FAIRLAND KNITCRAFT CORPORATION v.

ARTURO LOO PO
G.R. No. 217694, January 27, 2016

Facts:
Petitioner Fairland is allegedly the owner of a condominium unit which was leased to
respondent Po by verbal agreement, with a P20,000.00 rental fee a month. From March
2011, Po had continuously failed to pay rent, hence, Fairland did not renew the lease
agreement anymore.

In January 2012, Fairland sent a formal letter to Po demanding that he pay the rental
arrears of P220,000.00, and that he vacate the leased premises within 15 days from the
receipt of the letter. Po neither tendered payment for the unpaid rent nor vacated the
premises.

On December 12, 2012, Fairland filed the complaint for unlawful detainer before the MeTC.
Po had until January 7, 2013 to file his answer but he failed to do so. Hence, on February 6,
2013, Fairland filed a motion to render judgment. Later, the MeTC considered the case
submitted for decision.

On March 1, 2013, Po's counsel filed his Entry of Appearance with Motion for Leave of
Court to file Comment/Opposition to Motion to Render Judgment. Po denied the allegations
against him and commented, among others, that there was no supporting document that
would show that Fairland owned the property, that the issue in the case was one of
ownership, and that it was the RTC which had jurisdiction over the case. MeTC treated the
comment/opposition as Po's answer to the complaint; but since the same was filed out of
time, the motion was denied.

MeTC dismissed the complaint for lack of merit due to Fairland's failure to prove its claim
by preponderance of evidence. It explained that although the complaint sufficiently alleged
a cause of action, Fairland failed to prove that it was entitled to the possession of the
subject property. There was no evidence presented to support its claim against Po either.
Fairland appealed before the RTC under Rule 40 of the Rules of Court.

RTC affirmed the MeTC ruling. Fairland filed an MR, attaching its condominium certificate
of title over the subject property, but it was denied by the RTC. Fairland filed a petition for
review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court before the CA.

CA dismissed the petition and concluded that Fairland failed to discharge the duty to prove
not only his ownership but also the identity of the property claimed. Fairland filed its MR,
but it was denied by the CA. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

Issue:
1. Whether the MeTC correctly dismissed the case for lack of preponderance of evidence.
2. Whether the failure to attach annexes in the complaint is fatal, even if the complaint
alleges a sufficient cause of action.
3. Whether the Judicial Affidavit Rule, where documentary or object evidence are required
to be attached, applies in this case.

Held:
1. No, under the Rules of Summary Procedure, the weight of evidence is not considered
when a judgment is rendered based on the complaint.
The summons, together with the complaint and its annexes, was served upon Po on
December 28, 2012. This presupposes that the MeTC found no ground to dismiss the
action for unlawful detainer. Nevertheless, Po failed to file his answer on time and the
MeTC had the option to render judgment motu proprio or on motion of the plaintiff.
Section 6 of the Rules on Summary Procedure is clear that in case the defendant failed
to file his answer, the court shall render judgment, either motu proprio or upon
plaintiffs motion, based solely on the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what
is prayed for. The failure of the defendant to timely file his answer and to controvert the
claim against him constitutes his acquiescence to every allegation stated in the
complaint. Logically, there is nothing to be done in this situation except to render
judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint.
Similarly, under Section 7, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, which governs the rules for
forcible entry and unlawful detainer, if the defendant fails to answer the complaint
within the period provided, the court has no authority to declare the defendant in
default. Instead, the court, motu proprio or on motion of the plaintiff, shall render
judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what
is prayed for.
This has been enunciated in the case of Don Tino Realty and Development Corporation
v. Florentino, citing Bayog v. Natino, where the Court held that there was no provision
for an entry of default under the Rules of Summary Procedure if the defendant failed to
file his answer.
In this case, Po failed to file his answer to the complaint despite proper service of
summons. He also failed to provide a sufficient justification to excuse his lapses. Thus,
as no answer was filed, judgment must be rendered by the court as may be warranted
by the facts alleged in the complaint.

2. No, failure to attach annexes is not fatal if the complaint alleges a sufficient cause of
action.

The rules do not compel the plaintiff to attach his evidence to the complaint because, at
this inception stage, he only has to file his complaint to establish his cause of action.
Here, the court was only tasked to determine whether the complaint of Fairland alleged
a sufficient cause of action and to render judgment thereon.

