6/19/2016

G.R.No.172217

FIRSTDIVISION

SPOUSESLYDIAFLORESCRUZG.R.No.172217
andREYNALDOI.CRUZ,
Petitioners,
Present:

PUNO,C.J.,Chairperson,
CORONA,
versusCHICONAZARIO,
LEONARDODECASTROand
BERSAMIN,JJ.

SPOUSESLEONARDOand
ILUMINADAGOLICRUZ,
SPOUSESRICOandFELIZA
DELACRUZ,SPOUSESBOY
andLANIDELACRUZ,
ZENAIDAA.JACINTOand
ROGELIODELOSSANTOS,
Respondents.Promulgated:
September18,2009

xx

RESOLUTION
CORONA,J.:

[1]
[2]
Thisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorari oftheAugust23,2005decision andApril5,2006
[3]
resolution oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.CVNo.81099.
[4]
OnDecember15,1999, petitionerspousesLydiaFloresCruzandReynaldoI.Cruzpurchased
[5]
a5,209sq.m.lotsituatedinPulongYantok,Angat,Bulacan fromLydiassiblings,namely,Teresita,
Ramon and Daniel (all surnamed Flores).Their father, Estanislao Flores, used to own the land as an
inheritancefromhisparentsGregorioFloresandAnaMangahas.Estanislaodiedin1995.Estanislao
and,later,petitionerspaidtherealtytaxesonthelandalthoughneitherofthemoccupiedit.Petitioners
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/172217.htm

1/8

6/19/2016

G.R.No.172217

[6]
soldportionsthereoftothirdpartiessometimeinSeptember2000.

After the death of Estanislao, petitioners found out that respondent spouses Leonardo and
Iluminada GoliCruz et al. were occupying a section of the land. Initially, petitioner Lydia talked to
respondentsandofferedtosellthemtheportionstheywereoccupyingbutthetalksfailedastheycould
notagreeontheprice.On March 2, 2001, petitioners lawyer sent respondents letters asking them to
[7]
leave.Thesedemands,however,wereignored.Effortsatbarangayconciliationalsofailed.
Respondentscounteredthattheirpossessionofthelandrangedfrom10to20years.According
[8]
to respondents, the property was alienable public land. Prior to petitioners demand, they had no
knowledgeofpetitionersandtheirpredecessorsownershipoftheland.Theytookstepstolegitimize
their claim and paid the realty tax on their respective areas for the taxable year 2002. Subsequently,
however,thetaxdeclarationsissuedtothemwerecancelledbytheProvincialAssessorsOfficeandre
[9]
issuedtopetitioners.

On August 6, 2001, petitioners filed a complaint for recovery of possession of the land in the
[10]
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 82.
Respondents filed a motion to
dismissclaiming,amongothers,thattheRTChadnojurisdictionoverthecaseasitshouldhavebeen
filedintheMunicipalTrialCourt(MTC)sinceitwasasummaryactionforejectmentunderRule70of
[11]
theRulesofCourt.TheRTCdeniedthemotioninanorderdatedNovember9,2001.

Aftertrial,theRTCrenderedadecisiondatedOctober3,2003infavorofpetitionersandordered
[12]
respondentstovacatetheland,andpayattorneysfeesandcostsofsuit.

OnappealbyrespondentstotheCA,thelatter,inadecisiondatedAugust23,2005,ruledthat
the RTC had no jurisdiction over the action for recovery of possession because petitioners had been
dispossessed of the property for less than a year. It held that the complaint was one for unlawful
detainerwhichshouldhavebeenfiledintheMTC.Thus,itruledthattheRTCdecisionwasnulland
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/172217.htm

2/8

6/19/2016

G.R.No.172217

void.ReconsiderationwasdeniedonApril5,2006.

Hence,thispetition.

TheissueforourresolutioniswhethertheRTChadjurisdictionoverthiscase.

Thepetitionhasnomerit.

