Sps Ong

G.R. No. 144581.
July 5, 2002
SPOUSES ELANIO C. ONG, v. COURT OF APPEALS
Facts: A complaint for ejectment and damages was filed with the MTCC by respondents Emma
and Roberto Ong against petitioner Elanio Ong and spouse, alleging that Emma was the
registered owner of a parcel of land together with the building thereon; that respondents
allowed petitioners to occupy the ground floor for their business and when Emma demanded
the return of the premises petitioners refused. Elanio denied that Emma was the owner of the
land, claiming that the lot was the residence of his family from the time they were bought by his
father. As affirmative defenses, Elanio alleged that his action for reconveyance and partition in
RTC before the institution of the ejectment case involving the same property and the pendency
of this action constituted litis pendentia to warrant the dismissal of the ejectment complaint.
MTCC issued a pre-trial order. The position paper of petitioners objected to respondents’
evidence that earnest efforts had been exerted to settle the case, and for the first time called
attention to the absence of a certification of non-forum shopping in the ejectment complaint.
Plaintiffs filed a motion with leave of court to admit certification of non-forum shopping. The
judge admitted the certification on the ground that respondents were not anyway guilty of
actual forum shopping. MTCC decided the ejectment case in favor of respondents and ordered
petitioners to vacate the ground floor occupied by them. Petitioners appealed to RTC. Judge
ordered the consolidation of the ejectment and reconveyance case. RTC ruled in favor of
petitioners. Respondents filed a petition for review with CA assailing the Decision of RTC in the
ejectment case. CA reversed RTC’s ruling and affirmed MTCC’s decision.
Issue: Whether or not the case for ejectment should be dismissed.
Ruling: Yes. The ejectment complaint lacks a certification of non-forum shopping and ought to
have been dismissed outright for violation of Administrative Circular No. 04-94. The rule
expressly requires that a certification against forum shopping should be attached to or filed
simultaneously with the complaint or other initiatory pleading regardless of whether forum
shopping had in fact been committed. Accordingly, in the instant case, the dismissal of the
complaint for unlawful detainer must follow as a matter of course. The certification was
submitted to the MTCC more than one (1) year from when respondents first demanded that
petitioners vacate the disputed premises. Clearly, respondents’ observance of the administratice
circular was consummated only after the expiration of the one (1)-year period to commence the
ejectment suit counted from the first demand. Evidently, the reglementary period for filing the
complaint for unlawful detainer had passed by then. While not raised in the parties pleadings, it
is necessary to mention that the failure of petitioners answer filed in the ejectment case to
allege the lack of certification of non-forum shopping did not result in the waiver of their right
to assert the defect.
What governs in this case is Sec. 4 of the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure where the
trial court is at liberty to take notice of the grounds for the dismissal of a civil action that are
apparent from the case along with the evidence submitted therein. Under this provision and
except for negative and affirmative defenses not raised in the answer where an answer has been
filed, the trial court under summary procedure is empowered to dismiss the complaint upon
grounds adduced in the respective position papers of the parties as was done in the instant
case. In sum, there are no legal barriers for this Court, as should have been the case with the
MTCC where the ejectment case was originally tried, to dismiss the complaint.
Ordinarily, the dismissal of a complaint for violation of Administrative Circular No. 04-94 is
without prejudice. This means that the plaintiff may re-file the complaint in his discretion after
making the necessary corrections. In the instant case, however, whether the dismissal is termed
with or without prejudice would not matter anymore since the right to institute an unlawful
detainer case for the same cause of action pleaded in the case at bar within the one (1)-year
period from the demand to vacate has long elapsed. Thus the Court declared the dismissal
herein adjudicated to be with prejudice to allow the action for reconveyance and partition still
pending appeal with the Court of Appeals where both petitioners and respondents have equal
chances of winning the case, to take its legitimate and unfettered course.

Sps Ong

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sps Ong

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sps Ong

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 144581.

SPOUSES ELANIO C. ONG, v. COURT OF APPEALS

ejectment case. CA reversed RTC’s ruling and affirmed MTCC’s decision.

Issue: Whether or not the case for ejectment should be dismissed.

You might also like