G.R. No. 214546 , October 09, 2019
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Petitioner, vs. Citi Appliance M.C. Corporation, Respondent.

FACTS

Since 1992, Citi Appliance has owned a parcel of land in Cebu City. In 2003, while excavating to construct a building, it discovered underground telephone lines, cables, and manholes placed by PLDT in 1983, encroaching on its property and preventing excavation. In April 2003, Citi Appliance applied for a parking exemption from the Cebu City Zoning Board. On April 26, 2004, Citi Appliance demanded PLDT remove the encroachments or shoulder the parking exemption fee, with a final demand on May 28, 2004. PLDT refused. Citi Appliance filed a complaint for ejectment. PLDT argued the action for forcible entry had prescribed, contending the one-year period should be reckoned from the discovery of the encroachment (sometime before or on May 22, 2003), not from the last demand. PLDT also claimed the lines were under a public sidewalk and asserted rights of eminent domain and as a builder in good faith. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities granted the ejectment, ordering PLDT to realign its lines or pay rent. The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications, ordering restitution and payment of rent from the date of the last demand. The appellate court held the one-year period for forcible entry by stealth is counted from the demand to vacate.

ISSUE

1. Whether the issue of lack of jurisdiction was deemed waived by PLDT.
2. Whether the Municipal Trial Court in Cities had jurisdiction over the case, subsuming the issues of: (a) the presence of the element of prior physical possession; and (b) whether the one-year prescriptive period for forcible entry based on stealth is reckoned from discovery or from the demand to vacate.

RULING

1. On waiver of jurisdictional issue: No, the issue of jurisdiction was not waived. A party may raise the issue of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, as jurisdiction is conferred by law and cannot be acquired through waiver or estoppel.
2. On jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court:
a. Prior physical possession: The element of prior physical possession is absent. Citi Appliance only acquired the property in 1992, while PLDT installed the lines in 1983. Prior physical possession by the plaintiff is a jurisdictional requirement in forcible entry. Citi Appliance was never in prior physical possession of the subterranean portion where the lines were installed.
b. Reckoning of the one-year prescriptive period: The one-year period for filing an action for forcible entry based on stealth is reckoned from the date of discovery of the unlawful entry, not from the date of demand to vacate. The lower courts erred in relying on Philippine Overseas Telecommunications v. Gutierrez and similar cases, which were misapplied. The correct rule is that the period is counted from the time the plaintiff learned of the deprivation of possession. Since Citi Appliance discovered the encroachment before or on May 22, 2003 (when the zoning board initially granted its exemption), but filed the complaint on October 1, 2004, more than one year later, the action had prescribed.
Consequently, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities lacked jurisdiction over the ejectment case. The complaint should have been dismissed. The Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution were reversed and set aside. The complaint for ejectment was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.