Itisaxiomaticthatthenatureoftheactiononwhichdependsthequestionofwhetherasuitis
[13]
withinthejurisdictionofthecourtisdeterminedsolelybytheallegationsinthecomplaint
andthe
[14]
lawatthetimetheactionwascommenced.
Onlyfactsallegedinthecomplaintcanbethebasisfor
[15]
determining the nature of the action and the courts competence to take cognizance of it.
One
cannot advert to anything not set forth in the complaint, such as evidence adduced at the trial, to
[16]
determinethenatureoftheactiontherebyinitiated.

Petitionerscomplaintcontainedthefollowingallegations:

xxxxxxxxx

3. That, [petitioners] are owners of a piece of land known as Lot 30part, Cad. 349 located at
PulongYantok,Angat,BulacanasshownbyacopyofTaxDeclarationNo.990101001141made[an]
integral[part]hereofasAnnexA
4.That,saidLotNo.30partwasacquiredthrough[purchase]onDecember15,1999,asshown
by[a]DeedofAbsoluteSaleofUnsubdividedLandmade[an]integral[part]hereofasAnnexB,B1&
B2

5.That,when[petitioners]inspectedsubjectproperty,theyfoundittobeoccupiedbyatleastfive
(5)householdsunderthenamesofherein[respondents],who,whenaskedabouttheirrighttostaywithin
thepremisesrepliedthattheywereallowedtolivethereatbythedeceasedformerowner

6. That, [petitioners] informed the [respondents] that as far as they are concerned, the latters
occupancywasnotcommunicatedtothemsoitfollowsthattheydonothaveanyrighttoremainwithin
subjectpieceofland
7. That, [respondents] seem to be unimpressed and made no move to leave the premises or to
cometotermswiththe[petitioners]somuchsothat[thelatter]askedtheirlawyertowritedemandletters
to each and everyone of the [respondents] as shown by the demand letters dated March 2, 2001 made
integralparthereofasAnnexC,C1,C2,C3,&C4

8.That,thereisnoexistingagreementoranydocumentthatillustratewhateverpermission,ifany
weregiven,thatthe[respondents]presentedto[petitioners]inordertolegitimizetheclaim

9. That, it is clear that [respondents] occupy portions of subject property either by stealth,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/172217.htm

3/8

6/19/2016

G.R.No.172217

stratagem,forceoranyunlawfulmannerwhicharejustbasesforejectment

[17]
xxxxxxxxx

According to the CA, considering that petitioners claimed that respondents were possessors of
the property by mere tolerance only and the complaint had been initiated less than a year from the
demandtovacate,theproperremedywasanactionforunlawfuldetainerwhichshouldhavebeenfiled
intheMTC.

Weagree.

ThenecessaryallegationsinacomplaintforejectmentaresetforthinSection1,Rule70ofthe
[18]
Rules of Court.
Petitioners alleged that the former owner (Estanislao, their predecessor) allowed
respondents to live on the land. They also stated that they purchased the property on December 15,
1999andthenfoundrespondentsoccupyingtheproperty.Yettheydemandedthatrespondentsvacate
only on March 2, 2001. It can be gleaned from their allegations that they had in fact permitted or
toleratedrespondentsoccupancy.

Based on the allegations in petitioners complaint, it is apparent that such is a complaint for
[19]
unlawfuldetainerbasedonpossessionbytoleranceoftheowner.
Itisasettledrulethatinorderto
justify such an action, the owners permission or tolerance must be present at the beginning of the
[20]
possession.
Suchjurisdictionalfactsarepresenthere.

There is another reason why petitioners complaint was not a proper action for recovery of
possessioncognizablebytheRTC.Itisnolongertruethatallcasesofrecoveryofpossessionoraccion
[21]
publicianaliewiththeRTCregardlessofthevalueoftheproperty.

