G.R. No. 203760 - HOMER C. JAVIER, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, SUSAN G. CANENCIA, VS. SUSAN LUMONTAD.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly ordered respondent to vacate the disputed portion and surrender possession thereof to petitioner. Likewise, it ordered respondent to pay petitioner the amounts of ?5,000.00 a month from March 2007, until she vacates said portion, as reasonable compensation for its use and occupation, and ?20,000.00 as attorneys fees, including costs of suit. [24] Preliminarily, the RTC ruled that the facts averred in petitioners complaint namely, that petitioner, through his late father, owned and possessed the subject land, and that by means of force and intimidation, respondent gained entry thereto [25] show that his cause of action is indeed one of forcible entry that falls within the jurisdiction of the MTC. [26] On the merits, the RTC found that petitioner, being the owner and possessor of the property in question, has the right to be respected in his possession and that respondent forcibly and unlawfully deprived him of the same. [27] Unconvinced, respondent moved for reconsideration, [28] which was, however, denied in an Order [29] dated January 18, 2010, prompting petitioner to file an appeal before the CA. The CA Ruling In a Decision [30] dated September 29, 2011, the CA set aside the RTC ruling and remanded the case to the latter court for trial on the merits. [31] It held that the issue of possession of the subject land is intimately intertwined with the issue of ownership, such that the former issue cannot be determined without ruling on who really owns such land. Thus, it remanded the case to the RTC for trial on the merits in the exercise of the latters original jurisdiction in an action for recovery of ownership and possession pursuant to Section 8 (2), Rule 40 of the Rules of Court. [32] This notwithstanding, the CA still concluded that respondent had the subject building constructed in the concept of being the owner of the 172.80 sq. m. portion of the subject land. [33] In this relation, it was observed that petitioner gave a misleading description of TD No. 00-TY-002-11458, considering that said tax declaration only covered petitioners family house and not the subject land where said improvement was built, as petitioner alleged in his complaint. [34] In truth, the CA found that the subject land is separately covered by TD No. 00-TY-002-9660, [35] which was cancelled when the land was subdivided into two (2) lots, namely: (a) the 187.20 sq. m. lot covered by TD No. 00-TY-002-12825 [36] given by Vicente to petitioner; and (b) the 172.80 sq. m. lot covered by TD No. 00-TY-002-12824 [37] given by Vicente to Anthony, which the latter sold to respondent, resulting in the issuance of TD No. 00-TY-002-13031 [38] in her name. Further, the CA stated that petitioner was not able to sufficiently establish that respondent employed force and intimidation in entering the 172.80 sq. m. portion of the subject land as he failed to demonstrate the factual circumstances that occurred during his dispossession of said property. [39] Aggrieved, pet