GR 184285; (September, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 184285; September 25, 2009
RODOLFO “RUDY” CANLAS, VICTORIA CANLAS, FELICIDAD CANLAS and SPOUSES PABLO CANLAS AND CHARITO CANLAS, Petitioners, vs. ILUMINADA TUBIL, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Iluminada Tubil filed a complaint for unlawful detainer before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Guagua, Pampanga against petitioners, who are her relatives. She alleged ownership of a parcel of land covered by an Original Certificate of Title and claimed that petitioners had built houses thereon by her mere tolerance. After demands to vacate were refused, she initiated the ejectment suit. Petitioners moved to dismiss, arguing the MTC lacked jurisdiction as the case involved a question of ownership and their possession was not by tolerance but was adverse and continuous for over 60 years. The MTC dismissed the complaint, finding that Tubil failed to prove possession by mere tolerance, a jurisdictional requirement for unlawful detainer. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTC’s dismissal on appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the RTC to decide the case on the merits pursuant to Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, despite the MTC’s lack of jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer complaint.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental principle that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint. For an unlawful detainer action, the plaintiff must sufficiently allege that possession by the defendant was initially lawful, commencing by tolerance of the owner, and that such possession was later demanded to be terminated. The Court found that respondent’s complaint failed to establish these requisite allegations. It did not specify when the petitioners’ possession began or when the tolerance was withdrawn. Mere allegations of ownership and subsequent demand to vacate are insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the MTC in an unlawful detainer case.
Consequently, the MTC correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The RTC, on appeal, properly affirmed this dismissal. The Court of Appeals’ order for the RTC to decide the case on the merits under Rule 40, Section 8 was erroneous. That procedural rule applies when an inferior court had jurisdiction but decided the case incorrectly. It does not apply where, as here, the inferior court never acquired jurisdiction from the outset because the complaint failed to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer. The RTC could not therefore be compelled to assume original jurisdiction over a case that was not properly initiated. The MTC’s dismissal was reinstated.