[22]
When the case was filed in 2001, Congress had already approved Republic Act No. 7691
whichexpandedtheMTCsjurisdictiontoincludeotheractionsinvolvingtitletoorpossessionofreal
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/172217.htm

4/8

6/19/2016

G.R.No.172217

[23]
property (accion publiciana and reinvindicatoria)
where the assessed value of the property does
[24]
notexceedP20,000(orP50,000,foractionsfiledinMetroManila).
Because of this amendment,
thetestofwhetheranactioninvolvingpossessionofrealpropertyhasbeenfiledinthepropercourtno
longer depends solely on the type of action filed but also on the assessed value of the property
[25]
involved.
Morespecifically,sinceMTCsnowhavejurisdictionoveraccionpublicianaandaccion
reinvindicatoria (depending, of course, on the assessed value of the property), jurisdiction over such
[26]
actionshastobedeterminedonthebasisoftheassessedvalueoftheproperty.

Thisissueofassessedvalueasajurisdictionalelementinaccionpublicianawasnotraisedby
[27]
the parties nor threshed out in their pleadings.
Be that as it may, the Court can motu proprio
[28]
consider and resolve this question because jurisdiction is conferred only by law.
It cannot be
[29]
acquiredthrough,orwaivedby,anyactoromissionoftheparties.

To determine which court (RTC or MTC) has jurisdiction over the action, the complaint must
[30]
allegetheassessedvalueoftherealpropertysubjectofthecomplaintortheinterestthereon.
The
complaint did not contain any such allegation on the assessed value of the property. There is no
[31]
showingonthefaceofthecomplaintthattheRTChadjurisdictionovertheactionofpetitioners.
Indeed, absent any allegation in the complaint of the assessed value of the property, it cannot be
determinedwhetheritistheRTCortheMTCwhichhasoriginalandexclusivejurisdictionoverthe
[32]
petitionersaction.

Moreover,thecomplaintwasfiled(August6,2001)withinoneyearfromthedemandtovacate
was made (March 2, 2001). Petitioners dispossession had thus not lasted for more than one year to
[33]
justifyresorttotheremedyofaccionpubliciana.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/172217.htm

5/8

6/19/2016

G.R.No.172217

Sincepetitionerscomplaintmadeoutacaseforunlawfuldetainerwhichshouldhavebeenfiled
in the MTC and it contained no allegation on the assessed value of the subject property, the RTC
seriously erred in proceeding with the case. The proceedings before a court without jurisdiction,
[34]
includingitsdecision,arenullandvoid.
ItfollowsthattheCAwascorrectindismissingthecase.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.

Costsagainstpetitioners.

SOORDERED.

RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice
Chairperson

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIOTERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the
above resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinionoftheCourtsDivision.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/172217.htm

