G.R. No. 171678 - ROSA J. SALES, EARL RYAN CHENG AND EMIL RALPH CHENG, VS. WILLIAM BARRO.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly dismissed the petitioners' complaint. The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals decision reads: WHEREFORE , premises considered, we hereby GRANT the petition on the basis of the lower tribunals' lack of jurisdiction, and accordingly DISMISS respondents' ejectment complaint. SO ORDERED . [9] The petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the Court of Appeals denied the motion. Hence, this petition on the following grounds: I. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING PETITIONERS' EJECTMENT COMPLAINT ON THE ALLEGED GROUND THAT THE COMPLAINT FAILED TO STATE THE JURISDICTIONAL FACT OF PRIOR PHYSICAL POSSESSION. II. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS IN ESTOPPEL FROM QUESTIONING THE JURISDICTION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT ASSUMING, WITHOUT ADMITTING, THAT THE LOWER COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE COMPLAINT. [10] Simply put, we are asked to resolve: (1) whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the complaint; and (2) whether the respondent was already estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the MeTC. Anent the first issue, the petitioners argue that the complaint was for unlawful detainer, and hence, there was no need for them to allege prior physical possession of the lot. They further contend that their position that the complaint was for unlawful detainer is supported by the claim of the respondent in his answer that "he made a temporary makeshift structure on the lot to serve as his living place and that the same was tolerated by the petitioners considering that he acted as caretaker of the property. " [11] For his part, the respondent insists that the Court of Appeals was correct in dismissing the complaint. [12] After carefully examining the averments of the petitioners' complaint and the character of the reliefs sought therein, [13] we hold that the Court of Appeals did not err in finding that the complaint was for forcible entry, and that the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed it. There are two reasons why we could not subscribe to the petitioners' submission that their complaint was for unlawful detainer. Firstly, the petitioners' own averment in the complaint "that the defendant constructed a shanty in the lot of the plaintiffs without their consent," [14] and the relief asked for by the petitioners that the respondent and his wife "pay the amount of P10,000 a month beginning January 2004 as for reasonable rent of the subject premises ," [15] clearly contradict their claim. It must be highlighted that as admitted by the petitioners in their motion for reconsideration [16] before the appellate court, and as evidenced by the TCT No. 262237 annexed to the complaint, the petitioners became owners of the property only on January 6, 2004. By averring that the respondent constructed his shanty on the lot without their consent and then praying that the MeTC direct the respondent to pay them rent fro