G.R. No. 150755; June 28, 2005
RENE GANILA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND VIOLETA C. HERRERA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Violeta Herrera filed 21 ejectment complaints before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), alleging she is the owner of Lot 1227 in Jordan, Guimaras, having inherited it from her parents. She claimed she merely tolerated petitioners’ occupation, allowing them to build houses without rental. In September or October 1996, she demanded they vacate and remove their structures, but they refused. After failed barangay conciliation, she filed the suits. Petitioners, in their Answers, variously claimed the lot was a developed shoreline, that their houses were on a different lot, or that it was a social forest area.
The MCTC designated commissioners who reported that 19 petitioners’ houses were inside Lot 1227. Petitioners’ counsel failed to file position papers despite an extension. The MCTC thus rendered judgment based on the evidence for Herrera, ordering the 19 petitioners to vacate, pay compensation for use, and attorney’s fees. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed this decision against the 19 petitioners but dismissed the cases against two others whose houses minimally encroached. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for review filed by the 19 petitioners.

ISSUE

Did the MCTC correctly take jurisdiction over the ejectment case, and did the courts err in their factual findings and application of procedure?

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions. On jurisdiction, the Court held the action was properly one for unlawful detainer, cognizable by the MCTC. The complaint’s allegations control jurisdiction, and Herrera sufficiently alleged prior possession by tolerance, which petitioners initially enjoyed but which was later withdrawn by demand to vacate. The one-year period for filing an ejectment suit was met from the time of the final demand in 1996. Petitioners’ claims of long possession and ownership are irrelevant in an ejectment suit, which solely determines possession de facto.
On procedural matters, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The MCTC’s termination of the preliminary conference and decision based on Herrera’s evidence were justified due to petitioners’ counsel’s failure to submit required position papers, constituting a waiver of their right to present evidence. The factual findings of the MCTC and RTC, affirmed by the CA, are conclusive, especially as they relied on the commissioners’ report and Herrera’s tax declaration. The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the appellate court’s denial of the petition.