FIRST DIVISION
SPOUSES LYDIA FLORES-CRUZ G.R.
No. 172217
and REYNALDO I. CRUZ,
Petitioners,
Present:
PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,
CORONA,
- v e r s u s
- CHICO-NAZARIO,*
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO and
BERSAMIN, JJ.
SPOUSES
LEONARDO and
ILUMINADA
GOLI-CRUZ,
SPOUSES
RICO and FELIZA
DE
LA CRUZ, SPOUSES BOY
and
LANI DE LA CRUZ,
ZENAIDA
A. JACINTO and
ROGELIO
DE LOS SANTOS,
Respondents. Promulgated:
September
18, 2009
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - x
R E S O L
U T I O N
CORONA, J.:
This is a petition for review on
certiorari[1] of the
August 23, 2005 decision[2] and
April 5, 2006 resolution[3] of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 81099.
On December 15, 1999,[4]
petitioner spouses Lydia Flores-Cruz and Reynaldo I. Cruz purchased a 5,209-sq.
m. lot situated in Pulong Yantok, Angat, Bulacan[5] from
Lydia’s siblings, namely, Teresita, Ramon and Daniel (all surnamed Flores).
Their father, Estanislao Flores, used to own the land as an inheritance from
his parents Gregorio Flores and Ana Mangahas. Estanislao died in 1995. Estanislao
and, later, petitioners paid the realty taxes on the land although neither of
them occupied it. Petitioners sold portions thereof to third parties sometime
in September 2000.[6]
After the death of Estanislao,
petitioners found out that respondent spouses Leonardo and Iluminada Goli-Cruz et
al. were occupying a section of the land. Initially, petitioner Lydia
talked to respondents and offered to sell them the portions they were occupying
but the talks failed as they could not agree on the price. On March 2, 2001, petitioners’ lawyer sent
respondents letters asking them to leave. These demands, however, were ignored.
Efforts at barangay conciliation also failed.[7]
Respondents countered that their
possession of the land ranged from 10 to 20 years. According to respondents,
the property was alienable public land.[8] Prior to
petitioners’ demand, they had no knowledge of petitioners’ and their
predecessor’s ownership of the land. They took steps to legitimize their claim
and paid the realty tax on their respective areas for the taxable year 2002.
Subsequently, however, the tax declarations issued to them were cancelled by
the Provincial Assessors Office and re-issued to petitioners.[9]
On August 6, 2001, petitioners filed
a complaint for recovery of possession of the land in the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 82.[10]
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss claiming, among others, that the RTC had
no jurisdiction over the case as it should have been filed in the Municipal
Trial Court (MTC) since it was a summary action for ejectment under Rule 70 of
the Rules of Court. The RTC denied the
motion in an order dated November 9, 2001.[11]
After
trial, the RTC rendered a decision dated October 3, 2003 in favor of
petitioners and ordered respondents to vacate the land, and pay attorney’s fees
and costs of suit.[12]
On appeal by respondents to the CA,
the latter, in a decision dated August 23, 2005, ruled that the RTC had no
jurisdiction over the action for recovery of possession because petitioners had
been dispossessed of the property for less than a year. It held that the
complaint was one for unlawful detainer which should have been filed in the
MTC. Thus, it ruled that the RTC decision was null and void. Reconsideration was denied on April 5, 2006.
Hence, this petition.
The
issue for our resolution is whether the RTC had jurisdiction over this case.
The petition has no merit.
