|
DOLORES
GAYOSO, DANNY GAYOSO, ELIZABETH G. DONDRIANO, VICTORIANO GAYOSO, CHRISTOPHER
GAYOSO, REMEDIOS GAYOSO and THE HEIRS OF VICTORIANO GAYOSO, Petitioners, -
versus - TWENTY-TWO
REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 147874 Present: PUNO,
J., Chairperson, Sandoval-Gutierrez, AZCUNA,
and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: |
x --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: |
|
|
|
|
For our resolution is the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari
assailing the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals dated
This case stemmed from a Complaint for Ejectment filed by
Twenty-Two Realty Development Corporation (TTRDC), respondent, on P20.00 a
month. Later, Almeda’s heirs sold the
lot to respondent TTRDC. Thus, on
However, petitioners have stopped paying rentals. Respondent then sent letters dated September
12 and
In their answer, petitioners denied specifically TTRDC’s
allegations in its complaint. They
claimed that the MeTC has no jurisdiction over the case since in their answer they
are raising an issue of ownership. They
alleged that their father, the late Victoriano Gayoso, sold the lot (a conjugal
property) to Almeda without the consent of their mother. The sale, being void, Almeda could not have
transferred ownership of the lot to respondent corporation.
On
WHEREFORE, the Court renders judgment:
A.
Ordering the defendants
1.
and all other persons claiming rights under them to
vacate the premises located at Mariveles corner Calbayog Streets,
2. to
pay the plaintiff the amount of P4,000.00 representing their unpaid
rentals beginning February 1981 to December 1996 and the amount of P20.00
per month every month thereafter until the premises shall have been vacated;
3. to
pay the plaintiff the amount of P10,000.00 as and by way of attorney’s
fees; and
4. to
pay the costs of suit.
B. dismissing the counterclaim.
SO ORDERED.
The MeTC
ruled that since petitioners failed to pay rentals for more than three months,
then respondent has the right to evict them from the premises.
On
appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 213, Mandaluyong City, affirmed
the MeTC Decision, holding that the refusal of petitioners to vacate the property
and pay the rents make out a clear case of unlawful detainer over which the
MeTC has jurisdiction.
Petitioners
then filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
In its Decision
dated
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The decision of the Regional
Trial Court affirming the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court, National
Capital Judicial Region,
SO ORDERED.
Hence,
the instant petition.
Petitioners
contend that since the issue of ownership of the property in dispute is
inextricably linked with the issue of possession, the MeTC has no jurisdiction
over Civil Case No. 15340.
For its
part, respondent maintains that the real issue is who between the parties is
entitled to possession. Hence, the MeTC
has jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.
We find
for the respondent.
It is
basic that a court’s jurisdiction is provided by law. Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as
amended, provides in part:
SEC. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. - Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:
x
x x
(2) Exclusive
original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Provided,
That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the question of ownership in
his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without
deciding the question of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved
only to determine the issue of possession; (Emphasis supplied)
Moreover, Section 18, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, states that:
SEC. 18. Judgment conclusive only on possession, not conclusive in
actions involving title or ownership. – The judgment rendered in an
action for forcible entry or detainer shall be conclusive with respect to the
possession only and shall in no wise bind the title or affect the ownership
of the land or building. Such judgment shall not bar an action between the same
parties respecting title to the land or building.
The judgment or final order shall be appealable to the appropriate
Regional Trial Court which shall decide the same on the basis of the entire
record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or
briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the Regional Trial
Court.
In Barba vs. Court of
Appeals,[2] this
Court held:
The Court has repeatedly emphasized that municipal trial courts, metropolitan trial courts, and municipal circuit trial courts now retain jurisdiction over ejectment cases if the question of possession cannot be resolved without passing upon the issue of ownership. In forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, even if the defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, inferior courts, nonetheless, have the undoubted competence to provisionally resolve the issue of ownership for the sole purpose of determining the issue of possession. Such decision, however, does not bind the title or affect the ownership of the land or building, neither shall it bar an action between the same parties respecting title to the land or building nor be held conclusive of the facts therein found in a case between the same parties upon a different cause of action involving possession.
Likewise, in Tala
Realty Services Corporation vs. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank,[3] this Court ruled:
All ejectment cases are covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure and
are within the jurisdiction of the inferior courts regardless of whether they
involve questions of ownership. The courts
in ejectment cases may determine questions of ownership whenever necessary to
decide the question of possession.
Verily,
we hold that the Court of Appeals did not err in holding that the MeTC of
Mandaluyong City has jurisdiction to hear and decide Civil Case No. 15340, notwithstanding
the issue of ownership raised by petitioners in their answer.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson, Second
Division
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 31-40. Per Associate Justice Alicia L. Santos (retired) and concurred in by Associate Justice Ramon A. Barcelona (retired) and Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico.
[2] G.R. No. 126638,
[3] G.R. No. 137533,