GR 122806; (June, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 122806 June 19, 1997
Times Broadcasting Network, represented by Alex Sy, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and Filomeno Arocha, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Times Broadcasting Network leased a portion of Hotel Arocha in Ozamis City from private respondent Filomeno Arocha. The lease covered two rooms, a terrace, and the rooftop of the four-storey building for operating a radio station. In June 1993, petitioner installed its equipment but mounted its radio antenna on the third-floor rooftop instead of the stipulated fourth-floor rooftop. Private respondent demanded payment of monthly rental for the use of the third-floor rooftop, which petitioner refused, claiming permission was granted and that the fourth-floor rooftop was occupied by the hotel’s TV antenna. On January 10, 1994, private respondent filed a verified complaint for ejectment with payment of back rentals and damages before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Dipolog. Petitioner moved to dismiss, arguing the MTCC lacked jurisdiction as the action was for specific performance, not ejectment. The MTCC denied the motion and ruled in favor of private respondent, ordering petitioner to vacate the third-floor rooftop and pay monthly rental and attorney’s fees. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTCC decision on appeal, holding the issues were not proper for a summary ejectment action. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and reinstated the MTCC decision.
ISSUE
Whether the complaint filed by private respondent is one for ejectment or specific performance, which determines the jurisdiction of the MTCC.
RULING
The complaint is one for ejectment, specifically forcible entry, and thus within the jurisdiction of the MTCC. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision. The complaint’s allegations established that private respondent was unlawfully deprived of possession of the third-floor rooftop through “stealth and strategy” when petitioner installed its antenna there without consent, and that demand to vacate was made. The action was filed within one year from the deprivation of possession. The core issue was physical possession, making it a proper ejectment case under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. The petition was dismissed.