final, as it may be the subject of separate proceeding specifically brought to

G.R. No. 133882. September 5, 2006. *

settle the issue. Hence, the bare fact that petitioners, in their answer to the
ANGELA DELA ROSA and CORAZON MEDINA, complaint, raised the issue of whether they owned the property as trustors of a
petitioners, vs. ORFELINA D. ROLDAN, LORNA SAN DIEGO, constructive trust (with the spouses Dulay as the trustees), did not divest the
FLORDELIZA D. CATACUTAN, NORMA Y. LACUESTA, and MTC of its jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case and decide the same on
ARSENIO DULAY, respondents. its merits.

Actions; It is settled jurisprudence that what determines the nature of Unlawful Detainer; Respondents were not proscribe from filing a
an action as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it are the complaint for unlawful detainer five (5) or six (6) years from the dismissal of
allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought, whether or their complaint for recovery of possession of real property where dismissal by
not plaintiff is entitled to any and all the reliefs prayed for.—It is settled the CA was not based on the merits of the case, but solely because it was
jurisprudence that what determines the nature of an action as well as which premature on account of the failure to allege that earnest efforts were made
court or body has jurisdiction over it are the allegations of the complaint and for the amicable settlement of the cases as required by Article 222 of the New
the character of the relief sought, whether or not plaintiff is entitled to any Civil Code.—Respondents were not proscribed from filing a complaint for
and all of the reliefs prayed for. The jurisdiction of the court or tribunal over unlawful detainer five (5) or six (6) years from the dismissal of their
the nature of the action cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in complaint for recovery of possession of real property. The dismissal of
the court or upon a motion to dismiss, for otherwise, the question of respondents’ complaint in Civil Case No. 6261 by the CA was not based on
jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on defendant. Once jurisdiction is the merits of the case, but solely because it was premature on account of the
vested, the same is retained up to the end of the litigation. failure to allege that earnest efforts were made for the amicable settlement of
the cases as required by Article 222 of the New Civil Code. The dismissal of
Jurisdictions;  Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the voluntary act or the complaint was thus without prejudice.
agreement of the parties; it cannot be acquired through or waived, enlarged
or diminished by their act or omission.—Juris-diction cannot be conferred by Same; A person who occupies the land of another on the latter’s
the voluntary act or agreement of the parties; it cannot be acquired through or tolerance, without any contract between them, is necessarily barred by an
waived, enlarged or diminished by their act or omission. Neither is it implied provision that he will vacate the same upon demand; thus
conferred by the acquiescence of the court. It is neither for the court nor the respondents had the option to file a complaint for unlawful detainer within
parties to violate or disregard the rule, this matter being legislative in one year therefrom, or an accion publiciana beyond the oneyear period from
character. Thus, the jurisdiction over the nature of an action and the subject the demand of respondents as plaintiffs for petitioners to vacate the property.
matter thereof is not affected by the theories set up by defendant in an answer —We agree with the contention of petitioners that for an action for unlawful
or motion to dismiss. detainer based on possession by mere tolerance to prosper, the possession of
the property by defendant must be legal from the very beginning. In this case,
Same;  Unlawful Detainer; Section 3 of Republic Act No. 7691, petitioners’ possession of the property was tolerated by the former owners, the
amending Section 33(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, which was the law in spouses Rivera, and by the spouses Dulay after they purchased the property.
effect when respondents filed their complaint against petitioners, provides After all, Angela was the granddaughter of Consolacion Rivera, the sister of
that Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts Adriano Rivera, and Gideon was the brother of
_______________ 37

