G.R. No. 111676 - SILVINA TORRES VDA. DE CRUZ, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PRISCILLA CRUZ-GATCHALIAN. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, after a careful scrutiny of the evidence submitted, the Court finds preponderance of evidence in favor of the Plaintiff, Priscilla Cruz-Gatchalian, and against the Defendant, Silvina Torres Vda. de Cruz, to vacate the lot consisting of 698 [9] sq. m. more or less covered by the Original Certificate of Title No. P-397-C located at San Nicolas, Bulacan, Bulacan and all person claiming rights under her, to pay P100.00 a month for the reasonable use of the property from the extra-judicial demand on May 29, 1989 until she vacates the premises and pay P500.00 as attorney's fee without pronouncement as to cost. Petitioner appealed the case to the Court of Appeals, which rendered the questioned decision. The appellate court upheld the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court and affirmed private respondent's right to material possession, as distinguished from possession de jure , of the property in question. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari . Petitioner argues that the primary issue in this case is the ownership of the land in question since private respondent relies on a certificate of title while she (petitioner) relies on a tax declaration in support of their respective right to the possession of the lot. She contends that the question of possession cannot be determined without first resolving the question of ownership. For this reason, petitioner maintains that the Municipal Trial Court has no jurisdiction over this case. [10] Petitioner cites the following excerpt from this Court's ruling in Dante v. Sison , [11] which is actually a quotation from the case of Ching v. Malaya : [12] There is one exception, however, and that is where it appears during the trial that, by the nature of the evidence presented, the issue of possession cannot be decided without deciding the issue of ownership. In such a case, the jurisdiction of the municipal court is lost and the action should be dismissed.... An illustration is the case of Teodoro v. Balatbat, where the defendant claims possession by virtue of a deed of sale allegedly executed by the plaintiff, who in turn denied its authenticity. As there was no indication that the defendant's claim was unfounded, the municipal court could not continue with the case because it had lost the competence to decide it. The contention has no merit. The excerpt quoted, as clearly indicated, states the exception. The ruling in Dante v. Sison, which is precisely against petitioner's position, is that an action for reconveyance or annulment of title filed by the defendant in an ejectment case cannot defeat the jurisdiction of the ejectment court. This Court held in Dante v. Sison : The only issue in this case is whether or not the hearing of an ejectment case in the Municipal Trial Court may be stayed by the pendency of an annulment of sale case, involving the same property, subsequently filed with the Regional Trial Court. We rule in the negative. In the recent decisions of this Court, we have repeatedly