G.R. No. 87148 March 18, 1992
MARCIANA CONSIGNADO and NAZARIO ASENDIDO, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, (Ninth Division), MILAGROS MATINING and HERACLEO MATINING, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners-spouses Marciana Consignado and Nazario Asendido filed a complaint for ejectment against private respondent Milagros Matining (assisted by her husband Heracleo Matining) in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Nagcarlan, Laguna. They alleged that Marciana Consignado was the absolute owner of a 58-square meter residential land and house in Nagcarlan, Laguna, which she inherited from her father. They allowed Milagros Matining to occupy a portion of the property in 1974 out of charity after Matining’s house was burned. Petitioners demanded that Matining vacate the property as they needed it for their own use, but Matining refused. The complaint sought recovery of possession, payment of damages for use and occupation, and compensation for alleged destruction of a kitchen and dining room.
In their Answer, the private respondents claimed the MTC had no jurisdiction over the action. They asserted that the property was originally owned by Bernabe Consignado and was inherited by his son Florentino Consignado, who had four children: Macario, Estebana, Margarita, and Marciana. They alleged that the 58-square meter portion was in co-ownership between Macario Consignado and petitioner Marciana Consignado. They further claimed that Macario Consignado allowed them to rent the house in 1976, but they later cared for him during his illness until his death in 1982. They presented a Deed of Donation allegedly executed by Macario Consignado in their favor on August 27, 1980. They argued that by virtue of this donation, they became owners of a 29-square meter portion, and thus the issue of ownership, which is beyond the MTC’s jurisdiction, was involved.
The MTC rendered a decision in favor of the petitioners, ordering the private respondents to vacate the premises, pay monthly rental, attorney’s fees, and costs. The private respondents appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MTC decision en toto. The private respondents then appealed to the Court of Appeals, assigning the sole issue of whether they were entitled to own one-half portion of the premises.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in resolving the question of ownership in an ejectment case.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the petitioners’ contention that the Court of Appeals erred in resolving the question of ownership was untenable. Since the MTC and the RTC had themselves decided the question of ownership over the disputed property, the Court of Appeals, on appeal, had to review and resolve the same issue. Furthermore, the petitioners did not complain when the MTC and RTC decided the issue of ownership in their favor; they were thus precluded from assailing the Court of Appeals for deciding the same issue partially against them. The Supreme Court found no cogent reason to disturb the findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals had partially granted the private respondents’ petition, ruling that the Spouses Matining were entitled to the possession of only 11.6 square meters (southern portion) of the subject property, but ordered them to vacate the other portion of 17.84 square meters, the possession of which lawfully pertained to the petitioners and other co-owners.