Scribd
Upload
6 views2 pages

Recitation

Carmen Cañiza, declared incompetent at 94, sought to evict the Estradas from her property through an unlawful detainer suit, but the lower courts ruled against her, citing improper legal action. The Supreme Court determined that the unlawful detainer suit was indeed the correct remedy, as the Estradas had no legal claim to the property based on an unprobated will. Additionally, Cañiza's death did not invalidate the case, allowing her guardian to continue representing her interests in the matter.

Uploaded by

Ryan Saura
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
6 views2 pages

Recitation

Carmen Cañiza, declared incompetent at 94, sought to evict the Estradas from her property through an unlawful detainer suit, but the lower courts ruled against her, citing improper legal action. The Supreme Court determined that the unlawful detainer suit was indeed the correct remedy, as the Estradas had no legal claim to the property based on an unprobated will. Additionally, Cañiza's death did not invalidate the case, allowing her guardian to continue representing her interests in the matter.

Uploaded by

Ryan Saura
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

The Incompetent, CARMEN CAÑIZA, represented by her legal guardian, AMPARO

EVANGELISTA, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION), PEDRO ESTRADA and his wife,
LEONORA ESTRADA,
FACTS:
Carmen Cañiza, a retired pharmacist and former professor, was declared incompetent at 94 years
old. She owned a house and lot in Quezon City, where Pedro and Leonora Estrada, along with
their family, had been living since the 1960s. Their stay was allowed out of Cañiza’s kindness
and without any formal contract.
On September 17, 1990, Amparo Evangelista, Cañiza’s legal guardian, filed an unlawful detainer
suit (ejectment case) before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MetroTC) of Quezon City to remove
the Estradas from the property. Evangelista argued that their continued occupation was by
mere tolerance and that Cañiza urgently needed the house either for personal use or to
generate income for her medical needs.
The Estradas, in their defense, claimed that they were considered family by Cañiza and that she
had executed a holographic will on September 4, 1988, bequeathing them the house and lot.
They argued that this demonstrated her intent for them to remain in possession.
The MetroTC ruled in favor of Cañiza, ordering the Estradas to vacate. However, on appeal, the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled otherwise, stating that Evangelista should have filed an accion
publiciana (a plenary action for recovery of possession) rather than an unlawful detainer suit.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this ruling.
Cañiza, through Evangelista, elevated the case to the Supreme Court (SC), arguing that an
unlawful detainer suit was the proper remedy and that the Court of Appeals improperly gave
weight to an uncertified photocopy of the alleged holographic will, which was irrelevant to the
ejectment case.
During the pendency of the case, Cañiza passed away on March 19, 1994. The Estradas then
moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that Evangelista had lost her authority to represent Cañiza.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the unlawful detainer suit (ejectment) the correct


legal remedy for recovering possession of the house.

2. Whether the Estradas had a legal right to stay in the house based on a will allegedly
bequeathing them the property.
2. Whether Cañiza’s death during the appeal affected the case.
RULING:

1. YES, an unlawful detainer suit was the correct remedy. The Estradas
were merely occupants by tolerance, meaning they had no permanent right
to stay. The moment the property owner demanded that they vacate, and
they refused, an unlawful detainer case became proper.
2. No. The Court said that will is not automatically effective. Under Philippine law, a will is
ambulatory—meaning it only takes effect after the testator dies and the will is duly probated.
Before probate, the Estradas had no vested right over the property.
Since Cañiza was declared incompetent, her legal guardian, Amparo Evangelista, had full
authority over her property under Rule 96, Section 4 of the Rules of Court. This included
managing the estate in a way that ensured Cañiza’s proper maintenance. Given that she was in
poor health and needed financial resources, it was reasonable for the guardian to reclaim the
property, either for personal use or for rental income. Thus, the Estradas could not claim
ownership or possession rights based on an unprobated will. Their refusal to vacate was
unlawful, justifying their ejection.

3. NO. While the appeal was pending, Cañiza passed away. The Estradas argued that her death
automatically terminated the guardianship and invalidated the case. The Court rejected this
argument, citing Rule 3, Section 18 of the Rules of Court, which states that cases survive
the death of a party unless the claim is extinguished. Since an ejectment case is a claim
affecting possession, it is not extinguished by the death of the plaintiff. The Court ruled that
the proper course of action was to substitute Cañiza’s legal representatives or heirs in the
case. The guardian, Evangelista, remained authorized to act on behalf of the estate until
proper substitution was made.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated
on June 2, 1993 — affirming the Regional Trial Court's judgment and dismissing petitioner's
petition for certiorari — is REVERSED

You might also like