GR 155110; (March, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 155110 . March 31, 2005
HABAGAT GRILL Through LOUIE BIRAOGO, Proprietor/Manager, Petitioner, vs. DMC-URBAN PROPERTY DEVELOPER, INC., Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent DMC-Urban Property Developer, Inc., as registered owner of a lot in Matina, Davao City, filed a Complaint for Forcible Entry against petitioner Louie Biraogo, proprietor of Habagat Grill. DMC alleged that Biraogo, by means of strategy and stealth, unlawfully entered the property and constructed the restaurant on December 1, 1993, thereby depriving DMC of possession. Biraogo, in defense, claimed the restaurant was built in 1992 within Municipal Reservation No. 1050 (Presidential Proclamation No. 20), a public domain, and thus DMC had no cause of action. A relocation survey was conducted, and the report indicated Habagat Grill occupied 934 square meters of DMC’s titled lot. The Municipal Trial Court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and cause of action, a decision affirmed by the Regional Trial Court. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed these rulings.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the Municipal Trial Court had jurisdiction over the forcible entry case, which hinges on whether Biraogo’s alleged deprivation of DMC’s possession occurred within one year prior to the filing of the complaint on March 28, 1994.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, ruling that the Municipal Trial Court had jurisdiction. In a forcible entry case, jurisdiction is conferred by the allegations in the complaint that the plaintiff was in prior physical possession and was deprived thereof by the defendant through force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth within one year before the filing of the suit. DMC’s complaint squarely alleged that Biraogo unlawfully entered and built on the property on December 1, 1993, which was within the one-year prescriptive period. The Court emphasized that the critical factor for jurisdiction is the allegation of prior possession and deprivation within one year, not the ultimate proof of such facts, which is a matter for trial on the merits.
On the merits, the Court found that DMC successfully proved its prior physical possession and Biraogo’s unlawful entry. The relocation survey report, which Biraogo failed to effectively rebut, conclusively established that Habagat Grill was built on DMC’s titled property, not on the public domain reservation. Biraogo’s claim of construction in 1992 was unsupported by credible evidence, as the documentary evidence he presented referred to a different establishment. The testimony of DMC’s property manager regarding the 1993 entry was deemed credible and supported by the evidence. Consequently, Biraogo was ordered to vacate the premises, remove improvements, and pay reasonable compensation for use and attorney’s fees.