3Republir of toe f)Dilippine%

~upre111e QCourt
fflmriln

FIRST DIVISION

MR. & MRS. JOSE G.R. No. 241701

ALCANTARA, MR. & MRS.
NICOLAS ALCANTARA, Present:
HENEDINA AMISTAD,
TEOFILA AMISTAD, MR. & PERALTA, J., Chailperson,
MRS. ANTONIO AMORIN, CAGUIOA,
MR. & MRS. EMILIANA REYES, J. JR.,
ANINIPOT, SPOUSES LAZARO-JAVIER,
FORTUNATO ATON, JR., LOPEZ, JJ.
SPOUSES JUN & DELIA
BADIC, MR. & MRS.
EDUARDO BANGA, MR. &
MRS. ROBERTA BAUTISTA,
SPOUSES RODRIGO & PERLA
BOSTON, SPOUSES VICENTE
& CATHY CARTAGENA,
SPOUSES JOSEPH &
EVANGELINE DELA CRUZ,
SPOUSES JOSE & SAYCENA
DELA TORRE, SPOUSES
BETO & FLA VIA DIGAO, MR.
& MRS. ROSALIA GADAT,
SPOUSES EDGARDO & LOVE
GASATAN, MR. & MRS.
JUDITH GASATAN, SPOUSES
ALLAN & ANNALISA
GONZALES, SPOUSES
HARON & SARAPIYA PASOD,
SPOUSES PEDRO & LILY
IDPAN, JR., SPOUSES
LORETO & HELEN
JANDA YRAN, SR.~ SPOUSES Promulgated:
Al\llELEL & BAILAGA
JAPLOS, SPOUSES FRED &
ELENA LANO, MR. & MRS.
· SEP 16. 2020

V
Decision 2 G .R. No. 241701

JUANITA LIMURAN, MR. &

MRS. BONIFACIO LUBATON,
MR. & MRS. ANTONIO
BELARMINO, MR. & MRS.
BUENAVENTURA
MADRIGAL, SPOUSES RUBEN
& LINDA BACUS
MANGLICMOT, MR. & MRS.
ARSENIA MILLENA,
SPOUSES FELICIANO &
GRACE NAVALES, SPOUSES
FRANCISCA ONDOY, MR. &
MRS. CARLOS ONRAS, MR. &
MRS. TEODORA PAGAYON,
SPOUSES DENNIS & ALICIA
PASCUA, DELFIN PEREZ,
MAXIMA LUMA CAD,
SPOUSES SEGUNDO &
HERMOGINA REVILLA, MR.
& MRS. GRACE
MALACROTA, SPOUSES
JESUS . & G.E RTRUDES
SAGAYNO, ADORACION
SANIEL, MR. & MRS. ERNING
PALARDO, SPOUSES
BINGCONG SIA SU, MONDISA
RODRIGUEZ, MR. & MRS.
LETTY SILAO, MR. & MRS.
HILDA AMADOR, SPOUSES
ARMAN & LORNA AMADOR,
SPOUSES ANTONIO &
LOURDES AM.ADOR, J R.
SPOUSES ALBERTO &
REMEDIOS AlVIADOR,
SPOUSES LORENZO & LUISA
AMPARADO, SPOUSES RAUL
& VILMA APUSAGA,
SPOUSES MIGUELA
BACAISO, • SPOUSES JAMES
BERNASOR, SPOUSES HENRY
& ADELA BUSTAMANTE,
SPOUSES LEONARDO &
LEONESSA CARTAGENA,
SPOUSES TOTO &
FRANCISCA CELIS, SPOUSES
AURELIO .& NORA
DEMATAIS, . SPOUSES
Decision 3 G.R. No. 241701

ROSENDO & DAHLIA

DEMATAIS, SPOUSES
CHARLIE & LAARNI
EMBALZADO, SPOUSES
DALTON & ERLINDA
ESPINO, SPOUSES ROMEO &
ELIZABETH GABINAY,
SPOUSES EDGAR & JOSIE
GADAT, MR. & MRS.
CANDIDA GONZALES,
SPOUSES NOLI & ELNA
GRADAS, SPOUSES
DULCISIMO & ROSITA
JAVIER, SPOUSES LEONILA
JIMENA, SPOUSES JOSEPH
LAUREN, SPOUSES
ROLANDO & LUCRETIA
LAUREN, SPOUSES ALLAN &
SITTIE MACABANTOG,
SPOUSES BONIFACIO &
ISABELITA MORCILLO,
SPOUSES CLEMENTE &
TESSIS NOMEN, SPOUSES
APOLONIA & JAMIE MUNEZ,
AND MR. & MRS. EPIFANIO
PALACIOUS,
Petitioners,

