Dela Cruz vs. CA Digest

RTC set aside the decision of the MeTC and dismissed Tan Te’s DELA CRUZ vs.
CA
Complaint on the ground that it was the RTC and not the MeTC G.R. No. 139442 | December 6, 2006
which has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. Ponente: Velasco Jr., J.
On appeal before the CA, the CA reversed the RTC. Dela Cruz’s Digest Author: Dred Mendoza
motion for reconsideration was likewise denied bu the CA.
DOCTRINE:
Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari.
Forcible Entry: one is deprived of physical possession of any land
ISSUE: or building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or
stealth. In actions for forcible entry.
WHETHER OR NOT the Manila MeTC has jurisdiction over Tan Te’s
ejectment suit. Unlawful detainer (desahucio): one unlawfully withholds
possession of the subject property after the expiration or
RULING: termination of the right to possess.
YES, the Manila MeTC has jurisdiction over the ejectment suit. FACTS:
The exclusive, original jurisdiction over ejectment proceedings The Reyes family owned the subject land; petitioner Lourdes Dela
(accion interdictal) is lodged with the first level courts. This is Cruz was one of their lessees.
clarified in Section 1, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
that embraces an action for forcible entry (detentacion), where one In 1989, a fire struck the premises and destroyed, among others,
is deprived of physical possession of any land or building by means petitioner’s dwelling. After the fire, petitioner and some tenants
of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. In actions for returned to the said lot and rebuilt their respective houses.
forcible entry, three (3) requisites have to be met for the municipal
trial court to acquire jurisdiction. First, the plaintiffs must allege Petitioner refused to vacate the lot despite several written
their prior physical possession of the property. Second, they must demands of the Reyes family.
also assert that they were deprived of possession either by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. Third, the action must be In 1996, the disputed lot was sold by the Reyeses to respondent
filed within one (1) year from the time the owners or legal Melba Tan Te. Despite the said sale however, Dela Cruz still refused
possessors learned of their deprivation of physical possession of to give up the lot.
the land or building.
In 1997, Tan Te filed an ejectment complaint with damages before
The other kind of ejectment proceeding is unlawful detainer the Manila MeTC after petitioner ignored another written demand to
(desahucio), where one unlawfully withholds possession of the relinquish the premises and after the parties failed to come up with
subject property after the expiration or termination of the right to a reconciliation agreement with the barangay.
possess. Here, the issue of rightful possession is the one decisive;
for in such action, the defendant is the party in actual possession Petitioner filed her answer and alleged among others that MeTC
and the plaintiff’s cause of action is the termination of the had no jurisdiction over the case because it falls within the
defendant’s right to continue in possession. 7 The essential jurisdiction of the RTC as more than one year had elapsed from
requisites of unlawful detainer are: (1) the fact of lease by virtue of petitioner’s forcible entry.
a contract express or implied; (2) the expiration or termination of
the possessor’s right to hold possession; (3) withholding by the The Manila MeTC rendered judgment in favor of Tan Te and ordered
lessee of the possession of the land or building after expiration or Dela Cruz to vacate the premises. On appeal before the RTC, the
termination of the right to possession; (4) letter of demand upon
lessee to pay the rental or comply with the terms of the lease and
vacate the premises; and (5) the action must be filed within one (1)
year from date of last demand received by the defendant.
Based on the complaint and the answer, it is apparent that the Tan
Te ejectment complaint is after all a complaint for unlawful
detainer. It was admitted that petitioner Dela Cruz was a lessee of
the Reyeses for around four (4) decades. Thus, initially petitioner as
lessee is the legal possessor of the subject lot by virtue of a
contract of lease. When fire destroyed her house, the Reyeses
considered the lease terminated; but petitioner Dela Cruz persisted
in returning to the lot and occupied it by strategy and stealth
without the consent of the owners. The Reyeses however
tolerated the continued occupancy of the lot by petitioner. Thus,
when the lot was sold to respondent Tan Te, the rights of the
Reyeses, with respect to the lot, were transferred to their subrogee,
respondent Tan Te, who for a time also tolerated the stay of
petitioner until she decided to eject the latter by sending several
demands, the last being the January 14, 1997 letter of demand.
Since the action was filed with the MeTC on September 8, 1997, the
action was instituted well within the one (1) year period reckoned
from January 14, 1997.
Hence, the nature of the complaint is one of unlawful detainer and

the Manila MeTC had jurisdiction over the complaint.

Dela Cruz vs. CA Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dela Cruz vs. CA Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dela Cruz vs. CA Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RTC set aside the decision of the MeTC and dismissed Tan Te’s DELA CRUZ vs.

Hence, the nature of the complaint is one of unlawful detainer and

You might also like