527 Phil. 617
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
WHEREFORE, the Court renders judgment:The MeTC ruled that since petitioners failed to pay rentals for more than three months, then respondent has the right to evict them from the premises.
A. Ordering the defendants
- and all other persons claiming rights under them to vacate the premises located at Mariveles corner Calbayog Streets, Mandaluyong City, and to surrender the possession of the same to the plaintiff;
- to pay the plaintiff the amount of P4,000.00 representing their unpaid rentals beginning February 1981 to December 1996 and the amount of P20.00 per month every month thereafter until the premises shall have been vacated;
- to pay the plaintiff the amount of P10,000.00 as and by way of attorney's fees; and
- to pay the costs of suit.
B. dismissing the counterclaim.
SO ORDERED.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court affirming the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Mandaluyong City, Branch 60, is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
SO ORDERED.
SEC. 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases. - Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:Moreover, Section 18, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, states that:x x x
(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the question of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession; (Emphasis supplied)
SEC. 18. Judgment conclusive only on possession, not conclusive in actions involving title or ownership. - The judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or detainer shall be conclusive with respect to the possession only and shall in no wise bind the title or affect the ownership of the land or building. Such judgment shall not bar an action between the same parties respecting title to the land or building.In Barba vs. Court of Appeals,[2] this Court held:
The judgment or final order shall be appealable to the appropriate Regional Trial Court which shall decide the same on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the Regional Trial Court.
The Court has repeatedly emphasized that municipal trial courts, metropolitan trial courts, and municipal circuit trial courts now retain jurisdiction over ejectment cases if the question of possession cannot be resolved without passing upon the issue of ownership. In forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, even if the defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, inferior courts, nonetheless, have the undoubted competence to provisionally resolve the issue of ownership for the sole purpose of determining the issue of possession. Such decision, however, does not bind the title or affect the ownership of the land or building, neither shall it bar an action between the same parties respecting title to the land or building nor be held conclusive of the facts therein found in a case between the same parties upon a different cause of action involving possession.Likewise, in Tala Realty Services Corporation vs. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank,[3] this Court ruled:
All ejectment cases are covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure and are within the jurisdiction of the inferior courts regardless of whether they involve questions of ownership. The courts in ejectment cases may determine questions of ownership whenever necessary to decide the question of possession.Verily, we hold that the Court of Appeals did not err in holding that the MeTC of Mandaluyong City has jurisdiction to hear and decide Civil Case No. 15340, notwithstanding the issue of ownership raised by petitioners in their answer.