GR 159974; (September 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 159974 September 5, 2007
JESUS CAYABYAB and ZALDY LAZO, petitioners, vs. ROSEMARIE GOMEZ DE AQUINO, represented by ARMANDO AQUINO, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Rosemarie Gomez de Aquino, represented by her attorney-in-fact, filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against petitioners Jesus Cayabyab and Zaldy Lazo before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Bayambang, Pangasinan. She alleged ownership and prior possession of the land, evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 97848, and claimed petitioners occupied the property since 1998 by mere tolerance. Upon her demand to vacate, petitioners refused. In their Answer, petitioners asserted they and their predecessors-in-interest had been in possession for over 40 years. They contended the land was part of the Camp Gregg Military Reservation, thus public land owned by the government, and that respondent’s title was spurious. They also argued the MTC lacked jurisdiction because they had previously raised the issue of ownership in a case pending before the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP).
The MTC ruled in favor of the respondent and ordered petitioners to vacate. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTC and dismissed the complaint, applying the doctrine of “primacy of administrative jurisdiction” due to the pending COSLAP case. The Court of Appeals (CA) subsequently reversed the RTC and reinstated the MTC decision, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the pending case before the COSLAP barred the MTC from taking jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The Court held that the pending COSLAP case did not divest the MTC of jurisdiction over the summary ejectment action. An unlawful detainer suit concerns only the issue of physical possession (possession de facto) based on the plaintiff’s allegation of possession by tolerance. It is a quieting process designed to provide an expeditious remedy to protect possession without resolving questions of ownership. Jurisdiction is conferred by the allegations in the complaint.
The defense asserting ownership or claiming the land is part of a military reservation, which would involve a collateral attack on the respondent’s Torrens title, does not oust the MTC of its jurisdiction over the possessory action. Such defenses pertain to the issue of ownership, which is irrelevant to the summary determination of who has a better right of physical possession. The Court emphasized that a Torrens title is evidence of indefeasible ownership, and the right to recover possession of registered property is imprescriptible. Any challenge to the validity of the title must be made in a direct proceeding, not in a summary action for ejectment. Therefore, the MTC correctly exercised jurisdiction, and the CA committed no error in reinstating its decision.