Court of Appeals denies hospital's petition for review

CEBU, Philippines - The Court of Appeals (CA) Cebu Station has denied the petition for review filed by the Eversley Childs Sanitarium over the lower court’s decision ordering them to vacate the lot in question situated at Jagobiao, Mandaue City.

Associate Justice Socorro Inting in her 10-page decision affirmed the lower court’s ruling that spouses Anastacio and Perla Barbarona were entitled to its possession from the time the title was issued in favor of their predecessors-in-interest.

“Petitioner has not shown to this court any sufficient evidence proving their ownership much less their right of possession,” decision reads.

Inting added that based on the judgment of the lower court, it did not resolve the issue of ownership or possession in favor of the petitioner.

Earlier, the couple filed a civil case against Carey Anaba, Modesto Miñoza, et.al. before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) Branch 3 for ejectment.

The couple presented the transfer certificate of title (TCT) No. 53698 as basis of their claim from the Mandaue City Register of Deeds saying they acquired the lot from their predecessors, spouses Tarcilo and Cirilia Gonzales whose ownership was covered by OCT No. RO-824.

The MTC rendered its decision in favor of the couple and ordered defendants and the sanitarium to vacate the lot which was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court.

The couple claimed that sanitarium has no right to occupy the portions of property they owned.

“Petitioner’s occupancy was illegal and at best, purest by mere tolerance and not founded by any legal or consensual relations… demand letters were sent asking the latter to vacate since they would be using the lot in question. Petitioner refused to heed the demand, thus, the action for ejectment,” they said.

However, the sanitarium appealed before the CA raising the issues “the Mandaue RTC erred in not holding that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the case a quo and erred in disregarding the nullification of respondents’ title.”

The representative of the Sanitarium claimed that at the time that the ejectment case was filed, they have been in uncontested possession of the subject property for more than 70 years. They added that the long occupancy should have been subject of the trial court’s judicial notice.

“Considering the length of petitioner’s occupancy of the subject property, the ejectment case filed by respondent is effectively one for recovery of possession which is beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court,” petitioner said.

Inting in her decision found the petition filed by the sanitarium was not meritorious.

“It is settled that the jurisdiction of the court, as well as the nature of the action, is determine from the averments of the complaint,” decision reads.

Inting said the long occupancy of the sanitarium was because of the couple’s mere tolerance and nothing in the record shows that the sanitarium was ejected from the property for more than a year from the time of demand to vacate.     - (THE FREEMAN)