Case Digest (G.R. No. 205630)
Facts:
The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by Diana Barber, Rex Jimeno, Jacquelyn Beado, and Rochelle Tan (collectively referred to as petitioners) against Rolando Chua (respondent). The events leading to the case began on August 10, 2007, when Rolando Chua filed a complaint for ejectment against Diana Barber, alleging that she had unlawfully constructed a portion of her second-floor house on top of his firewall, which encroached upon his property. The complaint was lodged with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Cainta, Rizal, under Civil Case No. MTC-1259. The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the MTC lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter and that the complaint did not pertain to material possession but rather to the removal of structures encroaching on the firewall. They contended that the firewall could not be the subject of an ejectment case and that the action was one for specific performance, which fell under the Regional Trial C...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 205630)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
- Rolando Chua (respondent) filed a complaint for ejectment against Diana Barber, Rex Jimeno, Jaquelyn Beado, and Rochelle Tan (petitioners) on 10 August 2007. The complaint was filed with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Cainta, Rizal, docketed as Civil Case No. MTC-1259.
- Respondent alleged that Diana Barber, his neighbor, constructed a portion of the second floor of her house on top of his firewall without his consent.
Petitioners' Defense:
- Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the MTC lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter and Barber's person. They claimed the complaint did not involve physical possession of land or a building but rather the removal of structures encroaching on the firewall, which they argued is not a subject of ejectment.
- They also contended that the case should be treated as one for specific performance, falling under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
- Petitioners further argued that Barber, a U.S. citizen and permanent resident, was not properly served with summons, as she was out of the country at the time of service.
MTC Ruling:
- The MTC dismissed the complaint on 04 August 2009, ruling that the complaint failed to allege stealth or tolerance, which are necessary for an ejectment case. It also held that the firewall could not be the subject of an ejectment case.
RTC Ruling:
- On appeal, the RTC reversed the MTC's decision, finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action for forcible entry. The RTC ruled that a firewall, being an immovable property under Article 415 of the Civil Code, could be the subject of an ejectment case.
CA Ruling:
- The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, holding that petitioners' construction on the firewall constituted unlawful dispossession. The CA also ruled that the MTC validly acquired jurisdiction over Barber's person through substituted service of summons.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
- Jurisdiction in Ejectment Cases: The jurisdiction of the court and the nature of the action are determined by the allegations in the complaint. For an ejectment case, the complaint must allege dispossession by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth within one year from the unlawful deprivation of possession. The Court found that respondent's complaint met these requirements, as it detailed how petitioners encroached on his firewall without consent, constituting dispossession by stealth.
- Firewall as Subject of Ejectment: The Court ruled that a firewall, being an immovable property under Article 415 of the Civil Code, can be the subject of an ejectment case. The owner of a property has rights not only to the land's surface but also to everything underneath and the airspace above it, including structures like firewalls.
- Substituted Service of Summons: The Court upheld the validity of substituted service of summons on Barber, a resident defendant temporarily out of the country. Jurisprudence allows substituted service for such defendants, and the service to Barber's aunt at her residence was deemed sufficient to confer jurisdiction over her person.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts, holding that the MTC had jurisdiction over the complaint and that substituted service of summons on Barber was valid. The case was remanded to the MTC for resolution.