- versus -

DELIA DUMACON-HASSAN,
SALAMA DUMACON-
MENDOZA, ABDUL
DUMACON, BAILYN
DUMACON-ABDUL, all
represented by DELIA
DUMACON-HASSAN as
Administrator and Attorney-in-
Fact,
Respondents.

x-----------------------------------------------------------------x

~-----------
Decision 4 G.R. No. 241701

DECISION

REYES, J. JR., J.:

Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari' under Rule 45 of the

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure are the Decision2 dated December 7, 2017,
and the Resolution3 dated July 19, 2018, both promulgated by the Court of
Appeals Cagayan De Oro City (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 06154-MIN
entitled "Mr. & Mrs. Jose Alcantara, Mr. & Mrs. Nicolas Alcantara,
Henedina Amistad, Teofila Amistad, Mr. & Mrs. Antonio Amorin, Mr. &
Mrs. Emiliana Aninipot, Spouses Fortunato Aton, Jr. , Spouses Jun &Delia
Badie, Mr. & Mrs. Eduardo Banga, Mr. & Mrs. Roberta Bautista, Spouses
Rodrigo &Perla Boston, Spouses Vicente &Cathy Cartagena, Spouses
Joseph & Evangeline Dela Cruz, Spouses Jose & Saycena Dela Torre,
Spouses Beto & Flavia Digao, Mr. & Mrs. Rosalia Gadat, Spouses Edgardo
& Love Gasatan, Mr. & Mrs. Judith Gasatan, Spouses Allan & Annalisa
Gonzales, Spouses Haran & Sarapiya Pasod, Spouses Pedro & Lily Idpan,
Jr., Spouses Loreto & Helen Jandayran, Sr., Spouses Amelel & Bailaga
Japlos, Spouses Fred & Elena Lano, Mr. & Mrs. Juanita Limuran, Mr. &
Nfrs. Bonifacio Lubaton, Mr. & Mrs. Antonio Belarmino, Mr. & Mrs.
Buenaventura Madrigal, Spouses Ruben & Linda Bacus Manglicmot, Mr. &
Mrs. Arsenia IYfillena, Spouses Feliciano & Grace Navales, Spouses
Francisca Ondoy, Mr. & Mrs. Carlos Onras, Mr. & Mrs. Teodora Pagayon,
Spouses Dennis & Alicia Pascua, Delfin Perez, Maxima Lumacad, Spouses
Segundo & .Hermogina Revilla, Mr. & Mrs. Grace Malacrota, Spouses Jesus
& Gertrudes Sagayno, Adoracion Saniel, Mr. & Mrs. Erning Palardo,
Spouses Bingcong Sia Su, Mondisa Rodriguez, Mr. & Mrs. Letty Silao, Mr.
& M,-s. Hilda Amador, Spouses Arman & Lorna Amador, Spouses Antonio
& Lourdes Amador, Jr. Spouses Alberto & Remedios Amador, Spouses
Lorenzo & Luisa Amparado, Spouses Raul & Vilma Apusaga, Spouses
Miguela Bacaiso, Spouses James Bernasor, Spouses Henry & Adela
Bustamante, Spouses Leonardo & Leonessa Cartagena, Spouses Toto &
Francisca Celis, Spouses Aurelio & Nora Dematais, Spouses Rosendo &
Dahlia Dematais, Spouses Charlie & Laarni Embalzado, Spouses Dalton &
Erlinda Espino, Spouses Romeo & Elizabeth Gabinay, Spouses Edgar &
Josie Gadat, Mr. & ./l.1rs. Candida Gonzales, Spouses Noli & Elna Gradas,
Spouses Dulcisimo & Rosita Javier, Spouses Leonila Jimena, Spouses
Joseph Lauren, Spouses Rolando & Lucretia Lauren, Spouses Allan & Sittie
Macabantog, Spouses Bon{facio & Isabelita Morcillo, Spouses Clemente &

Rollo, pp. 19-40.

