SIXTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. CV No. 44911. January 30, 1996.]
HERNANDO S. CORTEZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUAN YAGO, FERNANDO ESPELETA, ROLANDO ANTIETA, FLORENCIO ESPELETA, and all persons claiming under them, defendants-appellants.
D E C I S I O N
CANIZARES-NYE, J p:
This is an action for recovery of possession of a parcel of land located at 2401 Raymundo corner Dagonoy Streets, Sta. Ana II, Manila.
Plaintiff alleges that on 20 November 1969, he and defendant Juan Yago entered into a verbal lease contract on a month-to-month basis over the litigated property at a monthly rental of P200.00 which was increased to P400.00 in 1974. He further explained that he had agreed to the minimal rental upon the specific condition that the premises were to be solely used by the defendant's family members and for residential purposes only.
However, in the early part of 1990, plaintiff discovered that defendant Yago had made unauthorized alterations on the house leased and without the requisite building permit. Furthermore, defendant Yago had sub-leased portion of the house to his co-defendants without plaintiff's consent or knowledge.
This led to the filing of ejectment cases before the Metropolitan Trial Courts. But the cases were dismissed on procedural grounds. Hence, the instant case since more than a year has elapsed from the time the cause of action accrued.
Defendants filed a Motion of Dismiss on the ground that the complaint states no causes of action. The motion was opposed by the plaintiff.
On 12 August 1991, defendants Motion To Dismiss was denied. (P. 21, RTC expediente.) In like manner, defendants' Motion For Reconsideration was denied by the lower court. (P. 29, id.) Undaunted by this initial set back, the defendants filed another Motion To Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. This, too, was denied. (P. 44, id.)
In their responsive pleading, defendants aver inter alia:
"xxx xxx xxx
11.) The defendants are up to date in the payment of their monthly rentals of P400.00;
12.) The complaint states no cause of action against the defendants;
13.) The plaintiff failed to comply with the requisite demand required in Section 2 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court;
14.) There was no Barangay confrontation for the alleged violations by the defendants of the conditions of the lease as a ground for the plaintiff to recover possession of the leased premises;
15.) Defendants are protected against eviction by the provisions of the Rent Control Law, Presidential Decrees Nos. 1517 and 2016. The leased premises is one of the areas declared as an Area for Priority Development (APD) under Proclamation 1967. The defendants were duly censused by the National Housing Authority (NHA) as occupant families;
xxx xxx xxx"
(Pp. 4-5, Answer.)
After trial on the merits, the court a quo rendered judgment as follows, to wit:
"xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendants —
1. To immediately vacate the land in question without further extension;
2. To put the premises to its original structure and form with their own expenses;
3. To pay in solidum the total monthly rental from January, 1975 on the prevailing rates of rental being paid by defendants at the time with legal interest until the lot is vacated and possession returned to plaintiff, deducting payments made during the pendency of the case in Court by defendants to plaintiff;
4. Ordering defendants to reimburse plaintiff the amount of P40,000.00 as attorney's fees in pursuing the recovery of possession of his lot;
5. Ordering defendants to pay in solidum the moral and exemplary damages in a reduced amount of P30,000.00; and
6. To pay costs of this suit.
SO ORDERED.
Done in the city of Manila, Philippines this 21st day of February, 1994.
S/LOLITA O. GAL-LANG
T/LOLITA O. GAL-LANG
Presiding Judge"
(Pp. 13-14, Decision.)
On appeal, defendants contend:
"ERROR I
THE COURT A QUO COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN ORDERING THE EVICTION OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS FROM THE LEASED PREMISES DESPITE THE FACT THAT:
1. PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE HAD NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ACCION PUBLICIANA ON THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE VERBAL PROHIBITION ON USING THE LEASED PREMISES FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES ONLY.
2. PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE HAD NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ACCION PUBLICIANA ON THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE VERBAL PROBIHITION ON SUB-LEASING THE LEASED PREMISES.
3. PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE HAD NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ACCION PUBLICIANA ON THE ALLEGED NEED BY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE OF THE LOT FOR HIS SON'S USE.
4. PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE HAD NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ACCION PUBLICIANA ON THE ALLEGED NON-PAYMENT OF RENTALS BY DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
5. PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE HAD NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ACCION PUBLICIANA ON THE ALLEGED TERMINATION OF THE VERBAL MONTH TO MONTH LEASE.
6. PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE HAD NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ACCION PUBLICIANA AS NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR HAS ELASPED (sic) FROM THE TIME OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE EJECTMENT CASES AGAINST DEFENDANTS (sic)-APPELLANTS.
7. PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE WAS GUILTY OF FORUM SHOPPING IN FILING THE CASE WITH THE COURT A QUO FOR ACCION PUBLICIANA WHEN THE EJECTMENT CASE AGAINST DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JUAN YAGO WAS STILL PENDING WITH THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF MANILA.
8. DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS ARE ENTITLED UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 1517 NOT TO BE DISPOSSESSED OF THE SUBJECT LAND.
ERROR II
THE COURT A QUO COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN ORDERING DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS TO PAY RENTALS FROM JANUARY 1975, WITH LEGAL INTERESTS THEREON.
ERROR III
THE COURT A QUO COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN ORDERING DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS TO PAY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE MORAL DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES.
ERROR IV
THE COURT A QUO COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT AWARDING DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS THEIR COUNTER-CLAIMS."
(Pp. 6-7, Brief For Defendants-Appellants.)
Foremost among the assigned error is the issue of whether or not appellants may avail of the benefits under Presidential Decree No. 1517.
