Case Summary (G.R. No. 155110)
Factual Background
David M. Consunji, Inc. acquired a residential lot in Matina, Davao City, on June 11, 1981, which was transferred to DMC two days later. DMC alleged that on December 1, 1993, Louie Biraogo unlawfully entered and constructed the Habagat Grill on the lot, thereby depriving DMC of possession. Consequently, DMC filed a Complaint for Forcible Entry on March 28, 1994, before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in Davao City. Petitioner denied unlawful entry, contending the establishment was built in 1992 on a municipal reservation declared under Presidential Proclamation No. 20. Because the location of Habagat Grill was crucial, the MTC formed a three-member survey team—comprising geodetic engineers representing both parties and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)—to determine whether the establishment was on the disputed lot or the municipal reservation. This survey, conducted in 1998, concluded that Habagat Grill occupied 934 square meters of the lot in question.
Procedural History
The MTC dismissed the forcible entry complaint for lack of jurisdiction and cause of action on August 6, 1998. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the dismissal on February 16, 1999, denying the respondent’s motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed these rulings, finding that the MTC had jurisdiction and that the complaint stated a valid cause of action. The CA held that the petitioner’s evidence was insufficient to prove prior possession or the construction date of Habagat Grill in 1992, and found the respondent’s testimony credible. The CA also criticized the MTC for improperly taking judicial notice of the boundaries of the municipal reservation and urged deferring to the survey team's findings. The petitioner filed a final petition for review before the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the Municipal Trial Court had jurisdiction over the forcible entry complaint.
- Whether the complaint stated a valid cause of action, specifically regarding the location of Habagat Grill and prior possession by respondent.
Jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court
Jurisdiction in ejectment cases is governed by the allegations in the complaint. As per Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, an ejectment action may be properly instituted by a party who alleges that they were deprived of possession of land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, within one year from such unlawful deprivation. The complaint must allege prior possession, unlawful deprivation, and date of such deprivation.
In this case, the complaint clearly alleged lawful and peaceful possession by DMC from June 11, 1981, until December 1, 1993, when petitioner allegedly unlawfully entered the property by stealth and constructed Habagat Grill. Since these allegations adequately stated a cause of action for forcible entry and the complaint was filed within one year from the alleged unlawful act, the MTC acquired jurisdiction over the complaint irrespective of whether the facts proved later supported the allegations.
Determination of the Date of Entry
Petitioner attempted to prove that Habagat Grill was constructed in 1992, citing minutes from Urban Planning and Economic Development (UPED) hearings, but the CA found these documents immaterial as they referred to a different establishment. Conversely, the CA credited the testimony of respondent’s real property manager, Bienamer Garcia, whose testimony was direct, positive, straightforward, and based on personal knowledge and duty to manage the property.
Applying the "actor rule" and other criteria—such as the witness's opportunity to observe, interest, and credibility—the Supreme Court found it proper to accord greater weight to Garcia’s testimony over petitioner’s witness, who neither demonstrated competency nor credibility regarding the facts. Testimony of a single credible witness may suffice to establish material facts in civil cases. Thus, the Court concluded that the entry date of December 1, 1993, as testified by Garcia, was proven by preponderance of evidence.
Validity of Cause of Action: Location of Habagat Grill and Prior Possession
Petitioner contended that Habagat Grill was built on a municipal reservation (Times Beach) declared under Presidential Proclamation No. 20, and thus DMC had no cause of action against petitioner. The MTC took judicial notice of Proclamation No. 20 and purportedly of the metes and bounds of Times Beach, concluding Habagat Grill was on city-owned land. However, the Supreme Court clarified the limited scope of judicial notice: courts may recognize the existence of laws or proclamations and their contents but must not assume the actual location or boundaries of the land involved, especially when such are disputed and require factual determination.
Since the precise location of Habagat Grill relative to the registered lot was the core dispute, the Court found that the MTC erred in taking judicial notice of the metes and bounds of the municipal reservation and in disregarding the survey team’s report, which established that Habagat Grill was situated on the lot owned by respondent.
Regarding prior possession, the Court reaffirmed that ejectment actions center on the entitlement to de facto possession, not ownership. In forcible entry cases, the plaintiff must show prior possession and unlawful deprivati
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 155110)
Background and Nature of the Case
- The case involves an ejectment suit where the main issue is the entitlement to physical or material possession of a specific residential lot.
- There are two recognized forms of ejectment suits under Philippine law: forcible entry and unlawful detainer.
- Forcible entry requires the plaintiff to have been in prior possession of the property before being ousted by the defendant.
- Unlawful detainer does not necessitate prior possession by the plaintiff but concerns unlawful withholding of possession.
- This case is an appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court challenging the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) concerning possession and ownership of the lot where Habagat Grill was constructed.
Facts of the Case
- David M. Consunji, Inc. acquired the lot in Matina, Davao City in 1981 and transferred ownership shortly after to DMC Urban Property Developers, Inc. (DMC).
- Louie Biraogo, proprietor/manager of Habagat Grill, allegedly entered the lot by force and built the restaurant in December 1993.
- DMC filed a Complaint for Forcible Entry in 1994, accusing Biraogo of unlawful entry and possession deprivation since December 1, 1993, claiming a monthly rental value of P10,000.
- Biraogo denied illegal entry, stating the grill was built on a different property—Municipal Reservation No. 1050, under Presidential Proclamation No. 20 (a municipal recreation site).
- A three-member survey team was formed consisting of representatives from DMC, DENR, and Biraogo’s supposed geodetic engineer (who eventually did not participate).
- The survey concluded Habagat Grill occupies 934 square meters of the lot owned by DMC.
- Lower courts dismissed the case citing jurisdictional issues and lack of cause of action; however, the CA reversed dismissals, holding that the complaint was within jurisdiction and that DMC possessed the lot prior to December 1, 1993.
Issues Presented
- Whether the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) had jurisdiction over the ejectment case.
- Whether the respondent (DMC) sufficiently alleged a cause of action in its Complaint.
- Whether the date alleged for forcible entry (December 1, 1993) was supported by preponderance of evidence.
- Whether Habagat Grill was built upon the property owned by DMC or on public property covered by Presidential Proclamation No. 20.
- Whether DMC proved prior possession of the property sufficient to sustain the ejectment suit.
Jurisdiction of the Trial Court
- Jurisdiction in ejectment suits depends on the allegations in the complaint, not on the ultimate facts established at trial.
- The complaint must cite prior possession, unlawful deprivation of possession within one year before filing, and names the defendant unlawfully withholding possession.
- DMC’s complaint alleged: lawful and peaceful possession since June 11, 1981; unlawful entry and occupation by Biraogo on December 1, 1993; and demanded restitution.
- These allegations sufficed to vest jurisdiction on the trial court even if the factual proof might eventually fail.
- The claim that ownership alone does not establish prior possession was rejected, as possession may be juridical and need not be exclusive or physical at every inch.
Date of Entry and Preponderance of Evidence
- Determining the pr