This case involves an untitled residential lot declared for tax purposes in the name of Poldo which he inherited from his mother. The land was acquired by his mother from Mando through a "Kasulatan ng Pantuluyang Bilihan". At the time of the sale, Mando requested the permission of Poldo to build his house on a small portion of the property since he had nowhere to erect his dwelling. Being close relatives, Poldo acceded and allowed Mando to occupy a small portion of the lot where the latter constructed his house without paying any rent for its reasonable use and occupancy.
Unknown to Poldo however, Mando applied for issuance of title covering subject land with the DENR Regional Office. When Poldo learned of Mando’s design, he immediately opposed the application. He also demanded that Mando remove his house from the land and vacate the same. When Mando failed to heed his demand, Poldo filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against him before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) which has jurisdiction over ejectment cases.
In his answer, Mando denied Poldo’s ownership. He claimed to be the owner of the lot in question having inherited the same from his grandmother. He asserted that he had been in continuous possession for many years. To support his claim, he also presented a Tax Declaration and official receipts of tax payments. Based on these allegations, he asked the MTC to dismiss the case filed by Poldo as the issue involved was one of ownership, not mere possession of the land. The MTC granted Mando’s motion to dismiss. It ruled that it had no jurisdiction since the main issue of the case is one of ownership, not mere possession de facto.
Was the MTC correct ?
No.
Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint. Taking the allegations in the complaint as basis, there is no doubt that this case is one for unlawful detainer which the MTC has jurisdiction to hear and decide.
A person who occupies the land of another at the latter’s tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is necessarily bound by the implied promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing which, a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against him.
Mando’s claim of ownership cannot deprive the MTC of jurisdiction. In ejectment cases the defendant cannot deprive the court of jurisdiction by simply claiming ownership of the property involved. When the defendant raises the defense of ownership in his pleadings and the question of physical possession cannot be resolved without the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession. Should the MTC make any determination on the issue of ownership, the same shall not be conclusive and shall be without prejudice to the right of the parties to ventilate before the proper court their claims of ownership over said land (Perez vs. Cruz G.R. No. 142503, June 20, 2003).