G.R. No. 162028; July 14, 2008
DR. LORNA VILLA, Petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF ENRIQUE ALTAVAS, namely: Enrique Altavas II, Erlinda Liboro and Maria A. de Jesus, Respondents.

FACTS

The respondents, as heirs of the registered owner Enrique Altavas, filed an ejectment complaint against petitioner Dr. Lorna Villa and others before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC). They alleged that after the death of their administrator, his widow Virginia Bermejo took possession of the fishpond lots without consent and subsequently leased a portion to Villa. Despite demand letters, Villa and Bermejo refused to vacate. Villa, in her answer, claimed she was a lessee in good faith from Bermejo, who was in actual possession, and contested the respondents’ ownership, citing a pending case involving the property’s title.
The MCTC ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering Villa to vacate and pay compensation. Villa appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), but her appeal was dismissed for her failure to file the required appeal memorandum. Her motion for reconsideration was denied. She then filed a certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by dismissing her appeal on a technicality. The CA affirmed the RTC’s orders, prompting Villa to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s dismissal of Villa’s appeal for failure to file an appeal memorandum, and subsidiarily, whether the MCTC’s judgment in the ejectment case was valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s decision. On the procedural issue, the Court held that the filing of an appeal memorandum in an ejectment appeal to the RTC is mandatory under Section 7(b), Rule 40 of the Rules of Court. The RTC’s dismissal of Villa’s appeal for non-compliance was a valid exercise of its jurisdiction, not grave abuse of discretion. The right to appeal is statutory, and failure to adhere to procedural rules justifies dismissal.
On the substantive ejectment issues, the Court found them unmeritorious. An ejectment case primarily determines physical possession, not ownership. The MCTC’s decision, based on the parties’ position papers and evidence, was sufficient. The respondents established prior physical possession through their deceased administrator. Villa, as a mere lessee from Bermejo, derived no better right to possession than her lessor. Since the MCTC found Bermejo had no right to possess or lease the property, and she subsequently withdrew her own appeal, Villa’s possession was likewise unlawful. The Court concluded the MCTC correctly ordered her to vacate.