Perez v. Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from an ejectment suit filed by Apolonio Cruz against Romualdo Perez. Cruz claimed ownership of a residential lot, asserting he inherited it from his mother, who had purchased it from Perez. Cruz alleged that Perez, a relative, had requested permission to build a house on a portion of the lot due to his lack of dwelling, which Cruz granted out of tolerance. However, Perez subsequently filed an application for a title to the land with the DENR, prompting Cruz to demand that Perez vacate the property. Perez denied Cruz's ownership, claiming he inherited the lot from his grandmother and had been in continuous possession, presenting tax declarations and receipts as evidence. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Hagonoy initially dismissed the ejectment case for lack of jurisdiction, deeming the issue to be one of ownership, not mere possession. Cruz appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Branch 13, which reversed the MTC's decision and remanded the case for trial on the merits. Concurrently, the DENR disapproved Perez's survey application, sustaining Cruz's opposition. Upon remand, the MTC ruled in favor of Cruz, ordering Perez to vacate, pay monthly rentals, and attorney's fees. Perez appealed to the RTC of Malolos, Branch 10, which reversed the MTC's decision, finding that the issue of ownership was inextricably linked to possession and thus the MTC lacked jurisdiction. Cruz then petitioned the Court of Appeals, which set aside the RTC Branch 10 decision and affirmed the MTC's ruling, holding that the DENR's decision and the finality of the RTC Branch 13 ruling rendered the possessory action valid. The Petition: Romualdo Perez filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the Court of Appeals' decision. Perez argues that the Court of Appeals erred in not affirming the lower court's dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction, contending that the issue of ownership was crucial and intertwined with possession, and that the alleged tolerance did not form a legal basis for unlawful detainer. He also claims the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the lower court's decision, asserting that Cruz lacked a cause of action for ejectment against him. The core issue before the Supreme Court is the jurisdiction of the MTC to hear and decide the ejectment case, given the intertwined claims of ownership.
Issue(s)
Whether the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) had jurisdiction to hear and decide the ejectment case (Civil Case No. 979) despite the issue of ownership being raised. Whether the alleged tolerance given by the respondent to the petitioner in occupying the land gives rise to a cause of action for unlawful detainer or accion publiciana. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) that dismissed the ejectment case.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 21, 1995, and its resolution dated March 10, 2000, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the MTC: The Court held that jurisdiction is determined by the averments in the complaint. In the ejectment complaint filed by Cruz, it was alleged that Perez was allowed to construct his house on a portion of the lot due to mere tolerance. Based on these allegations, the case was one for unlawful detainer, and the Hagonoy MTC had jurisdiction. The Court clarified that even if the defendant raises the defense of ownership, the MTC can still resolve the issue of possession. The determination of ownership in such cases is only to decide possession and is not conclusive, without prejudice to the parties ventilating their claims of ownership in the proper court. The Court cited Banco de Oro Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Court of Appeals and Dehesa v. Macalalag to support this ruling, stating that a person occupying land by tolerance is bound to vacate upon demand, and raising ownership as a defense does not automatically divest the MTC of jurisdiction in ejectment cases. On the nature of the action (unlawful detainer vs. accion publiciana): The Court found Perez's reliance on Velez v. Avelino inappropriate, as it was superseded by Banco de Oro Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Court of Appeals. The latter case established that a person occupying land by tolerance, without a contract, is bound by an implied promise to vacate upon demand, making summary ejectment the proper remedy. Therefore, the alleged tolerance did not convert the action into accion publiciana, which falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC, but rather supported the unlawful detainer claim within the MTC's jurisdiction. On the Court of Appeals' reversal of the RTC: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that the RTC of Malolos, Branch 10, erred in reversing the decision of RTC Branch 13. The CA correctly noted that the decision of the Regional Director of the DENR, which disapproved Perez's survey application and sustained Cruz's right to file a public land application, rendered the possessory action moot and academic. This administrative decision, finding that Cruz had a better right of possession, was crucial. Furthermore, the CA correctly pointed out that the decision of RTC Branch 13, which held that the issue was possession de facto and remanded the case for trial, had already become final and executory, precluding RTC Branch 10 from ruling on the issue of ownership anew.
Main Doctrine
In unlawful detainer cases, the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) has jurisdiction even if ownership is questioned, provided the issue of possession cannot be resolved without passing on ownership, and the MTC's determination of ownership is not conclusive. A person occupying land by tolerance is bound to vacate upon demand, failing which, ejectment is the proper remedy.