G.R. No. 196271 - Datu Michael Abas Kida, et al. vs. Senate of the Philippines, et al.

The dispute involves a parcel of land known as Lot No. 1595-A, covering an area of 27,551 square meters located in Buanoy, Balamban, Cebu.
The property is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-57604 and is declared for taxation purposes under Tax Declaration No. 01-08-05410 with an assessed value of ₱57,960 and a market value of ₱264,930.
Respondents include Maria Lim Vda. de Gonzalez, Gaudencia L. Buagas, Ranulfo Y. Lim, Don L. Calvo, Susan C. Santiago, Dina C. Aranas, and Rufina C. Ramirez; they claim co-ownership of the parcel of land.
Petitioner Inocencia Tagalog is alleged to have occupied a portion of the land as a lessee under a verbal month-to-month lease contract.

Tagalog constructed a dwelling on the land using light materials, and later a typhoon damaged her house.
After the damage, respondents allege that Tagalog ceased paying rent and abandoned part of her occupation, prompting the co-owners to demand that she vacate the premises.
Respondents further claimed that before December 2002, they had demanded the removal of scattered debris and had notified Tagalog of their intention to use, subdivide, and develop the land.
In January 2003, respondents asserted that Tagalog proceeded to construct a two-storey residential house using durable materials (cement, large steel bars, hollow blocks, sand, and gravel) without their consent and without obtaining the required building permit.
Authorities such as the Office of the Municipal Engineer and the Barangay Captain of Buanoy, Balamban, Cebu reportedly advised Tagalog to suspend construction, but she allegedly ignored these directives.

On 5 February 2003, the respondents filed a Complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Toledo City, Cebu, Branch 29 for:

Recovery of possession,
Preliminary mandatory injunction with a prayer for a temporary restraining order,
Award of damages and attorney’s fees.

In her Answer, Tagalog contended that the verbal lease remained valid, that she had continuously paid rent, and that she had not received any notice regarding the relinquishment of her possession.
The RTC, in its Decision dated 5 May 2008, ruled largely in favor of the respondents by:

Ordering Tagalog to vacate the premises and remove structures at her own expense,
Awarding moral damages of ₱50,000 and attorney’s fees of ₱20,000, in addition to costs.

Tagalog’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the RTC on 30 May 2008.
Subsequently, Tagalog appealed the RTC’s decision to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals, in its Resolution dated 12 May 2011, dismissed the case on the ground that Tagalog failed to file the required brief within the extended period.
A Motion for Reconsideration filed by Tagalog before the Court of Appeals was also denied on 9 March 2012.
Tagalog then elevated the issue by filing a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) had proper jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action.
Whether the nature of the remedy sought—specifically for unlawful detainer and the recovery of physical possession—required the case to be filed with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) instead of the RTC.

Whether the dispute, which centers on Tagalog’s continued possession after a verbal month-to-month lease and the alleged wrongful withholding of possession, classifies as an unlawful detainer case.
Whether the fact that the unlawful withholding lasted only for about three months supports the contention that the MTC, not the RTC, should have jurisdiction.