 FIRST DIVISION.
*

VOL. 501, SEPTEMBER 5,

35 2006 7
Dela Rosa vs. Roldan
VOL. 501, SEPTEMBER 5, Asuncion. However, when the spouses Dulay needed the property for
2006 5 their children’s use and requested petitioners to vacate the property, the latter
refused. From then on, petitioners’ possession of the property became
Dela Rosa vs. Roldan deforciant. A person who occupies the land of another on the latter’s
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts exercise exclusive original tolerance, without any contract between them, is necessarily barred by an
jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer.—Section 3 of implied provision that he will vacate the same upon demand. Respondents
Republic Act No. 7691, amending Section 33(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, thus had the option to file a complaint for unlawful detainer within one year
which was the law in effect when respondents filed their complaint against therefrom, or an accion publiciana beyond the one-year period from the
petitioners, provides that “Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts demand of respondents as plaintiffs for petitioners to vacate the property.
and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts exercise exclusive original jurisdiction
over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer; provided that, when, in Same; Private respondents are entitled to its possession from the time
such cases, defendant raises the questions of ownership in his pleadings and title was issued in their favor as registered owners.—Private respondents are
the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of entitled to its possession from the time title was issued in their favor as
ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the registered owners. “An action for unlawful detainer may be filed when
issues of possession.” possession by a landlord, vendor, vendee or other person against whom the
possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration
Same;  Same; As framed by the MTC, the issue before it was basically or termination of their right to hold possession, by virtue of a contract, express
one of physical or material possession of the property, although petitioners or implied.”
raised ownership as an issue;  Thus, the MTC erred when it declared that,
since defendants claimed ownership over the property, it was divested of its Attorney’s Fees;  The ceiling of P20,000.00 applies only in the MTC
jurisdiction to take cognizance of and decide the case on its merits.—As where the Rules on Summary Procedure are applied; On appeal to the RTC,
framed by the MTC, the issue before it was basically one of physical or as such, the RTC may increase the award for attorney’s fees in excess of
material possession of the property, although petitioners raised ownership as P20,000.00 if there is factual basis therefor.—We agree with the ruling of the
an issue. Thus, the MTC erred when it declared that, since defendants claimed CA. The ceiling of P20,000.00 applies only in the MTC where the Rules on
ownership over the property, it was divested of its jurisdiction to take Summary Procedure are applied. On appeal to the RTC, the RTC may affirm,
cognizance of and decide the case on its merits. modify or even reverse the decision of the MTC; as such, the RTC may
increase the award for attorney’s fees in excess of P20,000.00 if there is
Same;  Same; It bears stressing that in unlawful detainer cases, the factual basis therefor.
only issue for resolution, independent of any claim of ownership by any party
litigant, is: who is entitled to the physical and material possession of the PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of
property involved?; Hence, the bare fact that petitioners, in their answer to
Appeals.
the complaint, raised the issue of whether they owned the property as trustors
of a constructive trust (with the spouses Dulay as the trustees), did not divest
the MTC of its jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case and decide the same The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
on its mer-its.—It bears stressing that in unlawful detainer cases, the only      Atienza and Atienza Accounting & Law Office for petitioners.
issue for resolution, independent of any claim of ownership by any party      Akol & Associates Law Offices for respondents.
litigant, is: who is entitled to the physical and material possession of the 38
property involved? The mere fact that defendant raises the defense of
ownership of the property in the pleadings does not deprive the MTC of its 3 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
jurisdiction to take cognizance of and decide the case. In cases where 8 ANNOTATED
defendant raises the question of ownership in the pleadings and the question
of possession cannot be resolved Dela Rosa vs. Roldan
36

CALLEJO, SR., J.:
3 SUPREME COURT
6 REPORTS ANNOTATED This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision  of the 1

Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 45560 affirming, on a

Dela Rosa vs. Roldan petition for review, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
without deciding the issue of ownership, the court may proceed and
of Tarlac in Civil Case No. 8396, which in turn reversed on appeal
resolve the issue of ownership but only for the purpose of determining the
issue of possession. However, the disposition of the issue of ownership is not
the decision of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Tarlac, Tarlac and his wife as part of the purchase price of the property. She
in Civil Case No. 6089 for unlawful detainer. likewise denied that it was her signature that appeared on the
The Antecedents purported receipt.
The spouses Adriano Rivera and Aurora Mercado were the owners of On July 17, 1987, the trial court rendered judgment in Civil Case
two (2) parcels of land located in Tarlac, Tarlac, both covered by No. 6261 in favor of the spouses Dulay and ordered the spouses Dela
respective titles; the 261-square-meter lot was covered by Transfer Rosa and Corazon Medina to vacate the property and turn over
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 7225, while the 772 sq. m. was possession to plaintiffs.  The trial court declared:
9

