d2015member

Salvador Buazon, Nick Baldazo, ad Nolasco Baldazo v. CA, Bagong Barrio Housing Service Cooperative Inc. (1993) Nocon, J. 1. A bldg. was constructed way back in 1973 through the initiative of Salvador Buazon, who was then the acting President of the Bagong Barrio Cooperative. The expenses for construction were advanced by a certain Maximo Cabal who was then a director of the Cooperative. The expenses were paid by the Cooperative in monthly installments. (Then there came a case) FIRST CASE: Ejectment case: Buzaon v. Ejectees Mabalay and Villanueva Salvador Buazon instituted 2 ejectment cases against the lessees (Mabalay and Villanueva) of the building (MTC). In this ejectment case, the right of Salvador Buazon over the property was put in issue while the defendants (ejectees) alleged that the bldg. is owned by plaintiff Cooperative and that this Cooperative sold the building to them. During the pendency of the action, plaintiff Cooperative became an active party as a witness and testified in favor of the defendant ejectees. MTC decided in favor of Buazon declaring him to be the owner and lessor of the property. RTC affirmed. Decision became final and executor bu before this was executed, the 2 cases were instituted by the ejectees, which was referred o as complaint for ownership and damages with prayer for writ of prelim injunction against Buazon. These complaints were consolidated for joint trial and later RTC issued a restraining order to the writ of execution issued by the MTC. But after hearing, RTC denied the writ of prelim injunc. Ejectees filed a petition for certiorari to the IAC but it dismissed. Ejectees filed a pet for review on certiorari to SC but it was resolved against them. After learning of such decision, they vacated. The 2 units were then rented out to herein respondents (the Baldazos). Now comes the SECOND CASE: Nicanor Santos, as authorized representative of the Cooperative v. Buazon and new tenatns (unlawful detainer, MTC) Santos alleges that the Cooperative is the owner and so the tenants are occupying such building without authority from the Cooperative. He wants them to vacate because the Cooperative needs to use the building. Only Buazon filed his answer. He denied the allegations and set up the affirmative defence that complaint was already barred by previous judgment and challenged legal existence of the plaintiff cooperative. MTC rendered judgment pursuant to the Rule on Summary procedure in favor of the Cooperative and ordered defendants to vacate. Buazon appealed to the RTC, invoking res judicata. (wrt judgment in first case) RTC sustained res judicata defense. MR by plaintiff cooperative. Denied. Cooperative elevated decision to CA. CA reversed RTC decision (reinstated MTC decision) Hence this petition. Main contention of Buazon: MTC no jurisdiction over the case bec of failure of plaintiff cooperative to comply with procedural requirements in the Rent Control Law. MTC erred in applying rule on summary procedure despite issue on question of ownership raised in pleadings of the parties over the subject matter of the case. CA acted with GAD when it disregarded the application of res judicata

2.

3. 4.

5.

Issue/Held: 1. Did MTC have jurisdiction? -- YES 2. Did MTC correctly apply rules on summary procedure? -- YES 3. Does res judicata apply? NO Ratio: Buazon et al argue lack of jurisdiction of MTC bec of failure of plaintiff cooperative to allege the procedural requirements in Sec 5c of BP 25 (Rent Control Law), where plaintiff's COA is predicated on the need of the premises. SC says jurisdiction of the court is determined by law and the law has vested inferior courts with the exclusive jurisdiction to try unlawful detainer cases. At best, non-compliance with Sec 5c of BP 25 is a ground for dismissal for lack of cause of action or as an affirmative defense that must be alleged in the answer. They never did raise this ground in an MTD nor as an affirmative defense. Raising this now is an attempt to invoke a defense that has already been waived. WRT the alleged error of the MTC in applying the Rule on Summary Procedure in resolving the unlawful detainer case inspite the fact that question of ownership was raised SC says it only need to cite Sec 1A of the Rule on Summary Procedure mandating its application to cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer , and Sec 33.2 of BP 129 which says that MTCs shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer; Provided, That when in such cases, the defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and question of possession cannot be resolved only to determine the issue of possession Inferior courts are not divested of jurisdiction over ejectment cases just because the defendant sets up a claim of ownership over the property.

d2015member

If the complaint establishes jurisdictional facts necessary to sustain the action and the remedy sought is merely to obtain possession, the LC has jurisdiction, regardless of the claim of ownership. It can resolve the issue of ownership if only to determine the issue of possession.

Assuming the LC erred in applying the Rules on Summary Procedure to the this case, Buazon et al did not object when the LC required the parties to submit their position papers and supporting affidavits, which is only called for in summary procedure. Their failure to object operates as a waiver of the procedure taken by the LC. Res judicata cannot apply against the plaintiff Cooperative. Cooperative was never impleaded as a party in the first case. Neither were they successors-in-interest or real parties in interest in those actions since the cooperative became the owner of the property from the time the full payment of the construction costs were completed. Cooperative cannot be bound by a decision where it was not a party even assuming it was well aware of the action. CA was correct in saying: o There is no way we can consider plaintiff Cooperative a party in interest in the first civil actions considering that the cooperative did not stand to be prejudiced or benefited by the outcome of the case and even the rights and obligations of the parties arising therefrom are absolutely distinct from that of the plaintiff cooperative. o The decision declaring Buazon as the owner and lawful possessor of the property is a judgment good only as far as the ejectees were concerned, it appearing that only the rights and obligations of these parties were involved. o The decision was a judgment good only against the defendants therein (the ejectees) and should not in any way be construed to affect persons not privy to the action o As to the title or issue of ownership, Rule 70.7 of the RoC provides: The judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or detainer shall be effective with respect to the possession only and in no wise bind and title or affect the ownership of the land or building. o The doctrine of res judicata and conclusiveness of judgment apply in ejectment suits, but subject to the qualification that the judgment is conclusive only wrt the issue of material possession of the premises BUT NOT wrt ownership and other facts Petition denied.