Posted by: Pearlie Jane Q. Binahon on July 25, 2018
FACTS:
Spouses Rivera originally owned the land in dispute in Tarlac. It was then sold to spouses Arsenio Dulay and Asuncion Dela Rosa. Gideon, brother of Asuncion, and one of the witnesses to the deed of sale, resided in a portion of the land. Also in the land were Dela Rosa's wife Angela and Corazon Medina.
After some time, spouses Dulay made a notice to Dela Rosa et. al to vacate the property in order to give way for the construction for the houses of their daughters, which Dela Rosa et. al then refused to do. This prompted spouses Dulay to file for complaint of recovery of possession in the CFI of Tarlac
In his defense, Dela Rosa insisted that he contributed equally to the purchase price, and that spouses Dulay were trustees to for Dela Rosa et. al, who likewise owned the same.
The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Spouses Dulay and ordered Dela Rosa et. Al to vacate the property. Spouses Dela Rosa and Medina appealed to the CA, which then granted the appeal and reversed the decision. According to the CA, the complaint was premature because of plaintiffs' failure to allege that there had been earnest efforts to have the case amicably settled as mandated under Art. 222 of the New Civil Code.
Spouses Dulay filed a motion for extension, however, failed to file their petition, which cause the decision to be final and executory.
Gideon and Asuncion died. Angela Dela Rosa and Corazon Medina continued to reside in the property. Asuncion is survived by Arsenio and their children including Orfelina Roldan.
Arsenio sent a notice to Dela Rosa to vacate the property, which Dela Rosa refused to do. Dulay then filed for eviction against Dela Rosa in the office of the Barangay Captain.
The parties were not able to settle the matter which prompted Dulay to file a case of unlawful detainer in the MTC of Tarlac. In response, Angela filed a complaint against Arsenio and his children in the MTC of Tarlac, Tarlac for recovery of ownership, reconveyance, cancellation of title, and damages.
MTC rendered judgment in favor or Angela and Corazon for lack of jurisdiction.
The court held that the issue between the parties was one of ownership and not merely possession de facto. Thus, the possession of the property by defendants was not by mere tolerance, but by virtue of a claim of ownership; in fact, defendants never recognized the plaintiffs' claim of ownership over the property.
Arsenio appealed to the RTC. which reversed the decision of the MTC and ordered the eviction of defendants, holding that the issue was the entitlement to the physical possession de facto of the property, an issue within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC
On appeal, the CA ruled that, contrary to the claim of Angela, there was no trust created over one-half of the property in her favor. Since the complaint against Angela and Corazon in the MTC was one for unlawful detainer, the MTC had exclusive jurisdiction over the case. Moreover, they had been in possession of the property by tolerance.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the MTC had jurisdiction over the action of respondents.
HELD:
Yes. the SC agreed with the CA that the action of respondents against petitioners was one for unlawful detainer, and that the MTC had jurisdiction over the same. Indeed, petitioners claimed ownership over one-half of the property in their answer to the complaint and alleged that respondents were merely trustees thereof for their benefit as trustors.
Sec 3 of RA 7691, provides that MTCs and MTcCs exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer; provided that, when, in such cases, defendant raises the questions of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issues of possession.
In unlawful detainer cases, the only issue for resolution is: who is entitled to the physical and material possession of the property involved? The mere fact that defendant raises the defense of ownership of the property in the pleadings does not deprive the MTC of its jurisdiction to take cognizance of and decide the case. In cases where defendant raises the question of ownership in the pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the court may proceed and resolve the issue of ownership but only for the purpose of determining the issue of possession.
FACTS:
Spouses Rivera originally owned the land in dispute in Tarlac. It was then sold to spouses Arsenio Dulay and Asuncion Dela Rosa. Gideon, brother of Asuncion, and one of the witnesses to the deed of sale, resided in a portion of the land. Also in the land were Dela Rosa's wife Angela and Corazon Medina.
After some time, spouses Dulay made a notice to Dela Rosa et. al to vacate the property in order to give way for the construction for the houses of their daughters, which Dela Rosa et. al then refused to do. This prompted spouses Dulay to file for complaint of recovery of possession in the CFI of Tarlac
In his defense, Dela Rosa insisted that he contributed equally to the purchase price, and that spouses Dulay were trustees to for Dela Rosa et. al, who likewise owned the same.
The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Spouses Dulay and ordered Dela Rosa et. Al to vacate the property. Spouses Dela Rosa and Medina appealed to the CA, which then granted the appeal and reversed the decision. According to the CA, the complaint was premature because of plaintiffs' failure to allege that there had been earnest efforts to have the case amicably settled as mandated under Art. 222 of the New Civil Code.
Spouses Dulay filed a motion for extension, however, failed to file their petition, which cause the decision to be final and executory.
Gideon and Asuncion died. Angela Dela Rosa and Corazon Medina continued to reside in the property. Asuncion is survived by Arsenio and their children including Orfelina Roldan.
Arsenio sent a notice to Dela Rosa to vacate the property, which Dela Rosa refused to do. Dulay then filed for eviction against Dela Rosa in the office of the Barangay Captain.
The parties were not able to settle the matter which prompted Dulay to file a case of unlawful detainer in the MTC of Tarlac. In response, Angela filed a complaint against Arsenio and his children in the MTC of Tarlac, Tarlac for recovery of ownership, reconveyance, cancellation of title, and damages.
MTC rendered judgment in favor or Angela and Corazon for lack of jurisdiction.
The court held that the issue between the parties was one of ownership and not merely possession de facto. Thus, the possession of the property by defendants was not by mere tolerance, but by virtue of a claim of ownership; in fact, defendants never recognized the plaintiffs' claim of ownership over the property.
Arsenio appealed to the RTC. which reversed the decision of the MTC and ordered the eviction of defendants, holding that the issue was the entitlement to the physical possession de facto of the property, an issue within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC
On appeal, the CA ruled that, contrary to the claim of Angela, there was no trust created over one-half of the property in her favor. Since the complaint against Angela and Corazon in the MTC was one for unlawful detainer, the MTC had exclusive jurisdiction over the case. Moreover, they had been in possession of the property by tolerance.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the MTC had jurisdiction over the action of respondents.
HELD:
Yes. the SC agreed with the CA that the action of respondents against petitioners was one for unlawful detainer, and that the MTC had jurisdiction over the same. Indeed, petitioners claimed ownership over one-half of the property in their answer to the complaint and alleged that respondents were merely trustees thereof for their benefit as trustors.
Sec 3 of RA 7691, provides that MTCs and MTcCs exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer; provided that, when, in such cases, defendant raises the questions of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issues of possession.
In unlawful detainer cases, the only issue for resolution is: who is entitled to the physical and material possession of the property involved? The mere fact that defendant raises the defense of ownership of the property in the pleadings does not deprive the MTC of its jurisdiction to take cognizance of and decide the case. In cases where defendant raises the question of ownership in the pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the court may proceed and resolve the issue of ownership but only for the purpose of determining the issue of possession.
