Dela Cruz v.

CA and Melba Tan Te

(mao ning unlawful detainer case diay tungod kay lessee si petitioner sa former owner for 40 yrs. )

Doctrine: Jurisdiction is the power or capacity given by the law to a court or tribunal to entertain, hear
and determine certain controversies. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. What
determines the nature of the action and jurisdiction over the case are the allegations in the complaint.

FACTS:

 The Reyes family, represented by Mr Lino Reyes, owned the lot located at No.1332 Lacson
Street, Sampaloc Manila. Petitioner Lourdez Dela Cruz was one of their lessees, and she
religiously paid rent over a portion of the lot for 40 years. Sometime in 1989, a fire struck the
premises and destroyed including petitioner’s dwelling. After the fire, petitioner and some other
tenants returned to the said lot and rebuilt their respective houses; simultaneously, the Reyes
family made several verbal demands on the remaining lessees, including petitioner to vacate the
lot but it remained unheeded.
 The disputed lot was sold by the Reyeses to respondent Te by virtue of the Nov 26, 1996 DOAS .
Respondent bought it for residential purposes. Despite the sale, petitioner did not give up the
lot.
 Petitioner was sent a written demand to relinquish the premises which she ignored prompting
Te to initiate barangay conciliation. Respondent offered financial assistance but petitioner
countered the offer by asking 500k for her house which Te refused. Te filed an ejectment
complaint with damages before the Manila MeTc. The complaint averred:
- the previous owners, the Reyeses were in possession and control of the contested lot;
- on Nov 26, 1996, the lot was sold to Te;
- prior to the sale, Dela Cruz forcibly entered the property with strategy and/or stealth;
- the petitioner unlawfully deprived the respondent of physical possession of the property
and continues to do so; and
- the respondent sent several written demands to petitioner to vacate the premises but
refused to do so.
 Petitioner, on the other hand, filed an answer and averred that:
- the MeTc had no jurisdiction over the case because it falls within the JD of the RTC as more
than 1 year had elapsed from petitioner’s forcible entry;
- that she was a rent-paying tenant protected by PD 20;
- her lease constituted a legal encumbrance upon the property; and
- the lot was subject of expropriation
 The MeTC ruled in favor of Te. The RTC, however, set aside the decision and dismissed Te’s
complaint on the ground that it was the RTC which had jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the case. The RTC believed that the suit had become an accion publiciana, for failure of Te’s
predecessor-in-interest, the Reyeses to file an ejectment suit as early as Feb 21, 1994, the time
they learned of petitioner’s intrusion.
 The CA reversed the RTC’s ruling.

ISSUEs: Which court, the Manila RTC or the Manila MeTc, has jurisdiction over the Tan Te ejectment
suit?
HELD:

The Manila MeTc had jurisdiction over the complaint. Jurisdiction is the power or capacity given by the
law to a court or tribunal to entertain, hear and determine certain controversies. Jurisdiction over the
subject matter is conferred by law. Section 33 of BP 129 provides that MeTc shall have exclusive original
JD over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer. Thus, exclusive, original jurisdiction over
ejectment proceedings (accion interdictal) is lodged in the first level courts.

Sec 1 of Rule 70 embraces an action for forcible entry which refers when one is deprived of physical
possession of any land or building by means of force, threat, intimidation, strategy or stealth. The
requisites of which are: (1) the plaintiffs must allege their prior physical possession of the property; (2)
they are deprived of possession either of the means mentioned above; (3) the action must be filed
within 1 year from the time the owners or legal possessors learned of their deprivation of the physical
possession of the land or building.

Unlawful detainer (desahucio) occurs where one unlawfully withholds possession of the subject
property after the expiration or termination of the right to possess. Here, the issue of rightful possession
is the one decisive; for in such action, the defendant is the party in actual possession and the plaintiff’s
cause of action is the termination of the defendant’s right to continue in possession.

(Side note lang: Two kinds of action to recover possession of real property: (1) Accion
publiciana- the plenary action for the recovery of the real right of possession when the
dispossession has lasted for more than 1 year or when the action was filed more than 1 yr from
the date of the last demand received by the lessee; and (2) Accion reinvindicatoria- an action
for the recovery of ownership which includes the recovery of possession. These are governed by
regular rules of procedure.)

Based on the allegations in the complaint, prior to the sale by Lino Reyes, he was in possession and
control of the subject lot but were deprived of said possession when petitioner entered the lot. This can
make up a forcible entry case. On the other hand, the allegation that petitioner was served several
written demands to leave the premises would indicate an action for unlawful detainer.

Settled is the rule that jurisdiction is based on the allegations in the initiatory pleading. However, the
Court relaxed such rule as this case presents a special and unique circumstances. First, the fact the
petitioner was a tenant of the predecessors-in-interest of Te is material in the determination of
jurisdiction. Second, ejectment suit was filed with the Manila MeTc on Sept 8 1997 or more than 9 yrs
ago. The court said that to dismiss the complaint would be a serious blow to the effective dispensation
of justice as the parties will start anew and incur another expenses.

Section 6, Rule 1 of the Roc empowers the SC to construe Rule 70 and other pertinent procedural
issuances “in a liberal manner to promote just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding.”

Based on the complaint and answer, the ejectment complaint is after all a complaint for unlawful
detainer. Petitioner was a lessee of the Reyeses for 4 decades and was later on terminated when a fire
destroyed her house. But petitioner persisted and the Reyeses tolerated it as well as Te. Te sent several
demands, the last on Jan 14, 1997. The action was filed with the MeTc on Sep 8 1997, hence, the action
was well within the 1 yr period reckoned from Jan 14,1997.