G.R. No. 117005 June 19, 1997
CARLITO D. CORPUZ, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (SIXTEENTH DIVISION) and JUANITO ALVARADO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Carlito Corpuz filed an unlawful detainer action against private respondent Juanito Alvarado with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Manila to recover possession of a room Alvarado occupied, alleging his children needed it for their own use. Both parties were tenants of Lorenzo Barredo. In May 1988, Barredo decided to sell his property to the tenants. Due to economic difficulties, Alvarado and other lessees executed an “Affidavit of Waiver” granting Barredo the right to sell the house to any person who could afford it. Consequently, Barredo sold the house to Corpuz for P37,500.00, establishing a tenancy relationship between Corpuz and Alvarado. In October 1991, Corpuz sent a written notice to Alvarado demanding he vacate the room. Alvarado refused, prompting the ejectment suit. In his answer, Alvarado raised two defenses: (1) the “Affidavit of Waiver” was a forgery, and (2) the dispute was not referred to the Lupong Tagapayapa. The MTC ruled in favor of Corpuz, ordering Alvarado to vacate. Alvarado appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which reversed the MTC’s decision, dismissing the unlawful detainer case on the grounds that the sale between Corpuz and Barredo was the subject of a controversy pending before the National Housing Authority (NHA) which must be resolved first, and that the “Affidavit of Waiver” was a forgery. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. Corpuz elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The main issues are: (1) whether the unlawful detainer suit should be suspended pending resolution of the case lodged in the NHA impugning the sale of the property, and (2) whether the “Affidavit of Waiver” was authentic.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals decision, and reinstated the MTC judgment. The Court ruled that the MTC has exclusive jurisdiction over ejectment cases, where the sole issue is physical or material possession (possession de facto). While inferior courts may receive evidence on ownership to determine the nature of possession, they cannot conclusively resolve the issue of ownership. The controversy pending before the NHA for annulment of the Deed of Sale and challenging the authenticity of the “Affidavit of Waiver” does not abate the ejectment suit. Suits for annulment of sale, title, or document do not operate to abate ejectment actions. The underlying reason is to prevent defendants from trifling with the summary ejectment suit by merely asserting ownership. Alvarado is not without remedy, as a judgment in an ejectment case does not bar an action between the same parties respecting title to the property. Regarding the defense of non-referral to the Lupon Tagapayapa, the Court held that Alvarado’s general averment in his answer, without specific allegation or explanation, constituted a waiver of that defense. Furthermore, non-compliance with the barangay conciliation procedure under P.D. No. 1508 is not a jurisdictional requirement and does not affect the court’s acquired jurisdiction.