GEORGE M. BOCANEGRA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANTONIO CONEJOS, AND AGAINST ALL THOSE PERSONS CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER HIM, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Bocanegra versus Conejos

The Case

This is a case for recovery of possession of a portion of registered land. George Bocanegra, the registered owner of a parcel of land covered by a transfer certificate of title, sued Antonio Conejos and all persons claiming rights under him to recover a sixty-five square meter portion of that land which Conejos had occupied without any contract and without paying rent. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers in one decision several doctrines that examiners love: jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint and not by the defenses raised in the answer; the dividing line between an ejectment suit and the plenary action for recovery of possession is the one-year period counted from the last demand; and a defective appellant's brief is itself a ground to dismiss an appeal.

Procedural History

Bocanegra filed his complaint for recovery of possession before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 8, originally against Cindy Digal and all persons claiming rights under her. Conejos moved to intervene with leave of court, attaching an answer in intervention, and asked that the complaint be dismissed on grounds of forum shopping and litis pendentia. The trial court allowed the intervention but denied the motion to dismiss, finding no forum shopping. Bocanegra then moved to admit an amended complaint impleading Conejos as the defendant, and moved to declare the defendants in default. The trial court admitted the amended complaint, denied the motion for default, and treated the answer in intervention as the responsive pleading.

After pre-trial incidents in which Conejos failed to appear and later failed to file a pre-trial brief, the trial court allowed Bocanegra to present evidence ex parte. The trial court then rendered judgment in favor of Bocanegra, ordering Conejos and all persons claiming rights under him to vacate the property and return possession, to pay reasonable compensation of one thousand pesos per month from the demand in March 2003 until actual vacation, to pay twenty thousand pesos in attorney's fees, and to pay the costs of suit. Conejos appealed. The appeal reached the Supreme Court, which resolved it on the appellants' brief and the appellee's brief.

Facts

Bocanegra and his mother, Perpetua Bocanegra, were the registered owners of a one thousand square meter parcel of land covered by a transfer certificate of title, situated along Rizal Avenue Extension in Santa Cruz, Manila. In 2002, Bocanegra's staff conducted an investigation and reported that there were illegal occupants on the land. The staff identified Cindy Digal as one of the occupants. Bocanegra had no verbal or written contract with any of the occupants allowing them to stay.

In March 2003, Bocanegra, through his representative Cindy Digal, made verbal demands on Conejos to vacate the property. Conejos refused to vacate and refused to pay reasonable compensation for its use. Bocanegra filed the complaint in December 2007 against Cindy Digal and all persons claiming rights under her. Conejos then intervened, claiming that he was the actual occupant and the owner of a furniture shop operating on the property, and that Cindy Digal was merely his saleslady. Bocanegra amended the complaint to implead Conejos as the defendant, alleging that Conejos occupied sixty-five square meters through strategy and stealth, that the proportionate assessed value of that area was three hundred ninety-seven thousand eight hundred pesos, and that reasonable compensation was two thousand pesos per month.

During trial, Bocanegra and Engineer Regino Sobrevinas testified for the plaintiff. The engineer specifically identified the subject property. Conejos, for his part, did not specifically deny in his answer in intervention the material allegation that demand to vacate had been made on him through his representative Cindy Digal, nor did he specifically deny the identity of the subject property.

Issues

• Whether or not the appeal should be dismissed for failure of the appellants' brief to comply with the requirements of the Rules of Court.
• Whether or not the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over the amended complaint, that is, whether the action was one for recovery of possession rather than a case for ejectment.
• Whether or not Bocanegra committed forum shopping in filing the amended complaint.
• Whether or not the demand to vacate made on the original defendant, Cindy Digal, may be treated as a demand on the intervenor, Antonio Conejos.
• Whether or not the subject property was sufficiently identified.

Applicable Provisions

Section 13 of Rule 44 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 13. Contents of appellant's brief. — The appellant's brief shall contain, in the order herein indicated, the following: (a) A subject index of the matter in the brief with a digest of the arguments and page references, and a table of cases alphabetically arranged, textbooks and statutes cited with references to the pages where they are cited; (b) An assignment of errors intended to be urged, which errors shall be separately, distinctly and concisely stated without repetition and numbered consecutively; (c) Under the heading "Statement of the Case," a clear and concise statement of the nature of the action, a summary of the proceedings, the appealed rulings and orders of the court, the nature of the judgment and any other matters necessary to an understanding of the nature of the controversy with page references to the record; (d) Under the heading "Statement of Facts," a clear and concise statement in a narrative form of the facts admitted by both parties and of those in controversy, together with the substance of the proof relating thereto in sufficient detail to make it clearly intelligible, with page references to the record; (e) A clear and concise statement of the issues of fact or law to be submitted, to the court for its judgment; (f) Under the heading "Argument," the appellant's arguments on each assignment of error with page references to the record. The authorities relied upon shall be cited by the page of the report at which the case begins and the page of the report on which the citation is found; (g) Under the heading "Relief," a specification of the order or judgment which the appellant seeks; and (h) In cases not brought up by record on appeal, the appellant's brief shall contain, as an appendix, a copy of the judgment or final order appealed from.

