THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 238640, July 01, 2020
PROCESO CRUZ, TERESITA CRUZ, HENRY CRUZ, AND SERAFIN CRUZ, PETITIONERS, V. COURT OF APPEALS, AND JOVITA M. CRUZ, MANUEL M. CRUZ, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS, NAMELY: KALAYAAN LLANES-CRUZ, CRISPIN LLANES-CRUZ, AND ANGELO LLANES-CRUZ, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
CARANDANG, J.:
3. Plaintiffs are the legitimate and surviving compulsory heirs of the late spouses Domingo Cruz and Maria Mesina, who both died intestate on 19 March 1944 and 23 March 1989, respectively, and in whose name, along with their deceased brother and sister, Francisco M. Cruz and Zenaida C. Cruz, a parcel of land with improvements situated at No. 1232 Asturias Street, Sampaloc, Manila is registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 125109 issued on 10 March 1977 by the Registry of Deeds for the Metro Manila District No. 1 x x x.After the institution of the ejectment complaint, respondents sold the Asturias and Antonio properties to the spouses Rudy and Modesta Velasco (Spouses Velasco). Thus, presently, the properties are covered by TCT Nos. 268854 and 268853 under the name of the Spouses Velasco.16
4. The subject property was inherited by Leocadia Cruz, Regina M. Cruz (deceased) and Ladislao M. Cruz (deceased) from their parents, the late spouses Domingo Cruz and Catalina Mesina.
5. During their lifetime, the aforenamed Leocadia Cruz, Regina M. Cruz (deceased) and Ladislao M. Cruz (deceased) sold the subject property to Maria Mesina and was registered in her name under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 97567 x x x.
6. In turn, plaintiffs [herein respondents] acquired the aforedescribed property from their deceased mother, Maria Mesina, by virtue of a Deed of Conveyance dated 22 November 1975 in accordance with the Decision rendered by the then Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XL, in Civil Case No. 98074 entitled "Sps. Dr. Virgilio W. Cabral, et. al., versus Maria Mesina" x x x.
7. Defendant Teresita Cruz-Carlos no longer occupied the premises and through the mere tolerance of plaintiffs as well as their late mother, defendants Proceso and Henry Cruz and their "families, were allowed to continue occupying the said property temporarily on condition that they would vacate the same upon demand.
x x x x
9. The aforementioned demand to vacate was repeated several times more, the last of which were separate letters of plaintiffs' counsel dated 23 January 2004 x x x.15cralawlawlibrary
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the [petitioners] PROCESO CRUZ, TERESITA C. CRUZ, HENRY CRUZ AND SERAFIN CRUZ, and all persons claiming rights under them, to vacate the subject lots situated at No. 1236-1240 Antonio Street, Sampaloc Manila and No. 1232 Asturias Street, Sampaloc Manila and to surrender the possession thereof to [respondents].Petitioners appealed the Decision of the MeTC. On July 16, 2013, the RTC rendered a Decision denying the appeal and affirming the Decision of the MeTC.20 Thereafter, petitioners filed a Petition for Review under Rule 42 before the CA assailing the MeTC and the RTC Decisions. Petitioners alleged before the CA that the RTC erred in deciding the ejectment case against Serafin since he was not a party to the ejectment case and that the Antonio property was not the subject matter of the ejectment case. On July 10, 2017, the CA denied the petition and affirmed the MeTC and RTC rulings.21 Thus, petitioners come before Us through a Petition for Certiorari22 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court arguing that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming the Decisions of the RTC and MeTC despite the latter's lack of jurisdiction over the Antonio property.
Further, [petitioners] are ordered to pay [respondents]:
a. the amount of P10,000.00 per month (insofar as [petitioner] Serafin Cruz) and P20,000.00 per month (jointly and severally insofar as [petitioners] Proceso Cruz, Henry Cruz and Teresita Cruz) as reasonable compensation for their use and occupation of the subject premises from June 2004 (the date of filing of the complaint) until the same is vacated.
b. the amount of P10,000.00 as and for attorney's fees; and
c. the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.19 (Emphasis omitted)
35. On the propriety of the judgment thus rendered by the court a quo, the issue must be resolved taking into mind that the Antonio property was not specifically mentioned in the complaint. The fact that the judgment included the said property in its Decision, particularly in the decretal portion of which, shall not affect the said property and shall not have any bearing whatsoever with respect to the right adjudicated in favor of the [respondents] involving the Asturias property.26 (Emphasis supplied)Since petitioners do not question their eviction from the Asturias property, the only controversy in the present case is whether the MeTC has the jurisdiction to order petitioner Serafin to vacate the Antonio property.
Here, there is nothing in the complaint to show that petitioner Serafin's possession of the Antonio property was initially legal and that upon termination of the latter's right to possess the property, he still remained in the premises thereby depriving the respondents to enjoy the same. While respondents alleged during trial in the MeTC that petitioner Serafin failed to pay his monthly rent and that because of this, respondents demanded petitioner Serafin to vacate the Antonio property, the said allegations do not appear in the four corners of the complaint. Jurisdiction of the MeTC over the subject matter, i.e. the Antonio property, is determined by the allegations in the complaint, not by the allegations testified or proved during the trial. As there is nothing about the Antonio property in the Complaint for Unlawful Detainer, the MeTC has no jurisdiction to include the same in its disposition.
a. that initially, the possession of the property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; b. eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant, of the termination of the latter's right of possession; c. thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and d. within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.31
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendants PROCESO CRUZ, TERESITA' C. CRUZ AND HENRY CRUZ, and all persons claiming rights under them, to vacate the subject lot situated at No. 1232 Asturias Street, Sampaloc Manila and to surrender the possession thereof to plaintiffs.Leonen, Gesmundo, Zalameda and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Further, defendants PROCESO CRUZ, TERESITA C. CRUZ AND HENRY CRUZ are ordered to pay plaintiffs, jointly and severally, the following:SO ORDERED.
a. the amount of P20,000.00 per month as reasonable compensation for their use and occupation of the lot located at No. 1232 Asturias Street, Sampaloc Manila from June 2004 (the date of filing of the complaint) until the same is vacated. b. the amount of P10,000.00 as and for attorney's fees; and c. the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours, (Sgd.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 3-17.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Socorro B. Inting; id. at 19-28.
3 Id. at 20, 31-37.
4 Id. at 6-8.
5 Id. at 20.
6 Supra note 2.
7Rollo, p. 20.
8 Id. at 40.
9 Penned by Judge Pedro D. Cenzon; id. at 42-43.
10 Id. at 33.
11 Id. at 33.
12 Id. at 20.
13 Id. at 44-45.
14 Id. at 31-35.
15 Id. at 32-33.
16 Id. at 20.
17 Id. at 21.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 Id. at 8.
21 Id. at 26-27.
22 Id. at 3-17.
23 Id. at 9-16.
24 Id.
25 Id. at 67-74.
26 Id. at 12.
27Mercado v. Valley Mountain Mines Exploration, Inc. 667 Phil. 13, 51 (2011).
28Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation v. Bureau of Customs, 760 Phil. 954, 960 (2015).
29Spouses Santiago v. Northbay Knitting Inc., 820 Phil. 157 (2017).
30Tumpag vs. Tumpag, 744 Phil. 423, 433 (2014)
31Spouses Santiago vs. Northbay Knitting Inc., supra note 29.
32Javelosa v. Tapus, G.R. No. 204361, July 4, 2018.
33Dare Adventure Farm Corp. v. Court of Appeals 695 Phil. 681, 690 (2012).chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary