Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52996:gr-172217-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:28:52+00:00

Document:
SPOUSES LYDIA FLORES-CRUZ and REYNALDO I. CRUZ, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES LEONARDO and ILUMINADA GOLI-CRUZ, SPOUSES RICO and FELIZA DE LA CRUZ, SPOUSES BOY and LANI DE LA CRUZ, ZENAIDA A. JACINTO and ROGELIO DE LOS SANTOS, Respondents.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 of the August 23, 2005 decision2 and April 5, 2006 resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 81099.
On appeal by respondents to the CA, the latter, in a decision dated August 23, 2005, ruled that 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 detainer which should have been filed in the MTC. Thus, it ruled that the RTC decision was null and void. Reconsideration was denied on April 5, 2006.
The issue for our resolution is whether the RTC had jurisdiction over this case.
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 demand to vacate, the proper remedy was an action for unlawful detainer which should have been filed in the MTC.
The necessary allegations in a complaint for ejectment are set forth in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.18 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, 1999 and then found respondents occupying the property. Yet they demanded that respondents vacate only on March 2, 2001. It can be gleaned from their allegations that they had in fact permitted or tolerated respondents' occupancy.
Based on the allegations in petitioners' complaint, it is apparent that such is a complaint for unlawful detainer based on possession by tolerance of the owner.19 It is a settled rule that in order to justify such an action, the owner's permission or tolerance must be present at the beginning of the possession.20 Such jurisdictional facts are present here.
Since petitioners' complaint made out a case for unlawful detainer which should have been filed 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, including its decision, are null and void.34 It follows that the CA was correct in dismissing the case.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes and concurred in by Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto (retired) and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente of the Second Division of the Court of Appeals. Rollo, pp. 18-24.
5 Lot 30, Cad. 349. The property was declared under Property Index No. 99-1010-00931 of the Municipal Assessors Office of Angat, Bulacan. Id., p. 7.
7 Id., pp. 19 and 22.
8 Respondents made inquiries from the Municipal Assessors Office (in Pandi, Bulacan), Provincial Assessors Office and CENTRO Tabang, Guiguinto, Bulacan as to the status of the land. Information was given that it was alienable public land. Id., p. 20.
10 Docketed as Civil Case No. 516-M-2001. Id., p. 51.
11 Id., pp. 53 and 82.
13 Barbosa v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 133564, 10 July 2007, 527 SCRA 99, 103, citing Dimo Realty & Development, Inc. v. Dimaculangan, G.R. No. 130991, 11 March 2004, 425 SCRA 376 and Ching v. Malaya, G.R. No. L-56449, 31 August 1987, 153 SCRA 413.
14 Laresma v. Abellana, 484 Phil. 766, 777 (2004).
15 Barbosa v. Hernandez, supra note 13.
19 De la Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139442, 6 December 2006, 510 SCRA 103, 121.
20 Heirs of Melchor v. Melchor, 461 Phil. 437, 445 (2003), citing Go, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 415 Phil. 172 (2001).
21 Quinagoran v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 155179, 24 August 2007, 531 SCRA 104, 111.
22 An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, [MTCs], and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Amending for the Purpose Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. It amended [BP 129] (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), was approved on March 25, 1994 and took effect on April 15, 1994.
23 Laresma v. Abellana, supra note 14, p. 782.
(2) 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 for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, [MTCs], and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
25 Barbosa v. Hernandez, supra note 13, p. 105.
26 Id.; De Barrera v. Heirs of Vicente Legaspi, G.R. No. 174346, 12 September 2008.
27 PAG-ASA Fishpond Corporation v. Jimenez, G.R. No. 164912, 18 June 2008, 555 SCRA 111, 130, citations omitted.
28 Republic of the Phil. v. Estipular, 391 Phil. 211, 218 (2000).
29 Suarez v. Saul, G.R. No. 166664, 20 October 2005, 473 SCRA 628, 637.
30 Laresma v. Abellana, supra note 14, pp. 782-783.
32 Quinagoran v. Court of Appeals, supra note 21, p. 115.
33 De Barrera v. Heirs of Vicente Legaspi, supra note 26; Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130841, 26 February 2008, 546 SCRA 532, 542; Dela Rosa v. Roldan, G.R. No. 133882, 5 September 2006, 501 SCRA 34, 57; Hilario v. Salvador, G.R. No. 160384, 29 April 2005, 457 SCRA 815, 825, citation omitted.
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 jurisdiction right after it was filed.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.