Sps Erorita Vs Sps Dumlao
Sps Erorita Vs Sps Dumlao
3aepubltt of tbe
~btlippine1'
~upreme Qeourt
;!ffilanila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 195477
Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
BRION,
DEL CASTILLO,
MENDOZA, and
LEONEN,JJ.
- versus -
Promulgated:
2 5 J~
x~---~--~----~---~----~--~--~---~--~--~~--~--~
~x
DECISION
BRION,J.:
Penned by Associate Justice Nonnandie B. Pizarro and concurred in by Associate Justices Amelita
G. Tolentino and Ruben C. Ayson; ro//o, pp. 37-48.
t'
Decision
Decision
An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, amending for the purpose Batas Pambansa, Blg. 129 [BP 129], Otherwise
Known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, March 25, 1994.
4
G.R. No. 133564, July 10, 2007, 527 SCRA 99.
Decision
We hold that: (1) the MTC had jurisdiction; and (2) the second issue
was not raised before the lower courts; thus, it cannot be considered in the
present case.
Jurisdiction is based on the
allegations in the complaint.
On the first issue, the allegations in the complaint determine the
nature of an action and jurisdiction over the case.5 Jurisdiction does not
depend on the complaints caption.6 Nor is jurisdiction changed by the
defenses in the answer; otherwise, the defendant may easily delay a case by
raising other issues, then, claim lack of jurisdiction. 7
To make a case for unlawful detainer, the complaint must allege that:
(a) initially, the defendant lawfully possessed the property, either by
contract or by plaintiffs tolerance; (b) the plaintiff notified the defendant
that his right of possession is terminated; (c) the defendant remained in
possession and deprived plaintiff of its enjoyment; and (d) the plaintiff filed
a complaint within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate
the property.8 A complaint for accion publiciana or recovery of possession
of real property will not be considered as an action for unlawful detainer if
any of these special jurisdictional facts is omitted.9
A review of the complaint shows that: (a) the owners, Spouses
Dumlao, agreed to allow the petitioners to continue operating the school on
the disputed property; (b) in a demand letter dated February 12, 2004, the
Spouses Dumlao told the petitioners to pay and/or vacate the property; (c)
the respondents refused to vacate the property; and (d) the Spouses Dumlao
filed the complaint (March 4, 2004) within a year from the last demand to
vacate (February 12, 2004).
Thus, although the complaint bears the caption recovery of
possession, its allegations contain the jurisdictional facts for an unlawful
detainer case. Under RA 7691, an action for unlawful detainer is within the
MTCs exclusive jurisdiction regardless of the propertys assessed value.10
The CA incorrectly applied our ruling in Barbosa. In that case, the
complaint did not state that (i) possession was unlawfully withheld and (ii)
the complaint was filed within a year from the last demand. Because these
special jurisdictional facts for an unlawful detainer case were lacking, we
5
Spouses Flores-Cruz v. Spouses Goli-Cruz, G.R. No. 172217, September 18, 2009, 600 SCRA
545.
6
Hilario v. Heirs of Salvador, G.R. No. 160384, April 29, 2005, 457 SCRA 815.
Spouses Cruz v. Spouses Torres, G.R. No. 121939, October 4, 1999, 316 SCRA 193; Larano v.
Calendacion, G.R. No. 158231, June 19, 2007, 525 SCRA 57.
8
Corpuz v. Spouses Agustin, G.R. No. 183822, January 18, 2012, 663 SCRA 350 citing Canlas v.
Tubil, G.R. No. 184285, September 25, 2009, 601 SCRA 147.
9
Penta Pacific Realty Corporation v. Ley Construction and Development Corporation, G.R. No.
161589, November 24, 2014.
10
Section 33(2) of BP 129 in relation to Section 19(2) of BP 129, as amended by RA 7691, supra
note 3; Penta Pacific Realty Corporation, id. at 7.
7
Decision
held that the case should be accion publiciana over which the RTC has
jurisdiction.
In the present case, however, the complaint clearly contained the
elements of an unlawful detainer case. Thus, the case should have been filed
with the MTC. The RTC had no jurisdiction over this case.
Since a decision rendered by a court without jurisdiction is void,11 the
RTCs decision is void.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter
may be raised at any time.
With the jurisdictional issue resolved, we now examine whether the
petitioners timely raised this issue.
As a general rule, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be
raised at any time, or even for the first time on appeal.12 An exception to this
rule is the principle of estoppel by laches.13
Estoppel by laches may only be invoked to bar the defense of lack of
jurisdiction if the factual milieu is analogous to Tijam v. Sibonghanoy.14 In
that case, lack of jurisdiction was raised for the first time after almost fifteen
(15) years after the questioned ruling had been rendered and after the
movant actively participated in several stages of the proceedings. It was
only invoked, too, after the CA rendered a decision adverse to the movant.
In Figueroa v. People,15 we ruled that the failure to assail jurisdiction
during trial is not sufficient for estoppel by laches to apply. When lack of
jurisdiction is raised before the appellate court, no considerable length of
time had elapsed for laches to apply.16 Laches refers to the negligence or
omission to assert a right within a reasonable length of time, warranting a
presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or
declined to assert it.17
The factual setting of this present case is not similar to Tijam so as to
trigger the application of the estoppel by laches doctrine. As in Figueroa,
the present petitioners assailed the RTCs jurisdiction in their appeal before
the CA. Asserting lack of jurisdiction on appeal before the CA does not
constitute laches. Furthermore, the filing of an answer and the failure to
11
Decision
Cilruw rJ an;._
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
~
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
~~.v~
JOSEC~ENDOZA
A~~i;~J~;tice
Associate Justice
18
19
Vda. De Gualberto v. Go, G.R. No. 139843, July 21, 2005, 463 SCRA 671-672.
Esteban v. Marcelo, G.R. No. 197725, July 31, 2013, 703 SCRA 82, 92.
Decision
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
OC.r
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the
Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.