Spouses Bandoy v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Spouses Marciano and Segundina Bandoy, lessees of a property owned by the University of the Philippines, sublet a portion of it to Eduardo Empaynado for a monthly rental of P550.00. Empaynado failed to pay the rental for July 1985. Despite demands from the Bandoys, Empaynado continued to refuse payment. 2. Procedural History: After barangay conciliation efforts failed, a certification to file an ejectment action was issued. The Bandoys filed a complaint for ejectment with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), which ruled in their favor, finding that the barangay proceedings constituted a substantial equivalent of a demand to pay and vacate. Empaynado appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction due to the absence of a specific demand to vacate in the complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision, also finding that the MTC had not acquired jurisdiction. 3. The Petition: The Spouses Bandoy filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC's ruling that the MTC lacked jurisdiction. They contended that any further demand to vacate after the issuance of the barangay certification would have been repetitive and unnecessary. The Supreme Court, however, found no merit in this argument, emphasizing that the complaint lacked an allegation of a prior demand to vacate, and no evidence of such a demand was presented to cure this defect, distinguishing it from prior jurisprudence where such deficiencies were rectified during trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the Metropolitan Trial Court acquired jurisdiction over the ejectment case given the absence of an allegation of a prior demand to vacate in the complaint, and the legal implications of such absence. Whether the certification to file an action issued by the barangay captain is sufficient to cure the defect of an absent allegation of demand to vacate, considering the specific content and context of the certification.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the respondent Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and the necessity of a demand to vacate: The Court held that the Metropolitan Trial Court did not acquire jurisdiction over the ejectment case because the complaint lacked an allegation of a prior demand to vacate. A complaint for ejectment must contain such an allegation to confer jurisdiction. A demand for payment of rentals is insufficient. An intention to oust is different from an actual or definite demand to vacate, and it is the latter which confers jurisdiction upon the court in unlawful detainer cases. On the sufficiency of the barangay certification: The Court ruled that the certification issued by the barangay captain is not conclusive as to the jurisdiction of the court. The certification merely indicated a failure to reach a settlement at the barangay level, not that all requisites for filing an unlawful detainer case had been met. Unlike Co Tiamco vs. Diaz, no evidence of a prior demand to vacate was presented to cure the defect in the complaint. The affidavit mentioning the intention to expel him did not constitute a definite demand to vacate.
Main Doctrine
A certification to file an action issued by the barangay captain does not automatically confer jurisdiction upon the court; the essential requisites for filing an unlawful detainer case, including a prior demand to vacate, must be alleged in the complaint and proven.