G.R. No. L-49396 January 15, 1988
JUAN A. GOCHANGCO, HON. FELINO GARCIA, as Presiding Judge of the City Court of Bacolod, Branch I, and DEPUTY PROVINCIAL SHERIFF JOSUE DE JOSE, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, BRANCH IV, SY HO and MILAGROS MINORIA, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from an unlawful detainer action filed by C.N. Hodges against several defendants, including Sy Ho and Milagros Minoria, in the Bacolod City Court. During the pendency of the case, Hodges died, and the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB), as estate administrator, was substituted as plaintiff. Sy Ho was declared in default for alleged failure to answer, a ruling he contested by claiming improper service of summons. Minoria filed an answer. The estate’s properties, including the subject lots, were eventually sold to Juan A. Gochangco, who was substituted as plaintiff. Gochangco moved for judgment on the pleadings against Minoria and presented ex-parte evidence against the defaulted Sy Ho. The City Court rendered a judgment of ejectment against both.
Sy Ho and Minoria appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI). During the appeal, Gochangco obtained a writ of execution pending appeal from the City Court, which the CFI subsequently annulled. The CFI, in its decision on the appeal, reversed the City Court. It held that the City Court acquired no jurisdiction over Sy Ho due to invalid substituted service of summons, and that Minoria’s answer indeed tendered issues, making a judgment on the pleadings improper. The CFI thus dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the City Court validly acquired jurisdiction over Sy Ho; (2) whether a judgment on the pleadings was correctly rendered against Minoria; and (3) whether the execution pending appeal issued by the City Court was valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the CFI and reinstated the City Court’s judgment. On jurisdiction over Sy Ho, the Court found that the sheriff’s return, which indicated service at Sy Ho’s place of business, constituted prima facie evidence of valid service. Sy Ho’s bare denial, offered only years later, was insufficient to overcome this presumption, especially since he had previously filed pleadings and complied with a court order to pay rentals, acts which constituted voluntary appearance and cured any defect in service. Regarding Minoria, the Court ruled that a judgment on the pleadings was proper as her answer failed to specifically deny the material allegations of the complaint concerning Hodges’s ownership and her lack of right to occupy, thus deemed an admission of those facts. On execution pending appeal, the Court upheld its validity, citing Section 8 of Rule 70 which allows it in ejectment cases if the defendant’s appeal is frivolous or dilatory. The CFI’s annulment of the writ was erroneous as the City Court retained jurisdiction to order execution pending appeal, a power not divested by the perfection of the appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized the summary nature of ejectment proceedings and the policy to restore possession promptly to the prevailing party.