G.R. No. 155110 - Habagat Grill vs. DMC-Urban Property Developer Inc.

On June 11, 1981, David M. Consunji, Inc. acquired ownership of a residential lot in Matina, Davao City, covered by TCT No. T-82338.
On June 13, 1981, the property was transferred to DMC Urban Property Developers, Inc. (DMC), a sister company, with TCT No. T-279042 issued in its favor.

DMC filed a Complaint for Forcible Entry on March 28, 1994, docketed as Civil Case No. 1233-D-94, alleging that Louie Biraogo forcibly entered the lot and constructed the Habagat Grill in December 1993.
The Complaint alleged DMC’s prior possession from June 11, 1981 until December 1, 1993, and that Biraogo unlawfully deprived DMC of possession by stealth.
The reasonable rental value of the lot was claimed to be P10,000.00 per month.

Louie Biraogo denied illegal entry, asserting Habagat Grill was built in 1992 within Municipal Reservation No. 1050, covered by Presidential Proclamation No. 20.
The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) appointed a survey team—one representative each for DMC, Biraogo, and the DENR—to determine the precise location of Habagat Grill.
Petitioner failed to provide a copy of Municipal Reservation No. 20 to the survey team; his engineer never took an oath and did not participate in the survey.
Surveyors from the DENR and DMC reported Habagat Grill was on 934 square meters of the lot in question.

The MTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and cause of action on August 6, 1998.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the dismissal on February 16, 1999, and denied a Motion for Reconsideration on April 21, 1999.
Respondent DMC appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the lower courts’ decisions, held that MTC had jurisdiction, found petitioner unlawfully entered the property on December 1, 1993, and ordered Biraogo to vacate the premises and pay monthly compensation and attorney’s fees.
The CA denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, prompting the filing of this Petition for Review with the Supreme Court.

Whether the Municipal Trial Court had jurisdiction over the complaint, considering petitioner claimed possession since 1992 and respondent’s predecessor was not in prior physical possession of the lot.

Whether respondent’s complaint stated a valid cause of action, in light of petitioner’s claim that Habagat Grill was constructed on a government-owned lot under Municipal Reservation No. 1050, not on DMC’s property.

Determination of the date when petitioner entered the property and whether respondent proved entry was within one-year prescriptive period for filing forcible entry.
Whether respondent established prior possession of the property.

Whether the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of the boundaries of the property covered by Presidential Proclamation No. 20 to decide the location of Habagat Grill.
The legitimacy of using the survey report versus relying on judicial notice regarding the location dispute.