Posted by: Riyani Marie M. Nartea on July 26, 2018
FACTS
On June 11, 1981, David M. Consunji, Inc. acquired and became the owner of a residential lot situated in Matina, Davao City. On June 13, 1981, David M. Consunji, Inc. transferred said lot to its sister company, the DMC Urban Property Developers, Inc. (DMC). Alleging that Louie Biraogo forcibly entered said lot and built thereon the Habagat Grill in December, 1993, DMC filed on March 28, 1994 a Complaint for Forcible Entry against Habagat Grill and/or Louie Biraogo. The Complaint was filed in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities in Davao City. The Complaint alleged that as owner DMC possessed the lot in question from June 11, 1981 until December 1, 1993; that on that day, December 1, 1993, Louie Biraogo, by means of strategy and stealth, unlawfully entered into the lot in question and constructed the Habagat Grill thereon, thus illegally depriving DMC of the possession of said lot since then up to the present; that the reasonable rental value of said lot is ₱10,000.00 a month.
Louie Biraogo in his Answer denied illegally entering the lot in question. He averred that Habagat Grill was built in 1992 inside Municipal Reservation No. 1050 (Presidential Proclamation No. 20) and so DMC has no cause of action against him. Since one of the vital issues in the case was the location of Habagat Grill, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities constituted a team composed of three members, one a Geodetic Engineer representing the DMC, another Geodetic Engineer representing Biraogo and the third from the DENR which was tasked with the duty of determining where precisely was Habagat Grill located, on the lot in question or on Municipal Reservation No. 1050. Biraogo was directed by the court to furnish the team with a copy of Municipal Reservation No. 20. Biraogo never complied. Worse, his designated Geodetic Engineer Panfilo Jayme never took oath as such and did not participate in the Relocation survey. The ones who conducted the survey were Engr. Edmindo Dida of the DENR and Engr. Jose Cordero, DMC's representative. After conducting the relocation survey on March 30, 1998, engineers Dida and Cordero submitted their report to the Court specifically stating that the Habagat Grill Restaurant was occupying 934 square meters of the lot in question.
After necessary proceedings, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities rendered a Decision on August 6, 1998 dismissing the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and lack of cause of action. DMC appealed from said Decision to the Regional Trial Court and rendered judgment affirming the appealed Decision. The Court of Appeals ruled that the court of origin had jurisdiction over the Complaint for Forcible Entry.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the MTC has Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter?
HELD:
Yes.
Jurisdiction in ejectment cases is determined by the allegations pleaded in the complaint. As long as these allegations demonstrate a cause of action either for forcible entry or for unlawful detainer, the court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter. This principle holds, even if the facts proved during the trial do not support the cause of action thus alleged, in which instance the court -- after acquiring jurisdiction -- may resolve to dismiss the action for insufficiency of evidence.
The necessary allegations in a Complaint for ejectment are set forth in Section 1 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, which reads thus:
SECTION 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when. – Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession, together with damages and costs.
Notably, petitioner alleged (1) prior possession, (2) deprivation thereof by strategy and stealth, and (3) the date such unlawful deprivation started, which was less than one year from the filing of the Complaint. Considering the presence in the Complaint of all the necessary allegations, the trial court evidently acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
FACTS
On June 11, 1981, David M. Consunji, Inc. acquired and became the owner of a residential lot situated in Matina, Davao City. On June 13, 1981, David M. Consunji, Inc. transferred said lot to its sister company, the DMC Urban Property Developers, Inc. (DMC). Alleging that Louie Biraogo forcibly entered said lot and built thereon the Habagat Grill in December, 1993, DMC filed on March 28, 1994 a Complaint for Forcible Entry against Habagat Grill and/or Louie Biraogo. The Complaint was filed in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities in Davao City. The Complaint alleged that as owner DMC possessed the lot in question from June 11, 1981 until December 1, 1993; that on that day, December 1, 1993, Louie Biraogo, by means of strategy and stealth, unlawfully entered into the lot in question and constructed the Habagat Grill thereon, thus illegally depriving DMC of the possession of said lot since then up to the present; that the reasonable rental value of said lot is ₱10,000.00 a month.
Louie Biraogo in his Answer denied illegally entering the lot in question. He averred that Habagat Grill was built in 1992 inside Municipal Reservation No. 1050 (Presidential Proclamation No. 20) and so DMC has no cause of action against him. Since one of the vital issues in the case was the location of Habagat Grill, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities constituted a team composed of three members, one a Geodetic Engineer representing the DMC, another Geodetic Engineer representing Biraogo and the third from the DENR which was tasked with the duty of determining where precisely was Habagat Grill located, on the lot in question or on Municipal Reservation No. 1050. Biraogo was directed by the court to furnish the team with a copy of Municipal Reservation No. 20. Biraogo never complied. Worse, his designated Geodetic Engineer Panfilo Jayme never took oath as such and did not participate in the Relocation survey. The ones who conducted the survey were Engr. Edmindo Dida of the DENR and Engr. Jose Cordero, DMC's representative. After conducting the relocation survey on March 30, 1998, engineers Dida and Cordero submitted their report to the Court specifically stating that the Habagat Grill Restaurant was occupying 934 square meters of the lot in question.
After necessary proceedings, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities rendered a Decision on August 6, 1998 dismissing the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and lack of cause of action. DMC appealed from said Decision to the Regional Trial Court and rendered judgment affirming the appealed Decision. The Court of Appeals ruled that the court of origin had jurisdiction over the Complaint for Forcible Entry.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the MTC has Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter?
HELD:
Yes.
Jurisdiction in ejectment cases is determined by the allegations pleaded in the complaint. As long as these allegations demonstrate a cause of action either for forcible entry or for unlawful detainer, the court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter. This principle holds, even if the facts proved during the trial do not support the cause of action thus alleged, in which instance the court -- after acquiring jurisdiction -- may resolve to dismiss the action for insufficiency of evidence.
The necessary allegations in a Complaint for ejectment are set forth in Section 1 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, which reads thus:
SECTION 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when. – Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession, together with damages and costs.
Notably, petitioner alleged (1) prior possession, (2) deprivation thereof by strategy and stealth, and (3) the date such unlawful deprivation started, which was less than one year from the filing of the Complaint. Considering the presence in the Complaint of all the necessary allegations, the trial court evidently acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
