G.R. No. 146769 ; August 17, 2007
SPOUSES MAXIMO ABADILLA and ENGRACIA C. ABADILLA, Petitioners, vs. HON. VIRGINIA HOFILEÑA-EUROPA, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Davao City; IÑIGO ESTATE, represented by JOSEPHINE IÑIGO and/or MARCELINA CARIO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Spouses Abadilla filed a complaint for forcible entry with the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC) of Davao City. They alleged that on June 26, 1997, respondents, through force and intimidation, entered and occupied a 300-square-meter portion of their titled property (Lot 211-A-6), constructing a fence thereon. Petitioners claimed prior physical possession and demanded respondents’ ejectment. In their answer, respondents asserted ownership and lawful possession, contending that the petitioners’ title erroneously included a portion of the Iñigo Estate due to a mistake in the technical descriptions and boundary monuments.
During pre-trial, the parties agreed to appoint surveyor-commissioners to determine boundaries and possible encroachment. The joint survey revealed an overlapping area of 592.68 square meters between the parties’ lots, attributable to non-conforming technical descriptions and erroneous monuments from the original cadastral survey. Based on this finding, the MTCC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, ruling the core issue was a boundary dispute, not merely possession.

ISSUE

Whether the MTCC and the RTC, on appeal, correctly dismissed the forcible entry case for lack of jurisdiction, characterizing it as a boundary dispute.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the dismissal. The legal logic hinges on the nature of the dispute as revealed by the evidence. Forcible entry falls under the exclusive original jurisdiction of first-level courts (MTCC) under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, but only when the sole issue is physical possession (possession de facto) independent of claims to ownership. Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the evidence presented.
Here, the commissioners’ survey, conducted with both parties’ consent, established that the conflict stemmed from an overlapping of technical descriptions in the parties’ titles due to errors in the official cadastral survey. This finding transformed the case from a simple question of prior physical possession into a complex boundary dispute intrinsically linked to the correction of titles. Settling possession would first require a judicial determination of the correct boundaries and the rectification of the technical descriptions in the certificates of title, which necessarily involves questions of ownership. Such adjudication exceeds the limited jurisdiction of the MTCC and properly falls within the original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. The RTC therefore correctly affirmed the dismissal, as the MTCC had no authority to resolve the boundary and titling issues fundamental to the case.