of the Rules of Court, Section 1 of which 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 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 in 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.

Unlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real property

from one who illegally withholds possession after the expiration or
termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or
implied. The possession of the defendant in unlawful detainer is originally
legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to
possess. An unlawful detainer proceeding is summary in nature, jurisdiction
of which lies with the proper municipal trial court or metropolitan trial court.
The action must be brought within one year from the date of last demand;
and the issue in said case is the right to physical possession. 13
Based on the foregoing, we have held that a complaint sufficiently
alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it recites the following:
(1) initially, possession of property by the defendant was by
contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
(2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by
plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter's right of
possession;
(3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the
property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and
AIcECS

(4) within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate
the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.
14

In this case, respondent's allegations in the complaint clearly make a case

for unlawful detainer, essential to confer jurisdiction on the MeTC over the
subject matter. Thus, we accord respect to the CA's findings, to wit:
A review of the Complaint readily reveals that land titles were
issued in the name of the respondent after it purchased the land
referred to as the Bayanihan Compound through the Community
Mortgage Program (CMP) of the National Home Mortgage Finance
Corporation. The lots allocated to the petitioners formed part of the
Bayanihan Compound which they received as members/beneficiaries of
the respondent. However, their refusal to pay the monthly
amortizations despite demands resulted in their expulsion as members
and loss of recognition as beneficiaries of the lots in question. Even
when the case was referred to the barangay, no settlement was
reached. Petitioners likewise did not conform to respondent's demand
to vacate the premises and return its possession. As such, respondent
sought to recover possession of the said lots by filing a case for
ejectment within a year after final demand. 15
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 Moreover, this Court rejects the contention of petitioners that the RTC
and the CA erred in not dismissing the complaint of respondent on the
ground of litis pendentia, in view of the pendency of the HLURB case.
The requisites of litis pendentia are the following: (a) identity of
parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions;
(b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded
on the same facts; and (c) identity of the two cases such that judgment in
one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in
the other. 16
The causes of action and, logically, the issues in the two cases, are
clearly different, each requiring divergent adjudication. In short, while there
is identity of parties, there are different issues, causes of action, and reliefs
prayed for between them. Contrary to petitioners' posture, not all the
elements of litis pendentia are present.
Appropos is the CA's ruling:
The suit filed with the HLURB involves: (1) the reinstatement of
the petitioners as members of the respondent, which was their
community association; (2) a call for regular annual meetings; (3)
elections for board of directors; ([4]) an accounting of funds; and ([5])
the annulment of the board resolutions which expelled them as
members and disqualified them to be beneficiaries of the housing
program. On the other hand, the ejectment case has in issue the better
right of the petitioners or of the respondent to the physical possession
of the lots occupied by petitioners. Clearly, therefore, no identity of the
rights asserted and the reliefs prayed for exist in both cases. 17

In sum, we find no grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or

excess of jurisdiction, on the part of the CA, which would warrant the
reversal and/or modification of the assailed Decision.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED, and the Court of
Appeals Decision dated August 22, 2007 is AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., * Peralta, Mendoza and Sereno, *** JJ., concur.

Footnotes
*Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio per Special Order
No. 897 dated September 28, 2010.
**In lieu of Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio per Special Order No. 898 dated
September 28, 2010.
***Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad per Special
Order No. 903 dated September 28, 2010.

[Link], pp. 3-11.

[Link] docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 96577, penned by Associate Justice
Mariano C. del Castillo (now a member of this Court), with Associate Justices
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 Arcangelita Romilla Lontok and Romeo F. Barza, concurring; id. at 15-25.

[Link]. at 16-19. (Citations omitted.)

[Link]. at 13.
[Link]. at 149-150.
[Link] note 1, at 5.
7.242 Phil. 441, 445 (1988).

[Link], pp. 145-154.

[Link]. at 171-182.
[Link]. at 81.
[Link] Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 412 Phil. 603, 610-611
(2001).
[Link] v. Calendacion, G.R. No. 158231, June 19, 2007, 525 SCRA 57, 65.
[Link] v. Tubil, G.R. No. 184285, September 25, 2009, 601 SCRA 147, 156-157.

[Link] v. Getaruela, G.R. No. 164213, April 21, 2009, 586 SCRA 129, 136-137.
[Link] note 2, at 20.
[Link] Arquiza v. Court of Appeals, 498 Phil. 793, 804 (2005).
[Link] note 2, at 22-23.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]