1/24/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 495

VOL. 495, JULY 17, 2006 295

Gayoso vs. Twenty-Two Realty Development Corporation

*
G.R. No. 147874. July 17, 2006.

DOLORES GAYOSO, DANNY GAYOSO, ELIZABETH G.

DONDRIANO, VICTORIANO GAYOSO, CHRISTOPHER
GAYOSO, REMEDIOS GAYOSO and THE HEIRS OF
VICTORIANO GAYOSO, petitioners, vs. TWENTY-TWO
REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondent.

Jurisdictions; Basic is the rule that jurisdiction is provided by

law; Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, as amended, provides
for the exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry
and unlawful detainer.—It is basic that a court’s jurisdiction is
provided by law. Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as
amended, provides in part: 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: 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)

Ejectment; The judgment rendered in an action for forcible

entry or unlawful detainer shall be conclusive with respect to the
possession only, nonetheless, inferior courts are competent to
provisionally resolve the issue of ownership for the sole purpose of
determining the issue of ownership.—Section 18, Rule 70 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, states that: SEC. 18.
Judgment conclusive only on possession, not conclusive in actions
involving title or ownership.—The judgment rendered in an

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001687b7bbee05c9e2a38003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
1/24/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 495

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. 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. In Barba vs. Court of Appeals, this
Court held: The Court has repeatedly emphasized that municipal

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

296

296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gayoso vs. Twenty-Two Realty Development Corporation

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.

Same; The courts in ejectment cases may determine questions

of ownership whenever necessary to decide the question of
possession.—In Tala Realty Services Corporation vs. Banco

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001687b7bbee05c9e2a38003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
1/24/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 495

Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, 392 SCRA 506 (2002), 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.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
          Benjamin M. Tongol and Joselito E. Cabote for
petitioners.
          Jose F. Justiniano and Antonio Eugenio S. Ungson
for respondent.

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:

For our resolution is the instant1

Petition for Review on
Certiorari assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated April 20, 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 48001.

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 31-40. Per Associate Justice Alicia L. Santos (retired) and
concurred in by Associate Justice Ramon A. Barcelona (retired) and
Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico.

297

VOL. 495, JULY 17, 2006 297

Gayoso vs. Twenty-Two Realty Development Corporation

This case stemmed from a Complaint for Ejectment filed by

Twenty-Two Realty Development Corporation (TTRDC),
respondent, on December 12, 1996 with the Metropolitan
Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 60, Mandaluyong City against
the above-named petitioners. The complaint, docketed as
Civil Case No. 15340, alleges that on October 11, 1954,
Victoriano Gayoso (now deceased) sold to Prospero Almeda
a lot located on Mariveles corner Calbayog Streets,
Mandaluyong City. After the sale, Almeda allowed Gayoso
and his children, herein petitioners, to stay on the property
as lessees, paying P20.00 a month. Later, Almeda’s heirs
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001687b7bbee05c9e2a38003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
1/24/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 495

sold the lot to respondent TTRDC. Thus, on February 19,

1996, the title to the property was transferred in the name
of respondent corporation.
However, petitioners have stopped paying rentals.
Respondent then sent letters dated September 12 and
October 17, 1996 to petitioners demanding that they vacate
the premises, but they refused to do so. This prompted
respondent to file with the MeTC a complaint for illegal
detainer against them.
In their answer, petitioners denied specifically TTRDC’s
allegations in its complaint. They claimed that the MeTC
has no jurisdiction over the case since in their answer they
are raising an issue of ownership. They alleged that their
father, the late Victoriano Gayoso, sold the lot (a conjugal
property) to Almeda without the consent of their mother.
The sale, being void, Almeda could not have transferred
ownership of the lot to respondent corporation.
On July 21, 1997, the MeTC rendered its Decision, the
dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Court renders judgment:

A. Ordering the defendants

1. 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;
2. 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;

298

298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gayoso vs. Twenty-Two Realty Development Corporation

3. to pay the plaintiff the amount of P10,000.00 as and by

way of attorney’s fees; and
4. to pay the costs of suit.

B. Dismissing the counterclaim.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001687b7bbee05c9e2a38003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
1/24/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 495

SO ORDERED.

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.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 213,
Mandaluyong City, affirmed the MeTC Decision, holding
that the refusal of petitioners to vacate the property and
pay the rents make out a clear case of unlawful detainer
over which the MeTC has jurisdiction.
Petitioners then filed with the Court of Appeals a
Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended.
In its Decision dated April 20, 2001, the Court of
Appeals affirmed in toto the RTC Decision, thus:

“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.”

Hence, the instant petition.

Petitioners contend that since the issue of ownership of
the property in dispute is inextricably linked with the issue
of possession, the MeTC has no jurisdiction over Civil Case
No. 15340.
For its part, respondent maintains that the real issue is
who between the parties is entitled to possession. Hence,
the MeTC has jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.
We find for the respondent.
It is basic that a court’s jurisdiction is provided by law.
Section 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended,
provides in part:

299

VOL. 495, JULY 17, 2006 299

Gayoso vs. Twenty-Two Realty Development Corporation

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:

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001687b7bbee05c9e2a38003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8
1/24/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 495

xxx
(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)

Moreover, Section 18, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil

Procedure, as amended, states that:

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.
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.
2
In Barba vs. Court of Appeals, this Court held:

“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 pur-

_______________

2 G.R. No. 126638, February 6, 2002, 376 SCRA 210, citing Del Rosario vs.
Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 519 (1995).

300

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001687b7bbee05c9e2a38003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8
1/24/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 495

300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gayoso vs. Twenty-Two Realty Development Corporation

pose 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

3
vs. Banco
Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, 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.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. The Decision of
the Court of Appeals dated April 20, 2001 in CA-G.R. SP
No. 48001 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.

          Puno (Chairperson), Corona, Azcuna and Garcia,

JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment affirmed.

Note.—In ejectment cases, the issue is the physical or

material possession (possession de facto) and any
pronouncement made by the trial court on the question of
ownership is provisional in nature. (Heirs of Rosendo
Sevilla Florencio vs. Heirs of Teresa Sevilla de Leon, 425
SCRA 447 [2004])

——o0o——

_______________

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001687b7bbee05c9e2a38003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
1/24/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 495

3 G.R. No. 137533, November 22, 2002, 392 SCRA 506.

301

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001687b7bbee05c9e2a38003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8