Dio v. Concepcion
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Teresita Dio and respondent Dr. Rosalinda Melo Concepcion entered into a verbal contract of lease for a residential land with improvements. Petitioner was to construct a two-story structure of light and mixed materials to be used as a garage by respondent, with rental payments of P4,000.00 per month to commence upon completion of construction. Respondent visited the site and found that the materials used were not as agreed upon, leading her to order a stop to the construction and offering P50,000.00 for expenses incurred. Petitioner refused and demanded P209,614.00. No settlement was reached, prompting respondent to send a demand letter to vacate. Procedural History: Upon petitioner's failure to vacate, respondent filed an unlawful detainer case before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC). The MTCC ruled in favor of respondent, ordering petitioner to vacate and pay rentals, but also ordering respondent to reimburse petitioner P100,000.00 for useful improvements. Petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed with modification, ordering petitioner to vacate, pay P4,000.00 monthly rental from November 1992 until vacation, remove the structure at her own expense or retain it without reimbursement, and pay moral damages and attorney's fees. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review, faulting the Court of Appeals for holding that the MTCC had jurisdiction, denying her motion for ocular inspection, and err in concluding that respondent was entitled to possession and rentals, and in not awarding damages to petitioner.
Issue(s)
Whether the MTCC has jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case. Whether an ocular inspection was necessary. Whether petitioner is entitled to damages and attorney's fees.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the challenged decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed. The MTCC has jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the MTCC: The jurisdiction of a court is determined by the allegations in the complaint, not the answer. A complaint for ejectment is sufficient if it alleges unlawful withholding of possession. Unlawful detainer applies when possession is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to possess, or when one occupies land at another's tolerance and fails to vacate upon demand. In this case, the respondent's complaint alleged unlawful withholding of possession, making ejectment the appropriate remedy. Even if rescission of the lease contract was involved, rescission under Article 1659 of the Civil Code does not require an independent action and can be sought simultaneously with ejectment in an unlawful detainer suit, as established in Vda. de Pamintuan v. Tiglao and Dayao v. Shell Company of the Philippines, Ltd. The Court clarified that the reliance on De Leon v. Court of Appeals and Zulueta v. Mariano was misplaced as those cases involved different issues. On the necessity of an ocular inspection: The Court found no reversible error in the Court of Appeals not ordering an ocular inspection. Since the petitioner's main argument was the MTCC's lack of jurisdiction, the conduct of an ocular inspection became irrelevant. Furthermore, the issue of whether the structure was made of light and mixed materials was not made an issue before the MTCC during pre-trial. The agreed issues at pre-trial focused on jurisdiction, entitlement to rentals, and reimbursement for improvements, not the specific materials used. On the claim for damages and attorney's fees: The Court dismissed petitioner's claim for moral, actual, and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees. Given that the decision was adverse to her, her claim could not prosper. The Court also noted that while the respondent prayed for modification of the decision to delete the reimbursement for improvements, she did not appeal the decision, thus precluding the Court from granting affirmative relief to her.
Main Doctrine
The jurisdiction of a court in an unlawful detainer case is determined by the allegations in the complaint, and an action for unlawful detainer is appropriate even if rescission of the lease contract is also sought, as rescission of lease contracts under Article 1659 of the Civil Code does not require an independent action.