Nactor vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

A motion for reconsideration filed on the next business day after the prescribed period's last day falls on a Sunday is timely, pursuant to Article 13 of the Civil Code and Section 13 of the Revised Administrative Code; however, where the lower court's denial was alternatively based on lack of merit and that merits determination is sustained, the timeliness of the motion does not alter the outcome. Possession by mere tolerance confers no possessory rights, and all occupants who gained access through a tolerated caretaker are bound by an unlawful detainer judgment against him.

Spouses Claro and Magdalena Melchor are the registered owners of a lot at 7713 St. Paul Street, Barangay San Antonio Village, Makati, Metro Manila, covered by the Torrens system. In 1962, intending to go abroad, they allowed Guillermo Nactor to build a shanty on the property and serve as caretaker to prevent squatters from entering. The other petitioners — spouses Anselmo and Elena Nactor, Preciliano Nactor, Jose Nactor, and Gloria Nactor (assisted by her husband Manuel Claytos) — are Guillermo Nactor's relatives who later built houses on the same property. No contract or rental arrangement governed any of these occupations.

Sometime in 1962, spouses Claro and Magdalena Melchor, intending to go abroad, allowed Guillermo Nactor to build a shanty on their property at 7713 St. Paul Street, Barangay San Antonio Village, Makati, Metro Manila. Nactor occupied the premises without any contract and without any rental, under an understanding that he would watch over the property to prevent squatters from entering. Instead of complying with this arrangement, Nactor allowed his relatives — the other petitioners, all surnamed Nactor — to build houses inside the property without the knowledge and consent of the Melchor spouses.

When the Melchor spouses returned to the Philippines, they discovered that many people were squatting inside their property. They lost no time in demanding that Guillermo Nactor and his group vacate the premises. When petitioners refused, the Melchor spouses filed a complaint with the Barangay, which was later elevated to the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 64, Makati. The MTC decided the case in favor of the Melchor spouses on September 5, 1984, ordering the defendants and all persons claiming under them to vacate the lot, surrender peaceful possession to the plaintiffs, pay jointly and severally a monthly rental of ₱100.00 from the date of filing of the complaint on August 30, 1983 until they finally vacated, demolish or transfer all improvements introduced thereon, and pay ₱2,000.00 as attorney's fees and litigation expenses plus costs of suit.

On appeal, the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 139, affirmed in toto the MTC decision on June 4, 1985, observing that Guillermo Nactor himself admitted his occupancy was by mere tolerance and generosity of the plaintiffs, and that while actual physical possession might have been temporarily transferred to him as caretaker for almost twenty years, legal and juridical possession remained with the plaintiffs, the land being within the protective mantle of indefeasibility of the Torrens system. Petitioners moved for reconsideration on June 24, 1985, which the RTC denied in an Omnibus Order dated October 22, 1985, not only because the motion was purportedly filed late but also for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision on January 30, 1986, finding no reversible error, and denied reconsideration on March 21, 1986. Petitioners then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari, raising issues on the timeliness of the motion for reconsideration, the binding effect of the judgment on co-defendants, and the jurisdiction of the court a quo.

• Timeliness of Motion for Reconsideration: Petitioners contended that the motion for reconsideration was filed on time with the RTC on June 24, 1985, because the fifteenth day — June 23, 1985 — was a Sunday, and accordingly the period should run until the next working day.
• Binding Effect on Co-Defendants: Petitioners alleged that only Guillermo Nactor, whose entrance into the premises was with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs, could be bound by the judgment in the unlawful detainer case, not the rest of the defendants whose occupancy was termed by the plaintiffs as unlawful and illegal, without any written consent or authority from them.
• Lack of Cause of Action and Jurisdiction: Petitioners claimed that the other defendants should be charged with forcible entry, and since there was no compliance with the rules on forcible entry cases — among which is a written demand to vacate that must be definite — the complaint was devoid of a sufficient cause of action and the court had no jurisdiction to try and decide the case.
• Urban Land Reform Protection: Petitioners claimed they fell within the protective mantle of P.D. No. 1517 "Urban Land Reform" as per Proclamation Nos. 1767 and 1967, as amended by Proclamation No. 2284.

