This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision 1 dated April 12, 1973 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 44324-R, entitled "Manotok Realty, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellees, versus Nicolas Laurente, Defendant-Appellant." chanrobles virtual law library

The factual background of the case is as follows: chanrobles virtual law library

On February 17, 1967, herein private respondent Manotok Realty, Inc. commenced before the then Court of First Instance of Manila an action for the recovery of possession of a parcel of land and damages against herein petitioner Nicolas Laurente.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The complaint states that private respondent is the owner of a parcel of land situated at 2918 Rizal Avenue Extension, Sta. Cruz, Manila, known as Lot 360, Block 1, containing an area of eighty-four (84) square meters, more or less; that the aforementioned land is a portion of the Legarda-Tambunting Subdivision acquired by private respondent on March 20, 1959 with Certificates of Title Nos. 55125, and 55127 issued to the private respondent; that the petitioner, without any right on his part to possess the said lot and without the knowledge and consent of the private respondent is in the material and physical possession of the abovementioned land for more than one year prior to the filing of the complaint with the Court of First Instance of Manila, depriving the private respondent of its rights to enjoy possession thereof or to dispose of the same as owner, thereby causing private respondent damages in the amount of P168.00 a month for the use and occupancy of said lot at the rate of P1.50 per square meter; that despite notice, the petitioner refuses to surrender to the private respondent possession of the land in question and to pay for its use and occupancy in the amount of P168.00 per month from March 20, 1959 and that private respondent was constrained to engage counsel for a fee of P1,000.00.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Petitioner in his answer filed on March 27, 1967, denied the material allegations of the complaint and averred as special and affirmative defenses that the land claimed by the private respondent is different from the land which has been in the actual and physical possession of the petitioner in good faith and/or in the concept of owner and where his house stands; that whatever right the private respondent acquired over the land in question was secured by it as a purchaser in bad faith, knowing that at the time of its alleged acquisition, the petitioner was already in possession of said land and that petitioner had acquired prior right and interest over the same to the exclusion of the whole world; that the private respondent never gave notice to the petitioner of its alleged acquisition of the land in question and never demanded that the petitioner vacate said parcel of land; that private respondent has no cause of action against the petitioner, and that private respondent is barred by laches, prescription and/or estoppel. As counterclaim, petitioner asked for the value of the improvements he introduced on the land in question as well as for damages and attorney's fees.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Private respondent seasonably filed a reply and answer to the counter-claim. Trial followed. On August 17, 1968, the trial court rendered a decision ordering herein petitioner Nicolas Laurente to vacate the premises in question and to surrender the physical possession thereof to Manotok Realty, Inc. and adjudging petitioner liable to private respondent for monthly rentals in the amount of P168.00 from March 20, 1959 until he vacates the lot and P500.00 as attorney's fees.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, but to no avail. Hence, this petition for review, petitioner setting forth in his brief the following assignments of errors:

1. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the case falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance simply on the basis of the allegation in the complaint and the petitioner is in the material and physical possession of the land for more than one (1) year prior to the filing of the complaint, ignoring the fact that the action of ejectment was filed within one (1) year from the last notice to vacate; chanrobles virtual law library

2. Assuming, in gratia argumenti, without admitting that the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction over the case and subject matter thereof, the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the petitioner has not presented any evidence of ownership over the land in question nor may be considered as a possessor in good faith, ignoring the fact of payment, evidenced by Exhibit "1", to the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Manotok Realty, Inc. as well as the improvements that the petitioner has introduced in the premises in the nature of necessary and useful expenses. 2