6/8

6/19/2016

G.R.No.172217

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

PerSpecialOrderNo.698datedSeptember4,2009.
[1]
UnderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.
[2]
Penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes and concurred in by Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto (retired) and Rosalinda
AsuncionVicenteoftheSecondDivisionoftheCourtofAppeals.Rollo,pp.1824.
[3]
Id.,pp.2425.
[4]
Id.,p.85.
[5]
Lot 30, Cad. 349. The property was declared under Property Index No. 99101000931 of the Municipal Assessors Office of Angat,
Bulacan.Id.,p.7.
[6]
Id.,pp.1920.
[7]
Id.,pp.19and22.
[8]
RespondentsmadeinquiriesfromtheMunicipalAssessorsOffice(inPandi,Bulacan),ProvincialAssessorsOfficeandCENTROTabang,
Guiguinto,Bulacanastothestatusoftheland.Informationwasgiventhatitwasalienablepublicland.Id.,p.20.
[9]
Id.,pp.1920.
[10]
DocketedasCivilCaseNo.516M2001.Id.,p.51.
[11]
Id.,pp.53and82.
[12]
Id.,pp.1819.
[13]
Barbosav.Hernandez,G.R.No.133564,10July2007,527SCRA99,103,citingDimoRealty&Development,Inc.v.Dimaculangan,
G.R.No.130991,11March2004,425SCRA376andChingv.Malaya,G.R.No.L56449,31August1987,153SCRA413.
[14]
Laresmav.Abellana,484Phil.766,777(2004).
[15]
Barbosav.Hernandez,supranote13.
[16]
Id.
[17]
Rollo,pp.8485.
[18]
Section1.Whomayinstituteproceedings,andwhen.Subjecttotheprovisionsofthenextsucceedingsection,apersondeprivedofthe
possessionofanylandorbuildingbyforce,intimidation,threat,strategy,orstealth,oralessor,vendororvendeeorotherperson,
againstwhomthepossessionofanylandorbuildingisunlawfullywithheldaftertheexpirationorterminationoftherighttohold
possession,byvirtueofanycontract,expressorimplied,orthelegalrepresentativesorassignsofanysuchlessor,vendor,vendee,or
otherperson,may,atanytimewithinone(1)yearaftersuchunlawfuldeprivationorwithholdingofpossession,bringanactionin
theproper[MTC]againstthepersonorpersonsunlawfullywithholdingordeprivingofpossession,oranypersonorpersonsclaiming
underthem,fortherestitutionofsuchpossession,togetherwithdamagesandcosts.(Emphasissupplied)
[19]
DelaCruzv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.139442,6December2006,510SCRA103,121.
[20]
HeirsofMelchorv.Melchor,461Phil.437,445(2003),citingGo,Jr.v.CourtofAppeals,415Phil.172(2001).
[21]
Quinagoranv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.155179,24August2007,531SCRA104,111.
[22]
An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, [MTCs], and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts,Amending for the
PurposeBatasPambansaBlg.129.Itamended[BP129](JudiciaryReorganizationActof1980),wasapprovedonMarch25,1994and
tookeffectonApril15,1994.
[23]
Laresmav.Abellana,supranote14,p.782.
[24]
SEC.19.Jurisdictionincivilcases.[RTCs]shallexerciseexclusiveoriginaljurisdiction:
xxxxxxxxx
(2)Inallcivilactionswhichinvolvethetitletoorpossessionofrealproperty,oranyinteresttherein,wheretheassessedvalueofthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/172217.htm

7/8

6/19/2016

G.R.No.172217

propertyinvolvedexceedsTwentythousandpesos(P20,000.00)or,forcivilactionsinMetroManila,wheresuchvalueexceedsFifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over
whichisconferredupontheMetropolitanTrialCourts,[MTCs],andMunicipalCircuitTrialCourts.
xxxxxxxxx
Sec.33.Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, [MTCs] and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases.Metropolitan Trial
Courts,[MTCs],andMunicipalCircuitTrialCourtsshallexercise:
xxxxxxxxx
(3)Exclusiveoriginaljurisdictioninallcivilactionswhichinvolvetitleto,orpossessionof,realproperty,oranyinteresttherein
wheretheassessedvalueofthepropertyorinterestthereindoesnotexceedTwentyThousandPesos(P20,000.00)or,incivilactionsin
Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of
whateverkind,attorney'sfees,litigationexpensesandcosts:Provided,Thatincasesoflandnotdeclaredfortaxationpurposes,the
valueofsuchpropertyshallbedeterminedbytheassessedvalueoftheadjacentlots.
[25]
Barbosav.Hernandez,supranote13,p.105.
[26]
Id.DeBarrerav.HeirsofVicenteLegaspi,G.R.No.174346,12September2008.
[27]
PAGASAFishpondCorporationv.Jimenez,G.R.No.164912,18June2008,555SCRA111,130,citationsomitted.
[28]
RepublicofthePhil.v.Estipular,391Phil.211,218(2000).
[29]
Suarezv.Saul,G.R.No.166664,20October2005,473SCRA628,637.
[30]
Laresmav.Abellana,supranote14,pp.782783.
[31]
Id.,p.782.
[32]
Quinagoranv.CourtofAppeals,supranote21,p.115.
[33]
DeBarrerav.HeirsofVicenteLegaspi,supranote26Gonzagav.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.130841,26February2008,546SCRA532,
542DelaRosav.Roldan,G.R.No.133882,5September2006,501SCRA34,57Hilariov.Salvador,G.R.No.160384,29April
2005,457SCRA815,825,citationomitted.
[34]
Id. There is no estoppel or laches in this case because respondents sought the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of
jurisdictionrightafteritwasfiled.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/september2009/172217.htm

8/8