8/3/2019 15 - Jakihaca vs. Aquino - CivPro(6)
1/2
JAKIHACA V AQUINO181 SCRA 67
PARAS; January 12, 1990
NATUREPetition to review the decision and order of theRegional
Trial Court of San Mateo, Rizal
FACTS- September 10, 1986 - Jesus Jakihaca filed anejectment
suit against respondents Lilia Aquino andApolonio, Aquino, and Jose
Toralde before the SanMateo RTC on account of the latter's refusal
toremove their houses were allegedly illegallyconstructed on land
owned by Jakihaca in San Mateowhich were done without his knowledge
and consent.- The matter was initially referred to the
BarangayCaptain of Ampid, San Mateo for conciliationprocesses
pursuant to the requirements of P.D. No.1508. But due to repeated
refusal of the Aquinos toappear before the Barangay Lupon, the
LuponChairman and Secretary thereafter issued a"certification to
file action."- November 3, 1986 The Aquinos filed an answer
with special and affirmative defenses, arguing that:- There was
a verbal contract of tenancybetween the Aquinos and Gloria Gener,
theformer owner of the land in question.- They planted
fruit-bearing trees on thesaid land along with rice and corn
thereforethey cannot be ejected under the LandReform Law more
particularly P.D. No. 1from the land which they had occupied
andcultivated for more than ten (10) years withthe consent of the
former owner Gener.- They said that there is no showing that
thecase was first brought to the attention ofthe Ministry of
Agrarian Reform forcertification that this case is proper for
trialbefore the MTC.
- December 22, 1987 The MTC found that theAquinos were not
tenants of either Gener nor Jakihaca and that they entered the land
10 or 20years earlier and built their house on the land withthe
tolerance of Gener. The respondents were thenordered by the Court
to remove the houses on theland and surrender possession to
Jakihaca.- On appeal to the RTC, the case was dismissed onthe
ground that the MTC acted without jurisdiction asthe complaint
shows nothing when the verbaldemand to remove the houses on the lot
of thepetitioner was made on the private respondents.- Jakihaca
filed a motion for reconsideration with theMTC which was denied.
Jakihaca alleged that theRTC erred in dismissing the case on the
ground ofthe MTCs lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.-
The Aquinos argued that the petition was filed out
of time; that the petition was filed with the wrongcourt; that
the Municipal Trial Court has nojurisdiction over the subject
matter of the action; andthat there was no allegation in the
complaint of priorphysical possession of the land by the
petitioner.
ISSUEWON the RTC ruling was correct
HELDNO
Reasoninga) With regard to the absence of allegation in
the complaint of prior physical possession ofthe land by
Jakihaca
- The records show that thecomplaint explicitly alleged
that"plaintiff verbally asked thedefendants to remove their
houseson the lot of the former but thelatter refused and still
refuse to doso without just and lawfulgrounds."
- Such is sufficient compliance withthe jurisdictional
requirements, inaccordance with the doctrine laiddown in the case
of Hautea v.Magallon where it was held that:"An allegation in an
originalcomplaint for illegal detainer thatin spite of demands made
by theplaintiff the defendants hadrefused to restore the land,
isconsidered sufficient compliancewith the jurisdictional
requirementof previous demand."
b) As to whether or not the demand wasbrought within the one
year period
- As a general rule, jurisdiction overthe subject matter of a
case maybe objected to at any stage of theproceeding even on
appeal, butthis is not without exception.
- It is not right for a party who hasaffirmed and invoked
thejurisdiction of a court in a particularmatter to secure an
affirmativerelief to afterwards deny that same jurisdiction to
escape penalty.(Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy)
c) As to the issue of lack of jurisdiction overthe subject
matter
- Petitioners, in their position paper,attached the report of
Mr. Mainesof the Agrarian Office whichcategorically states that
there is noevidence whatsoever to show thatthe subject land is
devoted to theproduction of rice and corn; thatthe occupants are
not sharing withthe present landowner, hence, theyare classified as
illegal occupants.
- That the subject land is nottenanted, not devoted to
theproduction of palsy and/or corn,hence, not covered by P.D. No.
27
or the Operation Land Transfer ofthe government.
d) As to the contention that the petition wasfiled out of
time
- They allege that when petitionerreceived the decision of the
RTC onApril 20,1988 and the appeal tothis Court was filed only on
July 12,1988 or only after three months,such appeal was definitely
outsidethe 15-day reglementary period
8/3/2019 15 - Jakihaca vs. Aquino - CivPro(6)
2/2
within which to appeal.
- The SC held that this contention iserroneous. The Rule on
SummaryProcedure applies only in casesfiled before the Metropolitan
TrialCourt and Municipal Trial Courts,pursuant to Section 36 of
BatasPambansa Blg. 129. Summaryprocedures have no application
tocases before the Regional TrialCourts. Hence, when therespondents
appealed the decisionof the MTC to the RTC, theapplicable rules are
those of thelatter court.
Disposition PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition ishereby GRANTED.
The decision dated April 8, 1988and the order dated June 25, 1988
both of theRegional Trial Court, Branch 76, San Mateo, Rizal,
inCivil Case No. 415, are hereby SET ASIDE. Thedecision of the
Municipal Trial Court of Sap Mateo,Rizal, dated December 22, 1987
in Civil Case No. 616is hereby REINSTATED.
