GR 95697; (August, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 95697 ; August 5, 1991
PEREGRINO ROSALES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, the Hon. SALVADOR A. MEMORACION, Presiding Judge of the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BASILAN, Branch 2, the Hon. EDUARDO F. CARTAGENA and the ESTATE OF WEE YEK SUI alias GREGORIO WEE, represented by DANIEL WEE, respondents.
FACTS
The Estate of Wee Yek Sui filed an ejectment case against Peregrino Rosales, who occupied a commercial lot under a month-to-month lease. The complaint alleged Rosales stopped paying rent in 1979 and sought recovery of unpaid rentals and damages exceeding P20,000. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) erroneously applied the Rule on Summary Procedure despite the amount claimed exceeding its jurisdictional limit and proceeded with the case. Rosales filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction as the action, filed years after the 1979 demand, was time-barred for unlawful detainer, and that his stay was protected by rent control laws. The MTC denied the motion and ruled for the estate. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTC’s decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Rosales’s petition for review for raising a new theory on appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is that Rosales did not change his theory on appeal; he consistently argued the MTC lacked jurisdiction over the ejectment case. His core contention before the MTC and RTC was that the action, filed beyond the one-year period for unlawful detainer, was an accion publiciana outside the MTC’s jurisdiction. This jurisdictional challenge was a permissible issue that could be raised at any stage, including on appeal. The Court of Appeals erred in applying the doctrine against change of theory, as the issue of jurisdiction is fundamental and not subject to waiver. The Supreme Court emphasized that the MTC also committed grave error by applying the Rule on Summary Procedure when the claimed amount exceeded P20,000, and by not dismissing the complaint outright for its failure to attach the actionable lease document as required by the rules. The case was remanded for proper proceedings.