587 Phil. 280
TINGA, J.:
On August 20, 2001, petitioner J.A. Development Corporation, (hereafter referred to as petitioner), filed a complaint against Benjamin Mendoza, John Does and Jane Does (hereafter referred to as respondents) for unlawful detainer with the Municipal Trial Court, Tagaytay City. The complaint states that petitioner, by reason of the purchase of the property in litigation in 1992, is the valid, lawful, and registered owner of Lot Nos. 1993A-2; 1993-B-2; 1993-B-7; 1993-B-12; and 1993-B-13 covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. T-26609; T-26610; T-26611; T-26612; and T-26613, respectively; that petitioner is also the owner of Lot 1993-B-14 covered by TCT No. T-16586 still in the name of petitioner's predecessor-in-interest; that all of the lots are located in Barangay Dapdap and Barangay Calabuso, Tagaytay City; that sometime after the purchase, petitioner noted the occupation thereof by respondents on the subject property which was previously tolerated by petitioner's predecessor-in-interest; that petitioner informed respondents it now owns the subject property and that respondents do not have any right to occupy the same; that petitioner offered respondents, through respondent Benjamin Mendoza, the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) to facilitate their departure from the property; that despite receipt of the amount, respondents refused to vacate the same; that respondent Benjamin Mendoza executed for and in behalf of the respondents, a kasunduan dated August 26, 1994 acknowledging petitioner's ownership of the property; that despite the execution of the kasunduan, respondents did not vacate the subject property and requested they be allowed to stay until petitioner needed the property; that in 1999, petitioner demanded the turnover of the property for development of the same; that respondents refused to do so and declared they are no longer honoring the kasunduan; that respondents allowed several strangers to occupy the property; that petitioner sent two demand letters dated October 29, 1999 and December 2, 2000, respectively, ordering them to vacate the property; and that despite receipt thereof, respondents refused to vacate and surrender the same.The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC and remanded the case to the MTCC for proper disposition principally on the ground that the prior action instituted in another court involving the subject property--i.e., Civil Case No. TG-1904 lodged with the RTC, Branch 18, Tagaytay City, the partial decision which had already been set aside--could not abate the present action for ejectment.
Respondent Benjamin Mendoza filed his answer with special defenses and counterclaim dated August 28, 2001. Respondent posited that he is the owner of the subject property, being the heir of one of the equitable owners thereof by virtue of the Friar Land Act or Act No. 1120 as evidenced by Sales Certificate No. 2933 executed by the Bureau of Lands; that the Transfer Certificates of Title under petitioner's name are null and void, being derived from TCT No. 2079 (1216) which was spuriously borne out of a fictitiously reconstituted TCT No. 1858 (21877) in violation of Act No. 1120 and PD No.1529.
Further, respondent and his ancestors have been in actual possession of the subject property since 1914 as shown in the Order dated January 11, 2000 of Branch 18, Regional Trial Court, Tagaytay City in Civil Case No. TG-1904 (Quieting of Title and Cancellation of Certificates of Title and Damages); that the Partial Decision dated February 18, 2000 issued by the same court particularly placed the respondent as heir of the equitable owner of the subject property; that the issue of possession is inextricably intertwined with the issue of ownership since petitioner derived its alleged ownership through the TCTs issued in its name; that the case is dismissible on the ground of litis pendentia since the right of possession and issue of ownership have already been established in Civil Case No. TG-1904 before the Regional Trial Court; that the petitioner never alleged prior physical possession of the subject property; that there is a pending motion for writ of preliminary injunction dated July 25, 2001 praying for petitioner to refrain from harassing respondents to give up possession, from cultivating, planting, harvesting crops, and residing in the subject property; and damages.
On October 21, 2001, petitioner filed its pre-trial brief adding that respondents, by virtue of the kasunduan, expressly recognized absolute ownership over the property; that respondents never mentioned any claim of ownership at the time of the execution of the kasunduan; and that the Court of Appeals, in CA GR SP No. 60770 entitled J.A. Development Corp. vs. Hon. Alfonso S. Garcia, et al., in its Decision dated August 29, 2001 set aside the Partial Decision dated February 18, 2000 for being issued with grave abuse of discretion.
The Municipal Trial Court issued a Decision dated December 18, 2001, dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the issue of possession cannot be determined without dwelling into the issue of ownership. The dispositive portion reads:WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this complaint must perforce be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction of this court for the reasons already afore-discussed. The counterclaim is likewise dismissed.The MTC's ratio decidendi in arriving at the dispositive portion, reads:It largely appears from the evidence so far submitted by the defendant in this case that the issue of ownership is yet to be resolved in the Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay City. While it may be true and jurisprudence are already legion that the issue of ownership if closely interrelated and intertwined with the issue of possession in an ejectment case, the first level court can pass upon such issue of ownership if only to determine the issue of possession.Petitioner appealed the decision to the Regional Trial Court which affirmed in toto the decision rendered by the lower court. In its Decision dated December 13, 2002, the decretal portion states:
But it cannot find any application in this case where the issue of ownership is generally in issue, and the issue of possession cannot be determined without dwelling into the issue of ownership; thus, it is beyond the jurisdiction of this court to do so.WHEREFORE, finding no error in the judgment appealed from, the decision rendered by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Tagaytay City on December 18, 2001 in Civil Case No. 442-2002 is hereby affirmed en toto (sic), with costs against herein Plaintiff-Appellant. (Citations Omitted) (Emphasis supplied)[6]