G.R. No. 160914 - MARCELA M. DELA CRUZ, VS. ANTONIO O. HERMANO AND HIS WIFE REMEDIOS HERMANO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant petition for review is hereby GRANTED and the assailed 18 March 2003 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay [City], Branch 18, in Civil Case No. TG-2320, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. ACCORDINGLY , petitioner Antonio Hermano is hereby declared the lawful possessor of the property located at Lot 2, Block 2, P.B. Constantino Subdivision, Tagaytay City covered by Transfer Certificate Title No. T-24503 of the Registry of Deeds of Tagaytay City. Mercy dela Cruz is hereby ordered to VACATE the premises in question and surrender the possession thereof to Antonio Hermano. SO ORDERED . [18] The reversal by the CA of the rulings of the courts a quo was based on its finding that the case was an ejectment complaint for forcible entry, and that Antonio had sufficiently alleged and proved prior physical possession, as well as petitioners entry and possession by stealth. [19] Further, the appellate court found that the case was file within the one-year time bar for an ejectment suit, as Antonio came to know of petitioners possession only on 1 September 2001. [20] Accordingly, it ruled that the MTCC erred in dismissing the case. It pointed out that under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the inferior courts now retain jurisdiction over an ejectment case, even if the question of possession cannot be resolved without passing upon the issue of ownership. They retain jurisdiction, provided that the resolution of the issue of ownership shall only be for the purpose of determining the issue of possession. [21] Hence, this Petition for Review. ISSUE The issue for resolution is whether Antonio has adequately pleaded and proved a case of forcible entry. THE COURTS RULING The Court GRANTS the Petition. At the outset, the Court notes that the arguments raised here necessarily require a reevaluation of the parties submissions and the CAs factual findings. Ordinarily, this course of action is proscribed in a petition for review on certiorari; that is, a Rule 45 petition resolves only questions of law, not questions of fact. Moreover, factual findings of the CA are generally conclusive on the parties and are therefore not reviewable by this Court. By way of exception, however, the Court resolves factual issues when the findings of the MTCC and of the RTC differ from those of the CA, as in this case. [22] After an exhaustive review of the case record, the Court finds that the Complaint was sufficient in form and substance, but that there was no proof of prior physical possession by respondents. The Complaints allegations sufficiently established the jurisdictional facts required in forcible entry cases. Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, requires that in actions for forcible entry, it must be alleged that the complainant was deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, and that the action was filed anytime within one year from the time the unlawful depriva