GR 152438; (June, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152438 ; June 17, 2004
LOLITA R. AYSON, petitioner, vs. MARINA ENRIQUEZ vda. DE CARPIO, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Lolita Ayson was the original owner of three parcels of land in Pampanga, which she mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank (PNB). The mortgage was foreclosed, and after the redemption period lapsed, titles were issued in the bank’s name. In 1999, PNB sold one lot to respondent Marina Enriquez vda. de Carpio, who obtained a new title. Ayson filed a separate civil case for annulment of title and reconveyance against Enriquez. While that case was pending, Enriquez sent demand letters for Ayson to vacate the property and subsequently filed an ejectment complaint with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC).
The MTC ruled in favor of Enriquez, ordering Ayson to vacate. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed this on appeal. Ayson then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing solely that the MTC lacked jurisdiction over the ejectment case. The CA dismissed her petition, holding that the ejectment action was proper as Ayson’s possession became unlawful after she lost ownership, and her continued stay was merely tolerated.
ISSUE
Whether the Municipal Trial Court had jurisdiction over the ejectment complaint filed by respondent Enriquez.
RULING
Yes, the MTC had jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision, ruling that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to constitute a case for unlawful detainer. The complaint stated that the defendants were “illegally occupying” the property and that demand letters were sent to vacate. Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint, and these averments clearly indicated that the plaintiff’s cause of action was the defendant’s unlawful withholding of possession after the termination of her right by demand, which falls under the MTC’s jurisdiction over ejectment cases.
The Court further held that Ayson was estopped from challenging jurisdiction. She actively participated in the trial on the merits without raising the issue of jurisdiction before the MTC or RTC. By introducing evidence and arguing the case on its substance, she effectively submitted to the court’s authority. Moreover, her new argument regarding non-receipt of the demand letters was raised for the first time on appeal to the Supreme Court. Issues not raised in the lower courts cannot be entertained for the first time on appeal, as it violates due process and fair play. The Petition was denied for lack of merit.