GR 180542; (April, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 180542 ; April 12, 2010
HUBERT NUÑEZ, Petitioner, vs. SLTEAS PHOENIX SOLUTIONS, INC., through its representative, CESAR SYLIANTENG, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent SLTEAS Phoenix Solutions, Inc., the registered owner of a parcel of land in Intramuros, Manila, discovered in October 2003 that petitioner Hubert Nuñez and 21 other individuals were occupying the property. Respondent alleged it had been in continuous possession, paying taxes, but that the occupants entered through strategy and stealth without any lease agreement or right. It filed an amended complaint for forcible entry before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila.
Petitioner, in his Answer, claimed he had a subsisting lease agreement with a different alleged owner, Maria Ysabel Potenciano Padilla Sylianteng. He contested the MeTC’s jurisdiction, arguing lack of prior demand to vacate and failure to refer the dispute to the barangay for amicable settlement. The MeTC, after proceedings including a survey confirming petitioner occupied a portion of the titled property, ruled for respondent, ordering vacation, payment of monthly rentals, attorney’s fees, and costs. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals affirmed the MeTC decision.
ISSUE
Whether the MeTC had jurisdiction over the ejectment case despite petitioner’s claims of a lease agreement and alleged jurisdictional defects.
RULING
Yes, the MeTC properly exercised jurisdiction. For forcible entry under Rule 70, jurisdiction is conferred by the allegations in the complaint that the plaintiff was priorly in possession and was deprived thereof by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth within one year preceding the filing. Respondent’s amended complaint squarely alleged prior possession and dispossession by strategy and stealth, with its discovery in 2003 making the 2004 filing timely. The one-year period is counted from the plaintiff’s discovery of the entry when it is made through stealth.
The alleged lease agreement invoked by petitioner does not divest the MeTC of jurisdiction. The case remains an ejectment suit where the core issue is physical possession (possession de facto), not ownership. The existence of a lease is a matter of defense to be resolved during the trial. Furthermore, petitioner’s claim of lack of prior demand and absence of barangay conciliation are not jurisdictional in ejectment cases. Prior demand is not required for forcible entry, and the barangay conciliation requirement under the Local Government Code does not apply when the action is coupled with a claim for damages. The MeTC, RTC, and Court of Appeals correctly upheld respondent’s right to restitution of possession.