Title
Supreme Court
Barba vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 126638
Decision Date
Feb 6, 2002
Petitioner, after foreclosing and acquiring title to a property, filed ejectment against respondents who claimed ownership. SC ruled MCTC had jurisdiction; possession, not ownership, was the issue.

Case Summary (UNAV)

Factual Background

The dispute involves a complaint for ejectment filed by Rosanna B. Barba against several private respondents regarding a parcel of land in Lagundi, Mexico, Pampanga, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 353973-R. Petitioner Barba asserted that private respondent Teodora Garcia, her predecessor-in-interest, failed to repay a loan secured by a mortgage on the property. Following foreclosure, Barba acquired the property, subsequently sending demand letters to the respondents to vacate the premises, which they refused. This refusal prompted the ejectment case filed in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court.

Procedural History

Initially, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court ruled in favor of Barba, ordering respondents to vacate. However, upon appeal, the Regional Trial Court declared the lower court's ruling null and void based on a lack of jurisdiction, asserting that the complaint failed to properly allege Barba's prior possession of the property. The Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal on different grounds, citing a genuine issue of ownership that intertwined with the issue of possession.

Issues Raised

Barba filed a petition raising several errors attributed to the Court of Appeals, including:

  1. Erroneous conclusion of a genuine ownership issue affecting possession.
  2. Mischaracterization of Barba’s title rights and ownership.
  3. Disregarding of allegations of malicious implication against Barba.
  4. Incorrect dismissal without reversing the RTC's ruling.

Court's Findings

The Supreme Court granted Barba's petition, ruling that the dismissals by the RTC and the Court of Appeals were improper. The Court clarified that, in cases of unlawful detainer, an allegation of prior physical possession is not strictly required. The Court emphasized that unlawful detainer claims can proceed based on legal ownership and subsequent demand to vacate, regardless of alleged ownership disputes.

Jurisdictional Clarifications

The Supreme Court highlighted that local trial courts retain jurisdiction in ejectment cases, even if ownership is contested. It established that such courts can p

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.