Ejectment. - "If a defendant’s mere assertion of ownership in an ejectment case will not oust the MeTC of its summary jurisdiction, we fail to see why it should be any different in this case where petitioner merely alleged his lessor’s supposed title over the subject parcel."

HUBERT NUÑEZ vs. SLTEAS PHOENIX SOLUTIONS, INC., through its representative, CESAR SYLIANTENG, G.R. No. 180542, April 12, 2010

“x x x.

Petitioner is, finally, out on a limb in faulting the Court of Appeals with failure to apply the first paragraph of Article 1676 of the Civil Code of the Philippines45 in relation to the lease he claims to have concluded with one Maria Ysabel Potenciano Padilla Sylianteng. In the absence of proof of his lessor’s title or respondent’s prior knowledge of said contract of lease, petitioner’s harping over the same provision simply amounts to an implied admission that the premises occupied by him lie within the metes and bounds of the subject parcel. Even then, the resolution of said issue is clearly inappropriate since ejectment cases are summary actions intended to provide an expeditious manner for protecting possession or right to possession without involvement of title.46 Moreover, if a defendant’s mere assertion of ownership in an ejectment case will not oust the MeTC of its summary jurisdiction,47 we fail to see why it should be any different in this case where petitioner merely alleged his lessor’s supposed title over the subject parcel.

X x x.”