View full case

TERESITA BONGATO v. SPS. SEVERO A. MALVAR

FACTS:

The spouses Severo and Trinidad Malvar filed a complaint for forcible entry against petitioner Teresita Bongato, alleging that petitioner Bongato unlawfully entered a parcel of land covered by TCT No. RT-16200 belonging to the said spouses and erected thereon a house of light materials. The petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file an answer which the MTCC denied; it being proscribed under the Rule on Summary Procedure, and likewise containing no notice of hearing. With a new counsel, Atty. Viador C. Viajar, petitioner filed an answer which the MTCC disregarded, the same having been filed beyond the ten-day reglementary period. Later, with still another counsel, Atty. Jesus G. Chavez of the Public Attorney's Office, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss which the MTCC denied as being contrary to the Rule on Summary Procedure. The MTCC rendered a decision ordering petitioner to vacate the land in question, and to pay rentals, attorney's fees, and the costs of the suit.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the cause of action for forcible entry had already prescribed when the Complaint for ejectment was filed.

  2. Whether a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is allowed in a summary proceeding for forcible entry.

  3. Whether the court has jurisdiction over the Complaint for forcible entry.

  4. Whether the Assailed Decision should be annulled and set aside.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the cause of action for forcible entry had already prescribed when the Complaint for ejectment was filed. The one-year period to bring an action for forcible entry is generally counted from the date of actual entry to the land. However, when entry is made through stealth, the one-year period is counted from the time the plaintiff learned about it. Since the respondents filed the complaint more than one year after they learned about the petitioner's occupancy of the land, their cause of action for forcible entry had already prescribed. They should have presented their suit before the RTC in an accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria, not before the MTCC in summary proceedings for forcible entry.

  2. Yes, a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is allowed in a summary proceeding for forcible entry. While the Rule on Summary Procedure prohibits the filing of a motion to dismiss or quash, the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure allows such a motion on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. The court's lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be waived by the parties or cured by their silence or acquiescence. The MTCC should have ruled on the issue of jurisdiction and taken petitioner's answer into account in determining whether it possessed jurisdiction over the subject matter.

  3. The court does not have jurisdiction over the Complaint for forcible entry.

  4. The Assailed Decision should be annulled and set aside.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Jurisdiction is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint or initiatory pleading and the law or statute existing at the time of the filing of the complaint.

  • The jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or by law.

  • A court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case in the absence of the elements of jurisdiction prescribed by law.

  • The cause of action for forcible entry prescribes after one year from the date of actual entry to the land, or from the time the plaintiff learned about the entry if it is made through stealth.

  • Procedural technicalities should not be allowed to override substantial justice in summary proceedings for forcible entry and detainer.

  • A motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is allowed in a summary proceeding for forcible entry.

  • Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised by a party at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal.

  • Lack of jurisdiction is a ground for the dismissal of a complaint.

  • The court must determine its jurisdiction based on the nature of the action and the law governing it.