G.R. No. 170247 - HEIRS OF BENJAMIN MENDOZA, NAMELY: PACITA MENDOZA, VICTOR MENDOZA, JOSE MENDOZA, CESAR MENDOZA, EFREN MENDOZA, EDWARDO MENDOZA, EDNA MENDOZA AND BEVERLY MENDOZA, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND J.A. DEVELOPMENT CORP..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this complaint must perforce be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction of this court for the reasons already afore-discussed. The counterclaim is likewise dismissed. The MTC's ratio decidendi in arriving at the dispositive portion, reads: It largely appears from the evidence so far submitted by the defendant in this case that the issue of ownership is yet to be resolved in the Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay City. While it may be true and jurisprudence are already legion that the issue of ownership if closely interrelated and intertwined with the issue of possession in an ejectment case, the first level court can pass upon such issue of ownership if only to determine the issue of possession. But it cannot find any application in this case where the issue of ownership is generally in issue, and the issue of possession cannot be determined without dwelling into the issue of ownership; thus, it is beyond the jurisdiction of this court to do so. Petitioner appealed the decision to the Regional Trial Court which affirmed in toto the decision rendered by the lower court. In its Decision dated December 13, 2002, the decretal portion states: WHEREFORE, finding no error in the judgment appealed from, the decision rendered by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Tagaytay City on December 18, 2001 in Civil Case No. 442-2002 is hereby affirmed en toto ( sic ), with costs against herein Plaintiff-Appellant. (Citations Omitted) (Emphasis supplied) [6] The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC and remanded the case to the MTCC for proper disposition principally on the ground that the prior action instituted in another court involving the subject property-- i.e., Civil Case No. TG-1904 lodged with the RTC, Branch 18, Tagaytay City, the partial decision which had already been set aside--could not abate the present action for ejectment. Petitioners (respondents in CA-G.R. SP No. 75607) filed a Motion for Reconsideration [7] on the ground that they were not furnished a copy of the petition for review nor of the appellate court's decision. The motion was denied in the Resolution [8] dated 27 October 2005, with the Court of Appeals stating that the registry receipt (attached to the petition for review filed by respondent herein) indicates petitioners' receipt of the petition for review. Likewise, the return cards show that petitioners received their copy of the 27 February 2003 Resolution requiring them to comment on the petition as well as of the 23 January 2004 Decision on 10 March 2003 and 28 January 2004, respectively. The issue presented by petitioners in this Petition for Review, [9] dated 7 December 2005 is essentially the same as that they posed in their motion for reconsideration. They contend that despite the fact that their predecessor-in-interest, Benjamin Mendoza, was represented by the same counsel throughout the proceedings in the MTCC and the RTC, said counsel was not duly served by respondent wi