April 2016 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 204314, April 06, 2016 - HEIRS OF DANILO ARRIENDA, ROSA G. ARRIENDA, MA. CHARINA ROSE ARRIENDA-ROMANO, MA. CARMELLIE ARRIENDA-MARA, DANILO MARIA ALVIN G. ARRIENDA, JR., AND JESUS FRANCIS DOMINIC G. ARRIENDA, Petitioners, v. ROSARIO KALAW, Respondent.
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 204314, April 06, 2016
HEIRS OF DANILO ARRIENDA, ROSA G. ARRIENDA, MA. CHARINA ROSE ARRIENDA-ROMANO, MA. CARMELLIE ARRIENDA-MARA, DANILO MARIA ALVIN G. ARRIENDA, JR., AND JESUS FRANCIS DOMINIC G. ARRIENDA, Petitioners, v. ROSARIO KALAW, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision1 and Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated April 26, 2012 and October 30, 2012, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 118687. The assailed CA Decision reversed and set aside the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba City, Branch 35, in an unlawful detainer case docketed as Civil Case No. 3361-03-C, while the CA Resolution denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
The facts of the case are as follows:
On January 18, 2001, Danilo Arrienda (Arrienda) filed against herein respondent and three other persons a Complaint3 for unlawful detainer with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Calauan, Laguna, alleging that: he is the owner of an 11,635 square-meter parcel of land located along National Road, Barangay Lamot 2, Calauan, Laguna; the seller of the property warranted that the same is not tenanted and is free from any occupants or claimants; despite such warranty, Arrienda later discovered, that a portion of it was actually being occupied by herein respondent and the other defendants; after talking to respondent and the other defendants, petitioner allowed them to continue occupying the premises in which they have settled, subject to the condition that they will immediately vacate the same upon prior notice by Arrienda that he will be needing it; sometime in November 2000, Arrienda, informed respondent and the other defendants of his intention to use the subject land; despite repeated demands, the last of which was a letter dated December 7, 2000, respondent and the other defendants failed and refused to vacate the disputed premises. Hence, the complaint, praying that respondent and the other defendants be ordered to vacate the premises and restore possession thereof to Arrienda; to pay a reasonable amount for the use and occupation of the same; and to pay moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit.
In her Answer with Counterclaims,4 respondent denied the material allegations in Arrienda's Complaint and contended that: the MTC has no jurisdiction over the nature of the action, considering that the main issue in the case is the ownership of the disputed lot and not simply who among the parties is entitled to possession de facto of the same; the issue of ownership converts the unlawful detainer suit into one which is incapable of pecuniary estimation and, as such, the case should be placed under the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC; the subject lot is an agricultural land of which respondent was a tenant; she and her family later obtained ownership over the subject property when their landlord donated the said property to them; Arrienda failed to secure a Certification from the Department of Agrarian Reform that the disputed premises is not really an agricultural land, which is a condition precedent in the filing of the case. As counterclaim, respondent alleged that, by reason of Arrienda's bad faith, greed and malice in filing the complaint, she suffered from anxiety, wounded feelings and similar injuries and was forced to engage the services of a counsel to defend her rights. As such, she prayed that Arrienda be ordered to pay moral damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and other reliefs which the court may deem just and equitable.
The other defendants adopted respondent's Answer with Counterclaim.
After Arrienda filed his Reply,5 the parties subsequently submitted their Position Papers.
On November 20, 2002, the MTC rendered its Decision6 dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, holding as follows:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
x x x xThe counterclaims of respondent and the other defendants were likewise dismissed on the ground that the complaint was not maliciously filed.