It is axiomatic that the nature of
the action – on which depends the question of whether a suit is within the
jurisdiction of the court – is determined solely by the allegations in the
complaint[13]
and the law at the time the action was commenced.[14] Only
facts alleged in the complaint can be the basis for determining the nature of
the action and the court’s competence to take cognizance of it. [15] One
cannot advert to anything not set forth in the complaint, such as evidence
adduced at the trial, to determine the nature of the action thereby initiated.[16]
Petitioners’ complaint contained the
following allegations:
xxx xxx xxx
3. That, [petitioners] are owners of a piece of land known as Lot 30-part, Cad. 349 located at Pulong Yantok, Angat, Bulacan as shown by a copy of Tax Declaration No. 99-01010-01141 made [an] integral [part] hereof as Annex “A”;
4. That, said Lot No. 30-part was acquired through [purchase] on December 15, 1999, as shown by [a] Deed of Absolute Sale of Unsubdivided Land made [an] integral [part] hereof as Annex “B, B-1 & B-2”;
5. That, when [petitioners] inspected subject property, they found it to be occupied by at least five (5) households under the names of herein [respondents], who, when asked about their right to stay within the premises replied that they were allowed to live thereat by the deceased former owner;
6. That, [petitioners] informed the [respondents] that as far as they are concerned, the latter’s occupancy was not communicated to them so it follows that they do not have any right to remain within subject piece of land;
7. That, [respondents] seem to be unimpressed and made no move to leave the premises or to come to terms with the [petitioners] so much so that [the latter] asked their lawyer to write demand letters to each and everyone of the [respondents] as shown by the demand letters dated March 2, 2001 made integral part hereof as Annex “C, C-1, C-2, C-3, & C-4”;
8. That, there is no existing agreement or any document that illustrate whatever permission, if any were given, that the [respondents] presented to [petitioners] in order to legitimize the claim;
9. That, it is clear that [respondents] occupy portions of subject property either by stealth, stratagem, force or any unlawful manner which are just bases for ejectment;
xxx xxx xxx [17]
According to the CA, considering that
petitioners claimed that respondents were possessors of the property by mere
tolerance only and the complaint had been initiated less than a year from the
demand to vacate, the proper remedy was an action for unlawful detainer which
should have been filed in the MTC.
We agree.
The necessary allegations in a
complaint for ejectment are set forth in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of
Court.[18] Petitioners alleged that the former owner
(Estanislao, their predecessor) allowed respondents to live on the land. They
also stated that they purchased the property on December 15, 1999 and then
found respondents occupying the property.
Yet they demanded that respondents vacate only on March 2, 2001. It can be gleaned from their allegations that
they had in fact permitted or tolerated respondents’ occupancy.
Based on the allegations in
petitioners’ complaint, it is apparent that such is a complaint for unlawful
detainer based on possession by tolerance of the owner.[19] It is a
settled rule that in order to justify such an action, the owner’s permission or
tolerance must be present at the beginning of the possession.[20] Such
jurisdictional facts are present here.
There is another reason why
petitioners’ complaint was not a proper action for recovery of possession
cognizable by the RTC. It is no longer
true that all cases of recovery of possession or accion publiciana lie
with the RTC regardless of the value of the property.[21]
When the case was filed in 2001,
Congress had already approved Republic Act No. 7691[22] which
expanded the MTC’s jurisdiction to include other actions involving title to or
possession of real property (accion publiciana and reinvindicatoria)[23] where
the assessed value of the property does not exceed P20,000 (or P50,000,
for actions filed in Metro Manila).[24] Because
of this amendment, the test of whether an action involving possession of real
property has been filed in the proper court no longer depends solely on the
type of action filed but also on the assessed value of the property involved.[25] More
specifically, since MTCs now have jurisdiction over accion publiciana
and accion reinvindicatoria (depending, of course, on the assessed value
of the property), jurisdiction over such actions has to be determined on the
basis of the assessed value of the property.[26]
This issue of assessed value as a
jurisdictional element in accion publiciana was not raised by the
parties nor threshed out in their pleadings.[27] Be that
as it may, the Court can motu proprio consider and resolve this question
because jurisdiction is conferred only by law.[28] It
cannot be acquired through, or waived by, any act or omission of the parties.[29]
To determine which court (RTC or MTC)
has jurisdiction over the action, the complaint must allege the assessed value
of the real property subject of the complaint or the interest thereon.[30] The
complaint did not contain any such allegation on the assessed value of the
property. There is no showing on the face of the complaint that the RTC had
jurisdiction over the action of petitioners.[31] Indeed,
absent any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of the property,
it cannot be determined whether it is the RTC or the MTC which has original and
exclusive jurisdiction over the petitioners’ action.[32]
Moreover, the complaint was filed
(August 6, 2001) within one year from the demand to vacate was made (March 2,
2001). Petitioners’ dispossession had thus not lasted for more than one year to
justify resort to the remedy of accion publiciana.[33]
Since petitioners’ complaint made out
a case for unlawful detainer which should have been filed in the MTC and it
contained no allegation on the assessed value of the subject property, the RTC
seriously erred in proceeding with the case.