Penned by Associate kstice Edgardo A. Camel lo, with Associate Justices Ronaido B. Martin and
Associate Justice Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon, concurring; id. at 43-54.
Penned by Associate:, Justice Eduardo Carmello, with Associate Justice Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-
Villordon and Walter S. Ong, concurring; id. at 183-186.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 241701

Tessis Nomen, Spouses Apolonia & Jamie Munez, and Mr. & Mrs. Epifanio
Palacious v. Delia Dumacon-Hassan, Salama Dwnacon-Mendoza, Abdul
Dumacon, Bailyn Dumacon-Abdul, at! represented by Delia Dumacon-
Hassan as Administrator and Attorney-in-Fact."

The facts, as established by the evidence presented by the parties, are as

follows:

Respondents alleged that they are the owners of a parcel of land located
in Lot 31, Block 24, Pls - 59, situated along the National Highway,
Poblacion, Kidapawan City, containing an area of 43,881 square meters and
4
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-92084. Petitioners, on
the other hand, are the actual occupants of the subject property who were
classified into two groups: 1) Group A petitioners who are squatters,
occupying the land by mere tolerance of respondents; and, 2) Group B
petitioners who are lessees of their respective portions of the land on a
month to month basis, who failed to pay their rent.

Respondents asseverate that they repeatedly demanded petitioners to

vacate the subject property, but to no avail. Thus, respondents endorsed their
complaint against herein petitioners with the Lupong Tagapamayapa of
Barangay Poblacion ·but no settlement was reached between the parties and
certifications to file action were issued thereto.

Thus, respondents filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against the

petitioners before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Kidapawan
City.

Group A petitioners denied respondents' allegations and claimed that

they are the legal occupants of the respective portion of the subject property
they are occupying by virtue of a sale of the same; while Group B petitioners
denied receiving any notice to vacate or notice to pay rents.

Ruling of the MTCC

On February 10, 2010, the MTCC, Kidapawan City rendered a

Decision5 in Civil Case No. 1307-02, dismissing the complaint against all
the petitioners without prejudice to the filing of the proper complaint in the
future, to wit:

In light of all the foregoing, this case is ordered DISMISSED without

prejudice to the filing of appropriate similar action in the future should it is,
still, (sic) [be] available. Defendants' counterclaims are likewise dismissed
for failure to prove the same by preponderance of evidence.

4
ld.atll8-119.
Penned by Assisting Presiding Judge Alexander B. Yarra; id. at 55-63.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 241701

SO ORDERED.

It ruled that the respondents failed to establish the elements of unlawful

detainer since they did not allege and prove that they merely tolerated the
occupation of Group A petitioners. Since the respondents alleged that they
are squatters frv:ing illegally in the subject property, it had meant that Group
A petitioners were occupying the same from the beginning. The lower court
opined that "[t]o justify an action for unlawful detainer, the permission or
tolerance must have been present at the beginning of the possession, for if
the possession was unlawful from the start, an action for unlawful detainer
would be an improper remedy."

For Group B petitioners, the MTCC declared that the respondents failed
to effect notices to vacate and notice to pay rentals to the said group, which
is a condition precedent to an action for unlawful detainer. Furthermore, in
the notices, Group B petitioners were only given ten (10) days to vacate the
subject property The lower court enunciated that based on Section 2 of Rule
70, the lessor can proceed against the lessee only after fifteen (15) days, in
case ofland, from dat~ of last-notice to vacate the subject property.

Aggrieved, respondents filed their appeal before the Regional Trial

Court (RTC), Branch 17, Kidapawan City, Cotabato.

Ruling of the RTC

6
On appeal, the. RTC rendered a Decision dated July 5, 2010 in Civil
Case No. 2010-12,. affirming the dismissal of the case against Group A
petitioners for lack of jurisdiction, while the dismissal of the case against
Group B petitioners was reversed and set aside. It remanded the case back to
the MTCC for reception of evidence to prove the respondents' cause of
action against them; as such:

From the foregoing, the assailed decision is partially affirmed. The

dismissal of the case against defendants/appellees who are classified as
Group "A" is affirmed for lack of jurisdiction. The dismissal of the case
against defendants/appellees classified as Group "B" is reversed. The court
a quo is directed to receive evidence from the plaintiffs/appellants to prove
their cause of action against the latter group of defendants/appellees .

