Cruz v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents Jovita M. Cruz and Manuel M. Cruz (substituted by heirs) claimed ownership of two properties: the Antonio property (TCT No. 125110 at 1236-1240 Antonio St., Sampaloc, Manila, a three-door apartment acquired via Deed of Conveyance from Maria Mesina) and the Asturias property (TCT No. 125109 at 1232 Asturias St., Sampaloc, Manila, originally owned by Domingo Cruz and Catalina Mesina, inherited by Leocadia, Regina, and Ladislao Cruz, sold to Maria Mesina under TCT No. 97567, then conveyed to respondents per CFI Decision in Civil Case No. 98074). Petitioners Proceso Cruz, Henry Cruz, and Teresita Cruz occupied the Asturias property by mere tolerance of respondents and Maria Mesina, while Serafin Cruz leased Unit 1236 of the Antonio property for P10,000 monthly rent but defaulted. In 2003, due to Jovita's end-stage renal disease requiring funds for hemodialysis, respondents demanded petitioners vacate both properties to sell them; petitioners refused despite notices (e.g., January 23, 2004 letters). Respondents sold both properties post-complaint to Spouses Velasco (new TCTs 268853-268854). Petitioners countered as legitimate heirs, filing separate annulment of title and reconveyance action repudiating respondents' ownership. Procedural History: Respondents filed Unlawful Detainer Complaint (Civil Case No. 178543-CV) solely against Proceso, Henry, and Teresita for the Asturias property before MeTC Manila Branch 29, alleging tolerance possession and demand to vacate. MeTC Decision (Feb. 11, 2013) ordered all petitioners (including non-party Serafin) to vacate BOTH properties, pay compensation (P10,000/mo for Serafin; P20,000/mo joint for others from June 2004), attorney's fees, and costs. RTC Manila Branch 173 affirmed on appeal (July 16, 2013). CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 132966) denied Rule 42 petition (July 10, 2017), affirming lower courts despite noting complaint covered only Asturias. The Petition: Petitioners filed Rule 65 Certiorari before SC, arguing MeTC lacked jurisdiction over Antonio property and Serafin (not parties/defendants, property unmentioned in complaint), rendering inclusion in disposition void/excess of jurisdiction. They clarified no challenge to Asturias eviction. Respondents countered wrong remedy (should be Rule 45), but merits rejected as lower courts properly ruled; claimed Antonio impliedly covered.
Issue(s)
Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail the CA Decision affirming MeTC's inclusion of a non-alleged property in ejectment disposition. Whether the MeTC acquired jurisdiction over the Antonio property and petitioner Serafin absent explicit allegations in the unlawful detainer complaint.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The CA Decision (July 10, 2017) is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. MeTC Decision's dispositive MODIFIED to order ONLY Proceso, Teresita, and Henry Cruz to vacate Asturias property (TCT 125109), pay P20,000/mo compensation from June 2004, attorney's fees P10,000, and costs; excludes Serafin and Antonio property.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Propriety of Rule 65 Certiorari): While Rule 45 is generally proper for CA decisions as appellate continuation, Rule 65 certiorari lies to assail grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack/excess of jurisdiction, as here where MeTC included unpleaded property/non-party in ejectment disposition (Mercado v. Valley Mountain Mines Exploration, Inc., 667 Phil. 13, 51, 2011). Petitioners do not question merits or Asturias eviction but jurisdictional defect, justifying extraordinary remedy. Courts review jurisdiction motu proprio at any stage (Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation v. Bureau of Customs, 760 Phil. 954, 960, 2015). Jurisdiction cannot be waived/conferred by consent (Tumpag v. Tumpag, 744 Phil. 423, 433, 2014). Thus, Rule 65 properly assails CA's affirmance of void jurisdictional overreach. On Issue 2 (MeTC Jurisdiction over Antonio Property/Serafin): Jurisdiction over subject matter is power to hear/try/decide, conferred by law via complaint allegations (Spouses Santiago v. Northbay Knitting Inc., 820 Phil. 157, 2017); absent it, court dismisses only. Unlawful detainer requires complaint to aver: (a) initial possession by contract/tolerance; (b) termination via notice; (c) continued deprivation; (d) filing within 1 year of demand (id.; Revised Rules on Summary Procedure). Complaint explicitly covered ONLY Asturias (paras. 3-9 specify TCT 125109, tolerance of Proceso/Henry/Teresita); no mention of Antonio (TCT 125110) or Serafin, despite trial evidence of lease default/demand. Ownership/title (TCTs) irrelevant to ejectment jurisdiction; cannot expand via evidence (Javelosa v. Tapus, G.R. No. 204361, July 4, 2018). Non-party Serafin unprejudiced by due process (Dare Adventure Farm Corp. v. CA, 695 Phil. 681, 690, 2012). Respondents' residence mention/ownership proof insufficient; disposition limited to complaint's four corners, rendering Antonio/Serafin inclusion void.
Main Doctrine
Jurisdiction over the subject matter in an ejectment case is determined by the allegations in the complaint, which must explicitly aver the essential facts constituting unlawful detainer: (1) the defendant's initial possession by contract or tolerance; (2) termination of such right upon notice; (3) defendant's continued possession depriving plaintiff; and (4) filing within one year from demand. Courts cannot acquire jurisdiction over properties or parties not mentioned in the complaint, even if evidence is presented during trial or ownership is proven, as jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, waiver, or evidence outside the pleading's four corners. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter renders the judgment void and may be raised at any stage, even motu proprio by appellate courts. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper to assail grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in ejectment dispositions. Due process prohibits prejudicing non-parties or matters beyond the complaint's scope.