G.R. No. 205630 - Barber vs. Chua

Case Summary (G.R. No. 205630)

Factual Background

Rolando Chua alleged that he owned a house and lot with an existing concrete firewall installed in November 1988 along the boundary adjacent to the petitioners' parcel, and that the firewall remained undisturbed for more than eighteen years; he further alleged that when petitioners constructed improvements to the second floor of their house beginning in February 2007, their workers set foot on and altered his firewall, cut off dowels, added layers of hollow blocks, installed an iron grill that permanently occupied a portion of the firewall, and partly extended a second-floor structure that occupied part of his firewall, causing noise, falling debris, damage to flashing and roofing, and water ingress during rains.

Proceedings at the Municipal Trial Court

Rolando Chua filed a complaint for ejectment of the extended structures that partly occupied the portion of his firewall and for damages in Civil Case No. MTC-1259; Diana Barber, Rex Jimeno, and Jaquelyn Beado moved to dismiss on the ground that the MTC lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter and over Barber’s person, arguing that the action concerned removal of structures and not dispossession of land or building, and that summons should have been personally served because Barber was allegedly a United States citizen and permanent resident absent from the Philippines; the MTC, by Order dated 04 August 2009, dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the complaint failed to allege stealth or tolerance and that the claimed encroachment on a firewall did not suffice for an ejectment action.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On appeal the RTC reversed the MTC, finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action for forcible entry and that a firewall is an immovable property under Article 415 of the Civil Code and therefore can be the subject of an ejectment case; the RTC remanded the case to the MTC.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA affirmed the RTC decision and held that the allegations that petitioners constructed portions of a second floor upon respondent’s firewall without his consent constituted unlawful dispossession of his property that warranted ejectment; the CA also found that substituted service of summons was valid because Barber was a resident defendant who was temporarily out of the country and that service upon a person of suitable age and discretion at her residence complied with law.

Petitioners' Contentions

Petitioners maintained that the MTC lacked jurisdiction because the complaint did not allege physical possession of land or a building as required for ejectment under Rule 70, that a firewall is not susceptible to physical possession required in ejectment, that the complaint sounded in specific performance or in rem remedies more appropriate for the RTC, and that the trial court acquired no jurisdiction over Barber because she was a nonresident defendant at the time of attempted service and substituted service was improper.

Issues Presented

The Court framed the issues as whether the MTC had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint for ejectment concerning the firewall and whether the MTC validly acquired jurisdiction over Barber by substituted service of summons.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The petition lacked merit and was denied. The Supreme Court held that the MTC had jurisdiction over respondent’s complaint because the allegations on the face of the complaint established a cause of action for evasive or clandestine dispossession under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, and that substituted service on Barber was valid under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court given her status as a resident who was temporarily out of the country.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court explained that jurisdiction and the nature of an action are determined by the allegations in the complaint and that an ejectment complaint must show on its face that the plaintiff was deprived of possession of land or a building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth and that the action was filed within one year of the deprivation; the Court found that respondent’s allegations that petitioners’ workers used and altered his firewall, cut dowels without consent, placed permanent structures atop the firewall, and thereby deprived him of the use and access necessary to repair his flashing and roofing adequately constituted dispossession by stealth. The Court further reasoned by analogy to Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v.

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 205630)

Parties

Diana Barber, Rex Jimeno, Jacquelyn Beado, and Rochelle Tan were the petitioners who were defendants in the ejectment action below.
Rolando Chua was the respondent who filed the complaint for ejectment and damages in the Municipal Trial Court of Cainta, Rizal.
The action commenced in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Cainta, Rizal and was appealed to the Regional Trial Court and thereafter to the Court of Appeals (CA) before reaching the Supreme Court.

Key Facts

The respondent alleged that he installed a concrete hollow block firewall in November 1988 measuring approximately six inches thick, 2.36 meters high, and 15.69 meters long standing inside his lot for more than eighteen years without dispute.
The respondent alleged that in February 2007 the petitioners commenced construction of a second-floor improvement and that their laborers were permitted to step on the respondent’s firewall to lay blocks, palitada, and paint.
The respondent alleged that during the petitioners’ construction their actions caused noise, falling debris, and damage to his roof and personal property during heavy rains on 13 July 2007.
The respondent alleged that the petitioners removed dowels, added another layer of concrete hollow block to level their second floor with the firewall, installed an iron grill that permanently occupied a portion of the firewall, and partly extended their second floor onto the firewall without his consent.
The respondent alleged that an ocular inspection by the Office of the Municipal City of Cainta established that the disputed firewall was located inside his lot and that the petitioners partly extended permanent structures occupying a portion of the respondent’s firewall.

Procedural History

The respondent filed the complaint for ejectment and damages in Civil Case No. MTC-1259 before the MTC on 10 August 2007.
The MTC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction in an Order dated 04 August 2009.
The RTC, Branch 74, Antipolo City reversed the MTC decision and remanded the case by Decision dated 24 January 2011.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in a Decision dated 09 October 2012 and issued a Resolution dated 28 January 2013.
The petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari in the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R. No. 205630, which the Supreme Court resolved by Decision dated 12 January 2021.

Issues

Whether the MTC acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint under Section 1, Rule 70, Rules of Court.
Whether the MTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of Diana Barber given the resort to substituted service and her alleged status as a United States citizen and permanent resident.
Whether the remedy of ejectment is available to remove permanent structures that partly occupy a firewall forming part of a titled lot.

Ruling and Disposition

The petition for review on certiorari lacked mer