. No p!'Oncuncement_as to costs.

SO ORP.~RED.

The RTC opined that the case filed against Group A petitioners is
obvjously a compl.aint for forcible entry, not unlawful detainer, based on the
respondents' ailegaticn that they are squatters over the subject property.

---·-- ·- -------· ----- - - -

" !~enned·by Judge R0gelio R. Naris::1a; id. it 64-67.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 241701

Furthermore, for the MTCC to acquire jurisdiction in an action for forcible

entry, it must be instituted within one year from the time of accrual of the
cause of action. In the instant case, respondents had not alleged when they
withdrew their tolerance of Group A petitioners' possession of the subject
property or when these petitioners forcibly entered or squatted the property.

For Group B petitjoners, the RTC found that the remedy availed of by
the respondents partakes the nature of an action for unlawful detainer. The
demand to vacate was made well within one year period prior to the filing of
the instant case. The RTC stated that the 15-day rule mentioned in Section 2
of Rule 70 does not pertain to the number of days mentioned in the notice to
vacate, but to the length of time lessees held their possession of the subject
property after receipt of said notice.

Respondents moved for reconsideration of the Decision dated July 5,

2010 arguing that the RTC erred in remanding the case to the MTCC and
7
should have proceeded to render its judgment.

In an Order dated tv1ay 27, 2013, the RTC granted the respondents'
motion for reconsideration and reversed its earlier ruling. It affirmed the
dismissal of the case against Group B petitioners on the ground that
respondents failed to allege in their complaint the date when the month-to-
month lease was terminated. Nonetheless, the RTC found that Section 8,
Rule 40 of the Rules of Court is applicable and considered the instant case as
an action for recovery of possession. It required the respondents to pay
additional docket fees based on the rules on docket fees as a condition
8
precedent before proceeding to render judgment in the instant case.

Respondents moved for reconsideration of the Order dated May 27,

2013.

In its Decision9 dated October 31, 2013, the RTC ruled that it erred
when it :::equired the payment of additional docket fees as a condition before
it proceeded to decide the case. The RTC in the instant case is exercising not
its original jurisdiction, but its appellate jurisdiction pursuant to Section 22
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691. As
respondent had already paid the docket fees in appealing the decision of the
l'v1TCC to the RTC, the latter had already acquired jurisdiction over the case.
It also opined that the possession of Group B petitioners became illegal
when they stopped paying rentals after the expiration of their month-to-
month lease cc•ntrnct, after learning that a case was filed by Moises Sibug
(l'vloises), Baidomero . Baya·-:van (Baldomero) and Annaliza Anahieza
(Annaliza) aga:in::t Delia Hassan (Delia). Thus~ tn treating respondents '

7
Id. at 71.
Id.
9
Penned by Presiding Judge Arvin Sadin B. B::lagot, CPA; 1d. at 68-90.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 241701

complaint as an action for recovery of possession, the RTC found that the
respondents are entitled to recover the possession of the subject property.
Furthermore, the RTC imposed J:!200.00 rental fee per month against
petitioners for the use and enjoyment of the portions of the subject property
they are currently occupying, respectively.

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration while respondents filed a

motion for the issuance of a writ of execution, both of which were denied by
theRTC. 10

Undaunted, the petitioners seasonably filed their appeal before the CA.

Ruling of the CA

In its Decision dated December 7, 2017,the CA affinned the latest

ruling of the RTC with modifications. It ordered the RTC to determine the
proper docket fees to be paid in Civil Case No. 2010-12, which it deemed to
be originally fil~d before the latter.

The CA found that the respondents paid the appeal fees under Rule 40
of the Rules of Court. However, the situation changed when the RTC, motu
proprio, took cognizance of the case as an original action for recovery of
possession and ruled on the merits.

Thus, the CA held that there is a need for respondent to pay additional
docket fees to be detennined based on the fair market value of the subject
property. While non-payment of docket fees may render an original action
dismissible, the.rule on payment of docket fees may be relaxed whenever the
attending circumstance wan-ants it.

The CA denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

Hence, this Petition.

