Ruben Manalang, Carlos Manalang, Concepcion
Gonzales and Luis Manalang
vs
Bienvenido and Mercedes Bacani
G.R. No. 156995, January 12, 2015
Bersamin J.
FACTS:
The petitioners filed an action for unlawful detainer.
Petitioners were co-owners of a parcel of land which the
respondents had encroached upon a portion thereof. The
respondents refused to vacate the encroached portion and to
surrender peaceful possession thereof despite demands.
MTC dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
RTC reversed the decision of the MTC and remanded case on
appeal. MTC ultimately dismissed case. Another appeal to
RTC was made. RTC ordered the petitioners to conduct a
relocation survey to determine their allegation of
encroachment, and also heard the testimony of the
surveyor.
Issue
Whether or not the RTC in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction conduct a relocation and verification survey of lot
in question
Ruling
No. The RTC, in an appeal of the judgment in an
ejectment case, shall not conduct a rehearing or trial de
novo. In this connection, Section 18, Rule 70 of the Rules of
Court provides: Judgment conclusive only on possession;
not conclusive in actions involving title or ownership. The
judgment or final order shall be appealable to the
appropriate RTC which shall decide the same on the basis of
the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of
origin and such memoranda and/or briefs as may be
submitted by the parties or required by the RTC.
Hence, the RTC violated the foregoing rule by ordering
the conduct of the relocation and verification survey “in aid
of its appellate jurisdiction” and by hearing the testimony of
the surveyor, for its doing so was tantamount to its holding
of a trial de novo. The violation was accented by the fact
that the RTC ultimately decided the appeal based on the
survey and the surveyor’s testimony instead of the record of
the proceedings had in the court of origin.
Court of Appeals correctly held that a boundary dispute
must be resolved in the context of accion reivindicatoria, not
an ejectment case. The boundary dispute is not about
possession, but encroachment, that is, whether the property
claimed by the defendant formed part of the plaintiff’s
property. A boundary dispute cannot be settled summarily
under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, the proceedings under
which are limited to unlawful detainer and forcible entry. In
unlawful detainer, the defendant unlawfully withholds the
possession of the premises upon the expiration or
termination of his right to hold such possession under any
contract, express or implied. The defendant’s possession
was unlawful at the beginning, and the issue centers on
which between the plaintiff and the defendant had the prior
possession de facto.
The MTC dismissed the action because it did not have
jurisdiction over the case. The dismissal was correct. It is
fundamental that the allegations of the complaint and the
character of the relief sought by the complaint determine
the nature of the action and the court that has jurisdiction
over the action. To be clear, unlawful detainer of any land or
building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or
termination of the right to hold possession by virtue of any
contract, express or implied.
However, the allegations of the petitioners’ complaint
did not show that they had permitted or tolerated the
occupation of the portion of their property by the
respondents; or how the respondents’ entry had been
effected, or how and when the dispossession by the
respondents had started. All that the petitioners alleged was
the respondents’ “illegal use and occupation” of the
property. As such, the action was not unlawful detainer.
