HUBERT NUÑEZ vs. SLTEAS PHOENIX SOLUTIONS, INC.,
through its representative, CESAR SYLIANTENG,
G.R. No. 180542, April 12, 2010
“x x x.
Designed to provide an expeditious means of protecting
actual possession or the right to possession of the property involved,19 there can be no gainsaying the fact
that ejectment cases fall within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of
first level courts20 by express provision of Section 33 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, in relation to Sec. 1, Rule 70 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.21 In addition to being conferred by law,22 however, a court’s jurisdiction over
the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint23 and the character of the relief sought,24irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff
is entitled to recover all or some of the claims asserted therein.25 In much the same way that it cannot be
made to depend on the exclusive characterization of the case by one of the
parties,26 jurisdiction cannot be made to depend
upon the defenses set up in the answer, in a motion to dismiss or in a motion
for reconsideration.27
The rule is no different in actions for forcible entry where the following requisites are essential for the MeTC’s acquisition of jurisdiction over the case, viz.: (a) the plaintiffs must allege their prior physical possession of the property; (b) they must assert that they were deprived of possession either by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth; and, (c) the action must be filed within one (1) year from the time the owners or legal possessors learned of their deprivation of the physical possession of the property.28 As it is not essential that the complaint should expressly employ the language of the law, it is considered a sufficient compliance of the requirement where the facts are set up showing that dispossession took place under said conditions.29 The one-year period within which to bring an action for forcible entry is generally counted from the date of actual entry on the land, except that when the entry is through stealth, the one-year period is counted from the time the plaintiff learned thereof.30
X x x.”
Footnotes/Citations:
21 Section 1. Who may institute
proceedings, and when. – Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding
section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or
other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully
withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession,
by virtue of a contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives or
assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person may at anytime
within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of
possession, bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the
person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any
person or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession,
together with damages and costs.
43 Gateway Electronics Corporation v.
Asianbank Corporation, G.R. No. 172041, 18 December 2008, 574 SCRA 698,
718-719.
45 Art. 1676. The purchaser of a piece of
land which is under a lease that is not recorded in the Registry of Property
may terminate the lease, save when there is a stipulation to the contrary in
the contract of sale, or when the purchaser knows of the existence of the
lease.