The Issues

THE HONORABLE [CA] ERRED IN AFFIRMING AND MODIFYING

THE OCTOBER 3.1, 2013 DECISION OF THE [RTC] BRANCH 17,
KIDAPAWAN CITY AND DID NOT DISMISS THE CASE FOR LACK
OF JURISDICTION FOR FAILURE AND REFUSAL TO PAY THE
CORRECT DOCKET/FILING FEES IN SPITE [OF] THE FACT THAT
RTC-17 CONVERTED THE CASE TO ONE OF RECOVERY OF
POSSESSION AND EXERCISING ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AND
NOT APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

10
Id. at 50.

V
Decision 9 C.R. No. 241701

THE HONORABLE [CA] ERRED IN AFFIRMING AND MODIFYING

THE OCTOBER 31, 2013 DECISION OF THE [RTC] BRANCH 17,
KIDAPAWAN CITY IN SPITE [OF] KNOWLEDGE THAT RTC-17
DECIDED THE CASE WITHOUT DETERMINING PRIOR
POSSESSION OF THE RESPONDENTS CONSIDERING THAT THE
CASE IS ONE OF RECOVERY OF POSSESSION.

TI-IE HONORABLE [CA] ERRED IN AFFIRMING AND MODIFYING

THE OCTOBER 31, 2013 DECISION OF THE [RTC] BRANCH 17,
KIDAPAWAN CITY IN SPITE [OF] TI-IE SUPERVENING EVENTS AND
PENDING CASES INVOLVING SAME PROPERTY WHICI--I GREATLY
AFFECT THE CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP OF THE RESPONDENTS. 11

The Court's Ruling

The petition is without merit.

Non-payment of the appropriate

docket fees does not divest the
courts of jurisdiction once it is
acquired

Petitioners contend that the respondents' act of assailing the payment of

the correct docket fees is a clear manifestation that they are not willing to
pay the docket fees, pursuant to the decision of the CA. Thus, when the RTC
rendered its Decision dated October 31, 2013, it did so without jurisdiction,
hence it is null and void.

In Aquino v. Hon. Casabar, 12 this Court had held that should there be
unpaid docket fees, the same should be considered as a lien on the judgment.
Thus, even on the assumption that additional docket fees are required, its
non-payment will not result in the court's loss of jurisdiction over the case.

This Court is unconvinced that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction
over the instant case due to the non-payment of the docket fees. The fact that
the respondents had raised the issue of the correctness of such ruling of the
RTC on appeal neither shows that they are not willing to pay the same nor
manifest their intention to defraud the government.

Petitioners take into issue that the respondents did not pay immediately
the correct docket fees upon receipt of the Decision dated December 7,
2017. However, it should be noted that the said decision ordered the RTC to
determine the proper docket fees in Civil Case No. 2010- 12that would be
paid by respondents. There was no showing that the R TC had already
complied with the said order of the CA that could be the basis for the
payment of docket fees by respondents.

11
Id. at 25-26.
12
752Phil. l, 14 (20 15).

\
Decision 10 G.R. No. 241701

Generally, in civil litigations, the party who alleges has the burden to
prove his/her affirmative allegations. 13 Petitioners had not shown even an
ounce of proof that respondents refused or disregarded the order of the court
to pay the deficient docket fees due against them. Even if respondents failed
to pay the said docket fees, the fair market value of the subject property was
pegged at Pl 9,931,608.00 as stated in the tax declaration. Therefore, a lien
can be put against the subject property, which is sufficient to satisfy the
payment of the deficient docket fees.

An action for recovery of

possession or accion publiciana is
a plenary action to determine ·who
has the better right of possession
over a real property, and the
question of who has prior
possession has no relevance
thereto

Petitioners also argue that the RTC should have tried the instant case on
its merits as if the case was originally filed with it before rendering its
Decision. In fact, the R TC did not touch the issue on possession but rather
on jurisdiction. Petitioners insist that the R TC should have determined who
has prior possession over the subject property to resolve the issue on who
has better right to possess the same.

In Spouses Valdez, Jr. v. Court ofAppeals, 14 the Court had held that an
"[a]ccion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the right of possession
which should be brought in the proper regional trial court when
dispossession has lasted for more than one year. It is an ordinary civil
proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty
independently of title."

Thus, the core issue in an action for the recovery of possession of realty
is who has the priority right to the possession of the real property. 15 Prior
possession is not relevant nor an issue in accion publiciana. Unlike in a
complaint against forcible entry, where proof of prior physical possession of
the subject property is an essential element for the action to prosper, the
same is not required to be alleged nor proved in an action for recovery of
possession of real property.