Under Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1517, urban lands have been defined thus:
"xxx xxx xxx
g) Urban lands refer to lands which conform to any of the following criteria:
1. In their entirety, all cities and municipalities which have a population density of at least, 1,000 persons per square kilometer and where at least 50 percent of the economically active population are engaged in non-agricultural activities.
2. All barangays comprising the former poblacion or barangays including a part of the former poblacion of cities and municipalities which have a population density of greater than 500 but less than 1,000 persons per square kilometer; and where at least 50 percent of the economically active population are engaged in non-agricultural activities.
3. All barangays not included in items 1 and 2 above which have a population size of at least 1,000 and where at least 50 percent of the economically active population are engaged in non-agricultural activities.
h) Urbanization lands refer to sites and land areas which, considering present characteristics and prevailing conditions, display a marked and high probability of becoming urban lands within the period of five to ten years."
The law further provides:
"SECTION 4. Proclamation of Urban Land Reform Zones. — The President shall proclaim specific parcels of urban and urbanize lands as Urban Land Reform Zones, otherwise known as Urban Zones for purposes of this Decree, which may include Bagong Lipunan Sites, as defined in P.D. 1396.
Upon proclamation, the Ministry of Human Settlements, hereafter referred to as the Ministry, shall prepare the appropriate development and zoning plans, and formulate the enforcement and implementing guidelines which shall be in force and effect upon approval by the President and shall be enforced by the Ministry or its attached agencies.
No urban land can be disposed of or used or constructed on unless its disposition or use conforms with the development and zoning plans of the Ministry, and the approval enforcement and implementation guidelines in accordance with the Official Development Registry System and the Development Use Permit System provided for in Section 13 and 16 of this Decree."
(Presidential Decree No. 1517.)
Appellants seek refuge under Section 6 thereof in resisting appellee's demands to vacate the premises in question:
"SECTION 6. Land Tenancy in Urban Land Reform Areas. — Within the Urban Zones, legitimate tenants who have resided on the land for ten years or more, who have built their homes on the land, and residents who have legally occupied the lands by contract continuously for the last ten years shall not be dispossessed of the land and shall be allowed the right of first refusal to purchase the same within a reasonable time and at reasonable prices, under terms and conditions to be determined by the Urban Zone Expropriation and Land Management Committee created by Section 8 of this Decree."
(P.D. 1517.)
In resolving this issue, the lower court opined:
"xxx xxx xxx
A careful study of the aforesaid laws, shows that PD No. 2016 and PD 1517 merely enunciated the policy of the government to protect slum dwellers. In the case of bar, indeed the lot in question is not within a depressed community area identified and proclaimed as such. The land is a small one which is for the construction of one modest house for a family and not for mass housing units in accordance to PD 1517 and 2016. Under PD 1517, the land is being held for sale so that the tenants enjoy the right to first buy the land (Joya vs. CA, 194 SCRA 565 among others). In this case, the land is not being held out for sale, but being sought for the personal use by George Cortez, the son of plaintiff/owner-lessor.
xxx xxx xxx"
(P. 12, Decision.)
A careful scrutiny of appellants' evidence reveals three (3) letters from the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, one addressed to Mr. Florencio Espeleta (Exh. "21"), and second addressed to Mr. Fernando Espeleta (Exh. "22"), and the third addressed to Mr. Juan Yago (Exh. "23"). For (Illegible Portion) sake, We shall quote the text of the letter addressed to appellant Yago:
"July 23, 1992
MR. JUAN YAGO
2401 Raymundo St.,
San Andres Bukid, Manila
Dear Mr. Yago:
Relative to your letter-request dated July 13, 1992, please be informed that based on the documents submitted the parcel of land together with the improvements thereon located at 4201 Raymundo Street, San Andres Bukid, Manila is WITHIN the coverage of the 245 Proclaimed Areas for Priority Development (APD) per Proclamation No. 1967 as amended by Proclamation No. 2284. Specifically, said property is included within APD No. 21-Manila under the following technical boundaries:
APD No. 21 — Pasig Line back of Villamor High School
NE — Pasig Line
SE — Zobel Roxas (Manila-Makati Boundary)
NW — A Francisco St.
SW — Onyx, Estrada St. and Alabastro St. with Estrada St. connecting Onyx and Alabastro Streets.
May we remind you, however, that this certification is a mere reply to your request and not a development use permit of land transaction clearance required by law.
Very truly yours,
WILLIAM L. JASARINO
Director, Development Control
Enforcement Office
By. S/ANA A. DAGNALAN
T/ANA A. DAGNALAN
Asst. Head, Unit II, DCO"
(Exh. "23".)
A reading of the contents of all three (3) letters gives the impression that the premises in question are covered by the 245 Proclaimed Areas For Priority Development (APD) per Proclamation No. 1967 as amended by Proclamation No. 2284. It would therefore seem that appellants' claim is a valid one. Nevertheless, in the absence of sufficient evidence to underscore appellants' assertion and considering the caveat contained in the last paragraph of the letters sent to the appellants, this Court is inclined to remand the case to the lower court solely for the reception of evidence in this regard and thereafter to render its decision on the case.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. LIFTING and SETTING ASIDE the appealed decision;
2. REMANDING the case to the Court a quo for further proceedings relative to the issue on the applicability of Presidential Decree No. 1517 and related laws;
3. Thereafter, to render judgment on the basis of the entire evidence adduced by both parties; and
4. Cost de officio.
SO ORDERED
Martinez and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.