Sarmiento v. Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Generosa S. Cruz filed an ejectment case against petitioner Eufemia Sarmiento, alleging that petitioner was encroaching on her lot by 71 square meters due to a house and fence constructed thereon. Private respondent claimed she acquired the lot by purchase, and the adjacent lot was occupied by petitioner. Petitioner refused to allow the removal of the fence, leading private respondent to seek judicial relief after barangay conciliation efforts failed. Procedural History: The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) initially ordered petitioner to file an answer. Petitioner filed an 'Answer with Motion to Dismiss' after filing a motion for extension, which the MCTC struck from the records for being a prohibited pleading under the Rule on Summary Procedure. The MCTC then rendered judgment in favor of the private respondent, ordering petitioner to vacate the encroached area and pay attorney's fees. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), on appeal, reversed the MCTC decision, ruling that the MCTC lacked jurisdiction as the case was a boundary dispute requiring an accion reivindicatoria, not an ejectment case, due to the absence of allegations of prior possession by the plaintiff. The Petition: Petitioner Eufemia Sarmiento assailed the Court of Appeals' decision, which had reversed the RTC and reinstated the MCTC decision, arguing that the MCTC had jurisdiction over the ejectment case.
Issue(s)
Whether the Municipal Circuit Trial Court acquired jurisdiction over the ejectment case, considering the nature of the action. Whether the nature of the action was forcible entry or unlawful detainer, or a boundary dispute requiring an accion reivindicatoria.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside, and the judgment of the Regional Trial Court is reinstated.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and the nature of the action: The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that the jurisdiction of a court, as well as the nature of an action, are determined by the averments in the complaint. A careful reading of the complaint filed by private respondent revealed that the action was neither one of forcible entry nor unlawful detainer, but essentially involved a boundary dispute that must be resolved in an accion reivindicatoria concerning ownership over the disputed 71 square meters. The complaint failed to aver facts constitutive of forcible entry or unlawful detainer, thus the RTC correctly ruled that the MCTC lacked jurisdiction. Forcible entry requires deprivation of physical possession by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, with the inquiry centering on prior possession. Unlawful detainer involves unlawful withholding of possession after the expiration of the right to hold, where the possession was initially lawful. The complaint in this case did not characterize petitioner's entry as legal or illegal, nor did it state how the house and fence were constructed or when dispossession began. It was silent on whether petitioner's possession became legal before the demand was made. The complaint merely averred that the lot occupied by petitioner was owned by a third person and that the fence constituted an encroachment on private respondent's lot. The fence was already in existence when private respondent bought her lot, and the encroachment was discovered only after a relocation survey. Therefore, there was no contract to qualify it as unlawful detainer, nor was there an allegation of entry through force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth to constitute forcible entry. The claim of tolerance was an afterthought, as private respondent was not aware of the situation when she purchased her lot, and tolerance must be present from the start of possession. To allow such a claim after years would espouse a dangerous doctrine, undermining the summary nature of ejectment proceedings and the one-year prescriptive period. The proper remedy should have been an accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria before the Regional Trial Court, as the issue of ownership and real right of possession was central to the dispute.
Main Doctrine
The jurisdiction of a court in ejectment cases is determined by the averments in the complaint. If the complaint fails to allege facts constitutive of forcible entry or unlawful detainer, the proper remedy is an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria before the Regional Trial Court.