GR 145867; (April, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 145867 . April 7, 2009.
ESTATE OF SOLEDAD MANANTAN, herein represented by GILBERT MANANTAN, Petitioner, vs. ANICETO SOMERA, Respondent.
FACTS
Soledad Manantan, the registered owner of a parcel of land in Baguio City, filed a Complaint for ejectment and damages against Aniceto Somera and Presentacion Tavera before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC). Manantan alleged that after a relocation survey, she discovered that the respondents were occupying portions of her property. She requested them to vacate, especially after a prospective buyer backed out due to the occupancy. A formal demand letter was sent, and after failed barangay conciliation, she filed the ejectment case. She prayed for the respondents to vacate, pay reasonable compensation for use, and pay damages. In their Joint Answer, Somera and Tavera argued that the MTCC lacked jurisdiction as the Complaint did not allege facts constitutive of forcible entry or unlawful detainer under Rule 70. They claimed they had been using the portions as a driveway and access road since the 1970s, with the knowledge of Manantan’s predecessors-in-interest, and alternatively claimed to be builders in good faith. The MTCC ruled in favor of Manantan, ordering vacation and payment. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTCC Decision. Somera appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower courts, holding that the MTCC had no jurisdiction because the Complaint failed to allege facts for either forcible entry or unlawful detainer, and the case involved a boundary dispute properly within the RTC’s jurisdiction. Manantan’s estate filed this Petition for Review.
ISSUE
Whether the Municipal Trial Court in Cities had jurisdiction over the ejectment action filed by Soledad Manantan.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The MTCC had no jurisdiction over the Complaint.
The Court held that for an unlawful detainer action to be within the MTCC’s jurisdiction, the Complaint must allege that the possession was initially lawful, originating from a contract, express or implied, and that such possession became unlawful only after the expiration or termination of the right to hold. The allegations in Manantan’s Complaint failed to establish that the respondents’ possession was by virtue of any contract, express or implied, with her or her predecessors. The Complaint merely stated that the respondents were occupying portions of her land and refused to leave upon demand. This did not constitute unlawful detainer. The case was essentially a dispute over ownership and possession arising from a boundary dispute, which is a plenary action for recovery of possession (accion publiciana) within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC. Since the Complaint did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirements for ejectment, the MTCC had no jurisdiction to try the case.