Canlas v Tubil

Rule 40, Sec 8 CANNOT apply to a case where the MTC has original jurisdiction and where the case was already decided on its merits.

FACTS:

Iluminada Tubil was the owner of a residential lot in Guagua, Pampanga. Rudy, Victoria and Felicidad Canlas erected a house on the aforementioned lot and occupied it as their residential house upon mere tolerance by the owner. Tubil now wanted to use the land fruitfully so demands were made to vacate the lot. Canlas refused so a complaint for unlawful detainer was filed by Tubil before the MTC. Canlas filed a motion to dismiss (MtD) on the grounds that the MTC was without jurisdiction over the subject matter and that the parties were not the real parties-in-interest.

MtD was denied. Canlas filed an answer stating that they were in open, continuous, and exclusive possession of the land; that Tubil’s title over the land issued by a Free Patent was dubious; that the action was actually accion publiciana which is beyond MTC’s jurisdiction.

MTC dismissed the complaint for unlawful detainer on the grounds that Tubil failed to show that there was mere tolerance. RTC affirmed. Respondent files a petition for review with the CA which reversed the MTC’s decision and ordered the RTC to decide on the merits of the case. Canlas now files a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the CA. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari contending that the RTC does not have original jurisdiction over the subject matter, thus, it cannot validly decide on the merits pursuant to Rule 40, Section 8, Paragraph 2 of the Rules of Court (RoC).

ISSUE:

Whether or not Rule 40, Section 8 is applicable in this case.

HELD:

NO.  Rule 40, Sec 8, par 2 states that “If the case was tried on the merits by the lower court without jurisdiction over the subject matter, the RTC on appeal shall not dismiss the case if it has original jurisdiction BUT shall decide the case without prejudice to the admission of amended pleadings and additional evidence…”

The SC held that the case was of unlawful detainer to which the MTC has original jurisdiction over the subject matter, not accion publiciana where the RTC has original jurisdiction.

Having ruled that the MTC acquired jurisdiction, it properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the complaint for failure of the respondent to prove mere tolerance by sufficient evidence. Rule 40, Section 8 of the RoC has no application in this case.

*Decision of the MTC is reinstated.

** Property Review:

Unlawful Detainer - an action to recover possession of real property from one who illegally withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied. The possession of the defendant in unlawful detainer is originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess.

-summary in nature, jurisdiction of which lies in the proper municipal trial court or metropolitan trial court. The action must be brought within one year from the date of last demand and the issue in said case is the right to physical possession.

Accion Publiciana - action to recover the right of possession which should be brought in the proper RTC when dispossession has lasted for more than one year. It is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title.

If at the time of the filing of the complaint, more than one year had elapsed since defendant had turned plaintiff out of possession or defendant’s possession had become illegal, the action will be, not one of forcible entry or illegal detainer, but an accion publiciana.