[I]t is well settled that the mere allegation by the defendant in an ejectment case that he is the owner of the property involved therein does not and cannot divest the inferior court of its jurisdiction over the case. But if [it] appears during the trial that by the nature of proof presented, the question of possession cannot be properly determined without settling that of ownership, then the jurisdiction of the court is lost and action should be DISMISSED. x x x Further, Plaintiff must not only prove his ownership of the property but must also identify the land he claim[s] to remove uncertainties.7
x x x x
On appeal by Arrienda, the RTC agreed with the MTC that jurisdiction lies with the RTC. The RTC then took cognizance of the case and conducted trial. On April 6, 2010, the RTC rendered its Decision disposing as follows:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendants-appellees Rosario Kalaw, Felix Taklan, Maximo Valenzuela and Fclicidad Ulan and all persons claiming rights under them to vacate the parcel of land situated at National Road, Barangay Lamot 2, Calauan, Laguna, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-204409 containing an area of 11,635 square meters, more or less, and restore the same to the plaintiff-appellant Danilo T. Arrienda. The defendants are likewise ordered to pay plaintiff the sum of P10,000.00 as attorney's fees and the sum of P500.00 per month as reasonable rental for the use and occupation of the premises beginning January 2001 until the premises are finally vacated.In so ruling, the RTC held that since it was established that Arrienda is the owner of the subject lot, he is, under the law, entitled to all the attributes of ownership of the property, including possession thereof.
SO ORDERED.8ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Aggrieved by the RTC Decision, respondent filed a petition for review with the CA. Pending resolution of respondent's appeal, Arrienda died and was substituted by his heirs.
On April 26, 2012, the CA promulgated its assailed Decision reversing and setting aside the RTC Decision. The CA held that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the case for Arrienda's failure to allege the assessed value of the subject property and, as a consequence, the assailed RTC Decision is null and void.
Herein petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration, but the CA denied it in its October 30, 2012 Resolution.
Hence, the instant petition based on the following grounds:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The petition is meritorious.I
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS MUST HAVE BEEN CONFUSED WITH THE ORIGINAL AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS.II
IT BEING OBVIOUS, AND AS SO ADMITTED BY THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS THAT "IN THIS CASE, ARRIENDA'S COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER DATED 17 JANUARY 2001 WAS FIRST FILED WITH THE MTC OF CALAUAN, LAGUNA," THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING: "THUS, FOR FAILURE OF ARRIENDA TO DISCLOSE THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN HIS COMPLAINT, THE COURT A QUO IS BEREFT OF JURISDICTION OF TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE CASE. WITHOUT ANY JURISDICTION THEN, THE ASSAILED DECISION AND RESOLUTION ARE NULL AND VOID."III
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE QUESTIONED APRIL 26, 2012 DECISION AND OCTOBER 30, 2012 RESOLUTION OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS WOULD WIPE OUT SECTION 8, RULE 40 ON "APPEAL FROM ORDERS DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT TRIAL; LACK OF JURISDICTION" FROM THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, IF NOT NULLIFIED BY THIS HONORABLE SUPREME COURT.9ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The basic issue in the instant petition is whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over Arrienda's appeal of the MTC Decision.
The Court rules in the affirmative.
It bears to reiterate that under Batas Pambansa Bilang. 129 (B.P. Blg. 129), as amended by Republic Act No. 7691 (RA 7691), RTCs are endowed with original and appellate jurisdictions.
For purposes of the present petition, Section 19 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended, provides for the RTCs' exclusive original jurisdiction in civil cases involving title to or possession of real property or any interest therein, pertinent portions of which read as follows:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.- Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:Based on the amendments introduced by RA 7691, real actions no longer reside under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTCs. Under the said amendments, Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs) and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs) now have jurisdiction over real actions if the assessed value of the property involved does not exceed P20,000.00, or in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed P50,000.00. Otherwise, if the assessed value exceeds P20,000.00 or P50,000.00, as the case may be, jurisdiction is with the RTC.
x x x x
In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00), except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
x x x
On the other hand, the RTCs' appellate jurisdiction, as contrasted to its original jurisdiction, is provided in Section 22 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended, thus:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SECTION 22. Appellate jurisdiction.