Also, there was no need to attach proof of ownership in the complaint because the
allegations therein constituted a sufficient cause of action for unlawful detainer. Only
when the allegations in the complaint are insufficient to form a cause of action shall the
attachment become material in the determination thereof. Even under Section 4 of the
Rules of Summary Procedure, it is not mandatory to attach annexes to the complaint.

In the case of Lazaro v. Brewmaster (Lazaro), where judgment was rendered based on
the complaint due to the failure of the defendant to file an answer under the Rules of
Summary Procedure, it was written that: x x x To determine whether the complaint
states a cause of action, all documents attached thereto may, in fact, be considered,
particularly when referred to in the complaint. We emphasize, however, that the
inquiry is into the sufficiency, not the veracity of the material allegations in the
complaint. Thus, consideration of the annexed documents should only be taken in
the context of ascertaining the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint.

In Lazaro, the assailed invalid invoices attached to the complaint were not considered
because the complaint already alleged a sufficient cause of action for collection of sum
of money. Those assailed documents were not the bases of the plaintiffs action for sum
of money, but were only attached to the complaint to provide evidentiary details on the
alleged transactions.

Similarly, in the case at bench, there was no need for documentary attachments to
prove Fairland's ownership over the subject property.
First, the present action is an action for unlawful detainer wherein only de facto or
material possession is required to be alleged. Evidently, the attachment of any deed of
ownership to the complaint is not indispensable because an action for unlawful
detainer does not entirely depend on ownership.
Second, Fairland sufficiently alleged ownership and superior right of possession over
the subject property. These allegations were evidently manifest in the complaint as
Fairland claimed to have orally agreed to lease the property to Po. The Court is of the
view that these allegations were clear and unequivocal and did not need supporting
attachments to be considered as having sufficiently established its cause of action. Even
the MeTC conceded that the complaint of Fairland stated a valid cause of action for
unlawful detainer. It must be stressed that inquiry into the attached documents in the
complaint is for the sufficiency, not the veracity, of the material allegations in the
complaint.
Third, considering that Po failed to file an answer within the prescribed period, he was
deemed to have admitted all the allegations in the complaint including Fairland's claim
of ownership. In the Entry of Appearance with Motion for Leave of Court to file
Comment/Opposition to Motion to Render Judgment, which was belatedly filed and so
was denied by the MeTC, Po merely denied the allegations against him without even
bothering to aver why he claimed to have a superior right of possession of the subject
property.
 Fourth, it is only at the later stage of the summary procedure when the affidavits of
witnesses and other evidence on factual issues shall be presented before the court.
The specific provisions under Sections 8 and 9 of the Rules of Summary Procedure
which are also reflected in Sections 9 and 10 under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, serve
their purpose to immediately settle ejectment proceedings.
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases are summary proceedings designed to
provide for an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or the right to
possession of the property involved. It does not admit of a delay in the determination
thereof. It is a 'time procedure' designed to remedy the situation. Thus, as a
consequence of the defendant's failure to file an answer, the court is simply tasked to
render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited
to what is prayed for therein.

3. No. To begin with, the rule is not applicable because such evidence are required to be
attached to a judicial affidavit, not to a complaint. Moreover, as the rule took effect only
on January 1, 2013, it cannot be required in this case because this was earlier filed on
December 12, 2012.

Granting that it can be applied retroactively, the rule being essentially remedial, still it
has no bearing on the ruling of this Court.

In the Judicial Affidavit Rule, the attachments of documentary or object evidence to the
affidavits is required when there would be a pre-trial or preliminary conference or the
scheduled hearing. As stated earlier, where a defendant fails to file an answer, the court
shall render judgment, either motu proprio or upon plaintiffs motion, based solely on
the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for. Thus, where there is
no answer, there is no need for a pre-trial, preliminary conference or hearing.
Section 2 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule
Petition is granted; the Decision and the Resolution of the CA are reversed and set aside.
Respondent Po is ordered to vacate Condominium Unit No. 205 and to pay the rentals-in-
arrears, as well as the rentals accruing in the interim until he vacates the property.