Assuming arguendo that prior physical possession is material in an

action for recovery of possession of real property, Group B's contention still

13
Republic v. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11 , 2018.
14
523 Phil. 39, 46 (2006).
15
Abobon v. Abobon, 692 Phil. 530, 541-542(2012).
 Decision 11 G.R. No. 241701

does not hold water. Possession of a property can be acquired not only by
material occupation but also by the fact that a thing is subject to the action of
one's will or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for
acquiring such right. Thus, possession can be acquired by juridical acts, such
as donations, succession, execution, and registration of public instruments,
inscription of possessory information titles and the like. 16 It was established
in the instant case that TCT No. T-92084 was issued in name of the
respondents on October 20, 1997, from their predecessors-in-interest and
that Group B petitioners subsequently entered possession of their respective
portions of the subject property as lessees of Delia. Thus, Group B
· petitioners cannot now claim that they had prior possession over the subject
property.

Group B petitioners ' lawful

possession of their respective
portion in the subject property
became illegal when they unjustly
refused to pay their rents

As fo und by the RTC, while Group B petitioners were the lawful

tenants of their respective portions over the subject property, their
possession became illegal once they unjustly refused to pay their rent after
learning that Delia's title was being disputed by Moises, Baldomero, and
Annaliza.

Well-settled is the rule that a tenant, in an action involving the

possession of the leased premises, can neither controvert the title of his/her
landlord, nor assert any rights adverse to that title, or set up any inconsistent
right to change the relation existing between himself/herself and his/her
landlord. 17 Regardless of whether there is an existing case before the courts
questioning Delia's title over the subject property, Group B petitioners, as
tenants, cannot unilaterally decide to hold their payment of rentals in
violation of the terms of their lease contract unless there is a final order from
the courts that Delia has no right to collect the same.

Petitioners had sorely misapplied this Court' s ruling in the cited case of
David v. Cordova. 18 In the case of David, we held that "regardless of the
actual condition of the title to the property, the party in peaceable quiet
possession shall not be thrown out by a strong hand, violence or terror x x x
Thus, a party who can prove prior possession can recover such possession
even against the owner himself. Whatever may be the character of his
possession in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the
property until a person with a better right lawfully e jects him." Clearly,

16
Mangaser v. Ugay, 749 Phil. 372, 382 (2014).
17
Santos v. NSO, 662 Phil. 708, 72 1-722 (201 1).
IH 502 Phil. 626, 645 (2005).
Decision 12 G.R. No. 241701

possession of a tenant over a real property by virtue of a lease agreement,

does not give him/her an unlimited right to withhold the same from the
owner, especially ' when the former had violated the terms of the said
agreement. Payment of rent is an indispensable obligation that a lessee
should fulfill in order for a lease agreement to continue to subsist.

Furthermore, in the aforementioned case, David filed a complaint for

forcible entry against the Cordovas who illegally and forcibly entered the
premises without the consent of the former. Thus, the essential elements of
prior possession by David had to be established to determine whether the
court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and eventually, who had the
better right to the physical possession of the same. Clearly, the instant case
does not stand on all fours with the cited case of David, considering that
Group B petitioners merely entered possession of their respective portions of
the subject property under a lease agreement and had lost such right to
possess the same after unilaterally refusing to pay their rentals to
respondents.

Also, Group B petitioners are not being forcefully ejected from the
subject property by the respondents though violence or intimidation. In fact,
respondents had availed themselves of the remedy provided under the law
and instituted the instant complaint against herein petitioners before the
comi in order to be peacefully granted the physical possession of the subject
property. Even if we consider that petitioners may have been in prior
possession of the subject property, it does not mean that they cannot be
ordered to leave the premises and surrender possession of the same to
respondents once it is proven that the latter has a better right to the said
property.

WHEREFORE. the instant petition is DENIED due to lack of merit.

The Decision dated December 7, 2017, and the Resolution dated July 19,
2018, of the Court of Appeals-Cagayan De Oro City in CA-G.R. SP No.
06154-MIN is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.
 Decision 13 G.R. No. 241701

WE CONCUR:

.PERALTA
Chief~ tstice
Chairperson

:,____,,,-
AM ZARO-JAVIER

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, l certify that

the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
Division.