• Timeliness of Motion for Reconsideration: Whether the motion for reconsideration filed on June 24, 1985 was timely, given that the fifteenth day (June 23) was a Sunday.
• Binding Effect on Co-Defendants: Whether the judgment in the unlawful detainer case binds only Guillermo Nactor or also the rest of the defendants who occupied the property through him.
• Jurisdiction and Cause of Action: Whether the court a quo lacked jurisdiction because the proper action should have been forcible entry rather than unlawful detainer for the co-defendants other than Guillermo Nactor.
• Urban Land Reform Coverage: Whether the property in question falls within the protective coverage of P.D. No. 1517 and related proclamations.

• Timeliness of Motion for Reconsideration: Yes. The motion was timely filed, as the fifteenth day fell on a Sunday, extending the period ipso jure to the next working day pursuant to Article 13 of the Civil Code and Section 13 of the Revised Administrative Code.
• Binding Effect on Co-Defendants: Yes. All defendants are bound because they gained access to the property through Guillermo Nactor and occupied the same under his responsibility; if Nactor lost the right to stay, a fortiori the rest who occupied under him have no right to remain.
• Jurisdiction and Cause of Action: No error. What is controlling is not the caption of the case but the allegations therein that determine the nature of the action, and proper relief may be granted even without a specific prayer if the facts alleged and evidence warrant it.
• Urban Land Reform Coverage: No. The property is outside the declared Urban Land Reform Zone, as certified by the Human Settlements Regulation Commission.

• Timeliness of Motion for Reconsideration: Under Section 39 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act (B.P. 129), the period for appeal is fifteen days from notice of the decision. Article 13 of the Civil Code and Section 13 of the Revised Administrative Code provide that in computing a period, the first day is excluded and the last day included; however, if the last day is a Sunday or a legal holiday, the period is extended to the next working day. The fifteenth day from notice was June 23, 1985, a Sunday, so the motion filed on June 24 was timely. The Court acknowledged this procedural point in petitioners' favor, but noted that the RTC's Omnibus Order denied the motion not only for being late but also for lack of merit, and the CA affirmed on both grounds. Thus, the timeliness issue did not alter the outcome.
• Binding Effect on Co-Defendants: The trial court found that there was no contract between the plaintiffs and defendants and that occupation was only by tolerance. Guillermo Nactor himself testified that the Melchor spouses told them they could stay so that nobody would stay in the place. All the defendants are surnamed Nactor and are relatives of Guillermo, who was the caretaker. They obviously gained access through him and occupied the property under his responsibility. Consequently, if Guillermo Nactor admittedly lost the right to stay, with all the more reason have the rest of the defendants who occupied under him no right to remain. The trial court's dispositive properly included all defendants and any and all persons claiming right or title under Guillermo Nactor.
• Jurisdiction and Cause of Action: While the case was tried on the basis of an unlawful detainer charge rather than forcible entry for the defendants other than Guillermo, it is an elementary rule of procedure that what is controlling is not the caption of the case but the allegations therein that determine the nature of the action. Even without a prayer for a specific remedy, proper relief may be granted if the facts alleged and the evidence introduced so warrant. Since the rest of the petitioners were on the property under the apparent protection of Guillermo, an unlawful detainer case may properly be used against them. The end result would be the same regardless of the remedy availed of, because petitioners have no right to stay on the property.
• Urban Land Reform Coverage: The records show that the property is outside the declared Urban Land Reform Zone, situated on the northeast side along Saint Paul Road, and has never been within the areas covered by the boundary description pursuant to Proclamation No. 1967, as certified by the Human Settlements Regulation Commission.