The proceedings before a court without jurisdiction, including its
decision, are null and void.[34] It
follows that the CA was correct in dismissing the case.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate Justice
Associate
Justice
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of
the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above resolution had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
Chief Justice
* Per Special Order No. 698 dated September 4, 2009.
[1] Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes and concurred in by Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto (retired) and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente of the Second Division of the Court of Appeals. Rollo, pp. 18-24.
[3] Id., pp. 24-25.
[4] Id., p. 85.
[5] Lot 30, Cad. 349. The property was declared under Property Index No. 99-1010-00931 of the Municipal Assessors Office of Angat, Bulacan. Id., p. 7.
[6] Id., pp. 19-20.
[7] Id., pp. 19 and 22.
[8] Respondents made inquiries from the Municipal Assessors Office (in Pandi, Bulacan), Provincial Assessors Office and CENTRO Tabang, Guiguinto, Bulacan as to the status of the land. Information was given that it was alienable public land. Id., p. 20.
[9] Id., pp. 19-20.
[10] Docketed as Civil Case No. 516-M-2001. Id., p. 51.
[11] Id., pp. 53 and 82.
[12] Id., pp. 18-19.
[13] Barbosa v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 133564, 10 July 2007, 527 SCRA 99, 103, citing Dimo Realty & Development, Inc. v. Dimaculangan, G.R. No. 130991, 11 March 2004, 425 SCRA 376 and Ching v. Malaya, G.R. No. L-56449, 31 August 1987, 153 SCRA 413.
[14] Laresma v. Abellana, 484 Phil. 766, 777 (2004).
[15] Barbosa v. Hernandez, supra note 13.
[16] Id.
[17] Rollo, pp. 84-85.
[18] 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 or 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 [MTC] 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. (Emphasis supplied)
[19] De la Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139442, 6 December 2006, 510 SCRA 103, 121.
[20] Heirs of Melchor v. Melchor, 461 Phil. 437, 445 (2003), citing Go, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 415 Phil. 172 (2001).
[21] Quinagoran v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 155179, 24 August 2007, 531 SCRA 104, 111.
[22] An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, [MTCs], and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Amending for the Purpose Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. It amended [BP 129] (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), was approved on March 25, 1994 and took effect on April 15, 1994.
[23] Laresma v. Abellana, supra note 14, p. 782.
[24] SEC. 19.
Jurisdiction in civil cases. — [RTCs] shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction:
xxx
xxx xxx
(2) In
all civil actions which involve the title to or possession of real property, or
any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds
Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, for civil actions in Metro
Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00)
except for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings,
original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial
Courts, [MTCs], and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
xxx
xxx xxx
Sec. 33. Jurisdiction
of Metropolitan Trial Courts, [MTCs] and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in
Civil Cases. — Metropolitan Trial Courts, [MTCs], and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts shall exercise:
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Exclusive
original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value
of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00)
or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed
Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That
in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such property
shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots.
[25] Barbosa v. Hernandez, supra note 13, p. 105.
[26] Id.; De Barrera v. Heirs of Vicente Legaspi, G.R. No. 174346, 12 September 2008.
[27] PAG-ASA Fishpond Corporation v. Jimenez, G.R. No. 164912, 18 June 2008, 555 SCRA 111, 130, citations omitted.
[28] Republic of the Phil. v. Estipular, 391 Phil. 211, 218 (2000).
[29] Suarez v. Saul, G.R. No. 166664, 20 October 2005, 473 SCRA 628, 637.
[30] Laresma v. Abellana, supra note 14, pp. 782-783.
[31] Id., p. 782.
[32] Quinagoran v. Court of Appeals, supra note 21, p. 115.
[33] De Barrera v. Heirs of Vicente Legaspi, supra note 26; Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130841, 26 February 2008, 546 SCRA 532, 542; Dela Rosa v. Roldan, G.R. No. 133882, 5 September 2006, 501 SCRA 34, 57; Hilario v. Salvador, G.R. No. 160384, 29 April 2005, 457 SCRA 815, 825, citation omitted.
[34] Id. There is no estoppel or laches in this case because respondents sought the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction right after it was filed.