This provision supplies the standard against which the Court measured the appellants' brief and found it wanting.

Section 1, paragraph (f) of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. — An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds: (a) xxx (b) xxx (c) xxx (d) xxx (e) xxx (f) Absence of specific assignment of errors in the appellant's brief, or of page references to the record as required in Section 13, paragraphs (a), (c), (d) and (f) of Rule 44; (g) xxx (h) xxx (i) xxx

This is the ground on which the Court dismissed the appeal for the defects in the appellants' brief.

Section 19, paragraph (2) of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 provides:

Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: xxx (2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.

This provision, as modified by Republic Act Number 7691, fixes the assessed value threshold that gave the Regional Trial Court jurisdiction over the amended complaint.

Section 11 of Rule 8 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 11. Allegations not specifically denied deemed admitted. — Material averment in the complaint, other than those as to the amount of liquidated damages, shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied. Allegations of usury in a complaint to recover usurious interest are deemed admitted if not denied specifically under oath.

This provision made the allegation of demand, and the identity of the property, deemed admitted against Conejos.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court dismissed the appeal. The right to appeal is not a natural right but one granted by statute, and must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law. The appellants' brief failed to provide a subject index, a digest of arguments and page references, and a table of cases and statutes cited; failed to provide page references to the record in its statement of facts and in its argument; and failed to cite authorities by the page of the report where the citation is found. Rules of procedure exist for a noble purpose, and to disregard them in the guise of liberal construction would defeat that purpose.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and determined by the allegations of the complaint, and cannot be made to depend on the defenses in the answer or on a motion to dismiss. An action for recovery of possession is the plenary action to recover the right of possession, brought in the proper regional trial court when dispossession has lasted for more than one year. If at the time of the filing of the complaint more than one year had lapsed since the defendant turned the plaintiff out of possession or since the defendant's possession became illegal, the action is one for recovery of possession, not for forcible entry or illegal detainer. The amended complaint was filed in July 2009, more than one year after the last demand in March 2003. Since the assessed value alleged was three hundred ninety-seven thousand eight hundred pesos, exceeding the fifty thousand peso threshold for Metro Manila, the Regional Trial Court correctly assumed jurisdiction.

On the third issue, the Court held that the allegation of forum shopping must fail. To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, it is essential to ascertain whether the elements of litis pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. The test requires identity of parties, identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for founded on the same facts, and identity of these particulars such that any judgment in the other action will amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. Other than bare and unsubstantiated allegations, Conejos presented no evidence to prove any of these elements.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the demand through Cindy Digal was a sufficient demand on Conejos. Conejos did not specifically deny the material averment that demand was made on him through his representative, so the allegation was deemed admitted under Section 11 of Rule 8.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that Conejos is estopped from questioning the identity of the subject property because he did not specifically deny it in his answer in intervention. In any event, the testimony of Engineer Regino Sobrevinas specifically identified the property.

Doctrine

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and determined exclusively by the allegations of the complaint; it cannot be made to depend on the defenses set up in the answer or on a motion to dismiss, for otherwise the question of jurisdiction would almost entirely depend upon the defendant.

An action for recovery of possession is the plenary action to recover the right of possession, and lies in the Regional Trial Court when dispossession has lasted for more than one year. If more than one year has lapsed since the last demand at the time the complaint is filed, the action is one for recovery of possession and not for ejectment. Under Section 19, paragraph (2) of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as modified by Republic Act Number 7691, the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction where the assessed value exceeds fifty thousand pesos in Metro Manila.

Forum shopping is established only by proving the elements of litis pendentia or the likelihood of res judicata: identity of parties, identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for founded on the same facts, and identity of these particulars such that judgment in one will bar the other. Bare allegations do not suffice.

Under Section 11 of Rule 8, material averments in the complaint not specifically denied are deemed admitted, including the fact of demand and the identity of the property.

Finally, the right to appeal is statutory and must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law; a brief that omits the subject index, the digest, the page references, and the proper citations required by Section 13 of Rule 44 is ground for dismissal under Section 1, paragraph (f) of Rule 50.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 8, ordering Conejos and all persons claiming rights under him to vacate the property, return possession to Bocanegra, and pay reasonable compensation, attorney's fees, and costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint, not by the answer, and the one-year period from the last demand separates ejectment from the plenary action for recovery of possession. Examiners use this case on jurisdiction over the subject matter, on the ejectment versus recovery of possession distinction, and on the dismissal of appeals for a defective appellants' brief.