• Computation of Periods When Last Day Falls on a Sunday or Holiday — Under Article 13 of the Civil Code and Section 13 of the Revised Administrative Code, in computing a prescribed period, the first day is excluded and the last day included. If the last day falls on a Sunday or a legal holiday, the period is extended ipso jure to the first working day immediately following, because the law cannot require compliance on a day when offices supposed to receive pleadings are closed. The Court applied this to hold that the motion for reconsideration filed on June 24, 1985 was timely because June 23 was a Sunday.
• Tolerated Possession Confers No Possessory Rights — Acts of possessory character executed in virtue of license or by mere tolerance of the owner are not available for the purpose of possession (Art. 1119, Civil Code). Acts merely tolerated, and those executed clandestinely or by violence, do not affect possession (Art. 537, Civil Code). The Court applied this to hold that petitioners' occupation by tolerance — without contract or rental — conferred no possessory rights against the registered owners.
• Nature of Action Determined by Allegations, Not Caption — What is controlling is not the caption of the case but the allegations therein that determine the nature of the action; even without a prayer for a specific remedy, proper relief may be granted by the court if the facts alleged in the complaint and the evidence introduced so warrant. The Court applied this to sustain the unlawful detainer action against all petitioners despite the argument that forcible entry was the proper remedy for co-defendants other than Guillermo Nactor.

• "However, in case the last day is a Sunday or a legal holiday, it is understood that where the time refers to a period prescribed or allowed by the Rules of Court, by an order of the court, or by any other applicable statute, the last day should really be the next day, provided said day is neither a Sunday nor a legal holiday. The law cannot require compliance on a day when entities supposed to receive pleadings or documents are closed in view of the holiday." — This passage articulates the rationale for extending a prescribed period when the last day falls on a non-working day, a rule frequently cited in procedural law.
• "What is controlling is not the caption of the case which does not materially alter the situation but the allegations therein that determine the nature of the action and even without the prayer for a specific remedy, proper relief may nevertheless be granted by the court if the facts alleged in the complaint and the evidence introduced so warrant" — This states the canonical formulation of the doctrine that allegations, not captions, determine the nature of an action, a principle central to procedural law.
• "Acts of possessory character executed in virtue of license or by mere tolerance of the owner shall not be available for the purpose of possession." — This quotation of Article 1119 of the Civil Code, as emphasized in the RTC decision and adopted by the Supreme Court, defines the controlling rule on tolerated possession in ejectment cases.

• Kabigting vs. Acting Director of Prisons, 6 SCRA 281 (1962) — Cited as controlling authority for the rule that when the last day of a prescribed period falls on a Sunday or legal holiday, the period is extended to the next working day. Followed.
• De las Alas vs. Court of Appeals, 83 SCRA 200 (1978) — Cited alongside Kabigting for the same rule on computation of appeal periods. Followed.
• Ras vs. Sua, 25 SCRA 155 (1968) — Cited for the doctrine that the caption does not control the nature of an action; the allegations in the complaint are determinative, and proper relief may be granted even without a specific prayer. Followed.
• Mercedes vs. Go Bio, 78 Phil. 279 — Cited in the RTC decision for the principle that acts merely tolerated, and those executed clandestinely or by violence, do not affect possession. Adopted by the Supreme Court.

• Article 13, Civil Code of the Philippines — Provides the rule for computing periods: the first day is excluded and the last day included. Applied to determine the timeliness of the motion for reconsideration filed on June 24, 1985, when the fifteenth day (June 23) was a Sunday.
• Article 537, Civil Code — Provides that acts merely tolerated, and those executed clandestinely or by violence, do not affect possession. Applied to hold that petitioners' tolerated occupation conferred no possessory rights against the registered owners.
• Article 1119, Civil Code — Provides that acts of possessory character executed by mere tolerance of the owner are not available for purposes of possession. Applied to the same effect as Article 537.
• Section 39, Judiciary Reorganization Act (B.P. 129) — Prescribes a fifteen-day period for appeal from final orders, resolutions, awards, judgments, or decisions of any court. Applied to determine the applicable appeal period.
• Section 13, Revised Administrative Code — Provides the rule for computation of time, including the extension when the last day falls on a Sunday or legal holiday. Applied in conjunction with Article 13 of the Civil Code.
• P.D. No. 1517 (Urban Land Reform Act) — Petitioners claimed protection under this law and related proclamations, but the property was found to be outside the declared Urban Land Reform Zone as certified by the Human Settlements Regulation Commission.

Yap (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Padilla, and Sarmiento, JJ., concurred.