Estel v. Diego
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents filed a Complaint for Forcible Entry, Damages, and Injunction against petitioner. They alleged that on April 16, 1991, they entered into a contract of sale for a 306-square-meter parcel of land (Lot 19) with petitioner, who delivered possession after receiving a ₱17,000.00 downpayment. Respondents claimed to have been in actual, adverse, and uninterrupted possession since then. On July 20, 1995, petitioner, with others, allegedly uprooted the fence and destroyed trees and plants on the lot. Respondents prayed for restoration of possession, injunction, and damages. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) issued a Temporary Restraining Order. Petitioner filed an Answer, denying respondents' possession and alleging that the sale was of Lot 16, not Lot 19, and that she retained ownership. The MTCC ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering petitioner to vacate, pay rentals, damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTCC decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) also affirmed the RTC decision, and subsequently denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decisions. Petitioner argued that the MTCC lacked jurisdiction due to the failure to allege the location of the land and the absence of facts constituting forcible entry. She also claimed the complaint stated no cause of action due to defective verification and certificate of non-forum shopping.
Issue(s)
Whether the MTCC acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, and whether the petitioner is estopped from raising the issue of jurisdiction. Whether the complaint stated a cause of action due to alleged defects in verification and the certificate of non-forum shopping, and whether the allegations for forcible entry were sufficient. Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC and MTCC decisions, considering the findings on jurisdiction, sufficiency of allegations, and procedural compliance.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that petitioner is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the MTCC, that the complaint sufficiently alleged the elements of forcible entry, and that there was substantial compliance with the requirements for verification and the certificate of non-forum shopping.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and estoppel: The Court ruled that petitioner is estopped from raising the issue of jurisdiction. She did not raise the issue of jurisdiction or venue in her Answer before the MTCC and actively participated in the proceedings. She also failed to raise this issue in her appeal to the RTC. The Court reiterated that a party cannot belatedly challenge the jurisdiction of a court after voluntarily submitting to it and participating in the proceedings. Even if the geographical location was not alleged, the parties presented evidence showing the lot was in Gingoog City, and the omission was a mere oversight. On the sufficiency of allegations for forcible entry, the alleged defective verification, and the alleged defective certificate of non-forum shopping: The Court held that the respondents sufficiently alleged the material facts constituting forcible entry. They claimed prior physical possession since the purchase and delivery of the property by the petitioner. They also described how petitioner, with others, forcibly entered the premises, uprooted the fence, and destroyed trees and plants, thereby dispossessing them. The Court clarified that 'force' in forcible entry does not require a state of war; unlawful entry and dispossession of the prior possessor are sufficient. The Court found no procedural defect in the verification that would warrant dismissal. The respondents confirmed they had read the complaint and that the allegations were true and correct based on their personal knowledge. The addition of "to the best" before "of our own personal knowledge" did not violate the rule, as substantial compliance was met. Verification is deemed substantially complied with when the affiant has ample knowledge of the allegations and they are made in good faith. The Court found substantial compliance with the requirements for the certificate of non-forum shopping. While the undertaking to report similar pending actions was missing, respondents did certify that no similar action was filed or pending. The Court reiterated that the rule of substantial compliance may be availed of for the certification against forum shopping, as long as the certification is not altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded. The mandatory nature of the rule does not interdict substantial compliance under justifiable circumstances. On the overall affirmation of lower court rulings: Given the findings on jurisdiction, sufficiency of allegations, and procedural compliance, the Court found no error in the CA's affirmation of the RTC and MTCC decisions. The petitioner's arguments were found to be without merit, leading to the denial of the petition.
Main Doctrine
A party who actively participates in the proceedings before a lower court without raising the issue of jurisdiction is estopped from later challenging it on appeal. Furthermore, substantial compliance with procedural rules, such as those pertaining to verification and certificates of non-forum shopping, may be accepted under justifiable circumstances.