Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53064:gr-184285-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 11:59:56+00:00

Document:
RODOLFO "RUDY" CANLAS, VICTORIA CANLAS, FELICIDAD CANLAS and SPOUSES PABLO CANLAS AND CHARITO CANLAS, Petitioners, v. ILUMINADA TUBIL, Respondent.
Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari is the June 12, 2008 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 99736, which reversed the April 11, 2007 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guagua, Pampanga, Branch 50, in Special Civil Case No. G-06-544, and ordered said Regional Trial Court to decide the case on merits, pursuant to Section 8, par. 2 of Rule 40 of the Rules of Court. The RTC affirmed the Decision3 of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Guagua, Pampanga, Branch 2, which dismissed Civil Case No. 3582 for unlawful detainer filed by respondent Iluminada Tubil. Also assailed is the September 1, 2008 Resolution4 of the Court of Appeals which denied the Motion for Reconsideration.
On October 23, 2006, the MTC rendered judgment dismissing the complaint for unlawful detainer because respondent failed to show that the possession of the petitioners was by mere tolerance.
Respondent appealed to the RTC which rendered its Decision on April 11, 2007 affirming in toto the judgment of the MTC. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied in an Order9 dated June 8, 2007.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered by us SETTING ASIDE the decision rendered by Branch 50 of the RTC in Guagua, Pampanga on April 11, 2007 in Special Civil Case No. G-06-544 and ORDERING the said regional trial court branch to decide Special Civil Case No. G-06-544 on the merits based on the entire record of the proceedings had in the Municipal Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga in Civil Case No. 3582 and such memoranda as are filed therewith, without prejudice to the admission of amended pleadings and additional evidence in the interest of justice, pursuant to par. 2 of Section 8 of Rule 40 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court.
We note that when petitioners filed their motion to dismiss before the MTC, they claimed that it is the RTC which has jurisdiction over the subject matter. However, in the instant Petition for Review, petitioners changed their theory; they now claim that it is the MTC, and not the RTC, which has jurisdiction over the subject matter since the dispossession was only for five months counted from respondent's last demand to the filing of the complaint for unlawful detainer before the MTC.
As a rule, a change of theory cannot be allowed.13 However, when the factual bases thereof would not require presentation of any further evidence by the adverse party in order to enable it to properly meet the issue raised in the new theory,14 as in this case, the Court may give due course to the petition and resolve the principal issues raised therein.
The issue to be resolved is which court, the MTC or the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter. If it is an unlawful detainer case, the action was properly filed in the MTC. However, if the suit is one for accion publiciana, original jurisdiction is with the RTC, which is mandated not to dismiss the appeal but to decide the case on the merits pursuant to Section 8 of Rule 40 of the Rules of Court.
On the other hand, accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the right of possession which should be brought in the proper regional trial court when dispossession has lasted for more than one year. It is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title. In other words, if at the time of the filing of the complaint, more than one year had elapsed since defendant had turned plaintiff out of possession or defendant's possession had become illegal, the action will be, not one of forcible entry or illegal detainer, but an accion publiciana.
(4) within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.
In the instant case, respondent's allegations in the complaint clearly make a case for an unlawful detainer, essential to confer jurisdiction on the MTC over the subject matter. Respondent alleged that she was the owner of the land as shown by Original Certificate of Title No. 111999 issued by the Register of Deeds of Pampanga; that the land had been declared for taxation purposes and she had been paying the taxes thereon; that petitioners' entry and construction of their houses were tolerated as they are relatives; and that she sent on January 12, 2004 a letter demanding that petitioners vacate the property but they failed and refused to do so. The complaint for unlawful detainer was filed on June 9, 2004, or within one year from the time the last demand to vacate was made.
The ruling in the Sarona case cited by petitioner i.e., that a complaint for unlawful detainer should allege when and how entry on the land was made by the defendant, finds no application to the case at bar. In Sarona, the main issue was the timeliness of the filing of the complaint before the MTC. In forcible entry cases, the prescriptive period is counted from the date of defendant's actual entry on the land; in unlawful detainer, from the date of the last demand to vacate. Hence, to determine whether the case was filed on time, there was a necessity to ascertain whether the complaint was one for forcible entry or unlawful detainer. In light of these considerations, the Court ruled that since the main distinction between the two actions is when and how defendant entered the land, the determinative facts should be alleged in the complaint. Thus, in Sarona, the jurisdiction of the MTC over the complaint was never in issue for whether the complaint was one for forcible entry or unlawful detainer, the MTC had jurisdiction over it. The case at bar is different for at issue is the jurisdiction of the MTC over the unlawful detainer case for petitioner (defendant therein) asserts that the case is one for accion publiciana cognizable by the RTC.
In the instant case, the timeliness of the filing of the complaint is not at issue as the dispossession of the property by the respondent has not lasted for more than one year. Thus, the ruling of the RTC that the length of time she was dispossessed of the property is almost 36 years, which made her cause of action beyond the ambit of unlawful detainer and became one for accion publiciana,27 lacks legal and factual basis.
Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court allows a plaintiff to bring an action in the proper inferior court for unlawful detainer within one year, after such unlawful withholding of possession, counted from the date of the last demand.28 The records show that respondent sent the demand to vacate the property to the petitioners on January 24, 2004 and filed the complaint for unlawful detainer on June 9, 2004, which is well within the one-year period.
Having ruled that the MTC acquired jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 3582, it thus properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the complaint for unlawful detainer for failure of the respondent to prove tolerance by sufficient evidence. Consquently, Section 8 (2nd par.) of Rule 40 of the Rules of Court which ordains the Regional Trial Court not to dismiss the cases appealed to it from the metropolitan or municipal trial court which tried the same albeit without jurisdiction, but to decide the said case on the merits, finds no application here.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The June 12, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 99736 ordering the Regional Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga, Branch 50 to decide Special Civil Case No. G-06-544, as well as its September 1, 2008 Resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The October 23, 2006 Decision of the MTC of Guagua, Pampanga, Branch 2, dismissing the complaint for unlawful detainer for failure of respondent to show that petitioners' possession of the subject property was by mere tolerance is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED.
1 Rollo, pp. 24-27; penned by Associate Justice Isaias Dican and concurred in by Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Ramon R. Garcia.
2 Id. at 57-64; penned by Judge Gregorio J. Pimentel, Jr.
3 Id. at 48-56; penned by Judge Eda P. Dizon-Era.
6 Records (1), pp. 34-37.
13 Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159270, August 22, 2005, 467 SCRA 569, 584.
14 Quasha Ancheta PeÃ±a and Nolasco Law Office v. LCN Construction Corporation, G.R. No. 174873, August 26, 2008.
15 Domalsin v. Valenciano, G.R. No. 158687, January 25, 2006, 480 SCRA 114, 133.
17 Valdez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132424, May 4, 2006, 489 SCRA 369, 376.
19 G.R. No. 164213, April 21, 2009.
20 Habagat Grill v. DMC-Urban Property Developer, Inc., 494 Phil. 603, 611 (2005).
21 G.R. No. 116192, November 16, 1995, 250 SCRA 108.
24 Heirs of Rafael Magpily v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 167748, November 8, 2005, 474 SCRA 366, 378.
25 Supra note 20 at 115.
26 333 Phil. 331, 340 (1996).
28 Heirs of Fernando Vinzons v. Court of Appeals, 374 Phil. 146, 152 (1999).

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