“ANALYZING THE EVIDENCE, there is no doubt that the registered

covered by TCT No. 7226. owners of the lots in question are the plaintiffs-spouses Arsenio Dulay and
Sometime in 1957, the spouses Rivera executed a deed of Asuncion dela Rosa (Exhibits “A” and “B”). They bought these lots from the
sale  over the properties in favor of the spouses Arsenio Dulay and
2
spouses Adriano Rivera and Aurora Mercado (Exhibits “D” and “D-1”).
Asuncion dela Rosa. Gideon dela Rosa, one of Asuncion’s brothers, Defendants’ claim that they bought from the plaintiffs one-half (1/2)
was one of the instrumental witnesses in the deed. To pay for the portion of the lots in question is untenable. Firstly, if it is true as claimed by
property, the spouses Dulay, who were members of the Government them that there was such an agreement to purchase from the plaintiffs a
Service Insurance System (GSIS), secured a P9,500.00 loan and portion of the lots in question, why did they not reduce [the] same in writing?
executed a real estate mortgage over the two lots as security therefor. In fact, it’s the defendants, particularly Gideon dela Rosa, who induced and
accompanied the plaintiffs to go
On September 16, 1957, the Register of Deeds issued TCT Nos.
29040 and 29041 in the names of the spouses Dulay. _______________
The spouses Dulay forthwith took possession of the lots, except a
500-square-meter portion which was then occupied by Gideon dela 5
 Exhibits “D,” “D-1” to “D-2.”
Rosa and his wife Angela and the portion where the house of 6
 Exhibits “C,” “F,” “F-1” to “F-2.”
Corazon Medina stood. The spouses Dulay 7
 Exhibits “5” to “5-a.”
_______________
8
 Exhibit “F.”
9
 Rollo, pp. 34-49.

 Penned by Associate Justice Demetrio G. Demetria, with Associate Justices

41
1

Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes (later appointed Supreme Court Associate Justice, now

retired) and Ramon A. Barcelona (retired), concurring; Rollo, pp. 108-118. VOL. 501, SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 41
 CA Rollo, p. 26.
2

Dela Rosa vs. Roldan

39 to a Notary Public for the execution of Exhibit “D.” The amounts mentioned
in Exhibit “5” does (sic) not clearly indicate whether they were payments
VOL. 501, SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 39
made for the purchase price in installment or for monthly rentals for their
Dela Rosa vs. Roldan occupation of Lot 3-B-2. The defendants were the only ones who made
declared the property for taxation purposes in their names and paid entries; and a perusal of such entries were not recorded in sequence of alleged
monthly payment but merely entries dictated and/or written at will.
the realty taxes therefor.
Regarding Exhibit “6” and the alleged signature of plaintiff Asuncion
Sometime in 1982, the spouses Dulay made demands on Gideon, dela Rosa, the report (Exhibit “7,” “7-A” and “7-B”) and the testimony of the
Angela and Corazon to vacate the premises, as their three daughters Chief NBI handwriting expert when presented by the defendants themselves is
would be constructing their respective houses thereon. Gideon, very emphatic. Thus:
Angela and Corazon refused to do so, prompting the spouses to file a “However, the question signature was signed over a typewritten carbon or duplicate. . . .”
complaint for recovery of possession (accion publiciana) against What we mean by that, Sir, is that there is here a purported receipt with the body
typewritten underlining below the supposed signature Asuncion R. Dulay, it is a little
them with the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Tarlac. The surprising because if a document is prepared in one occasion, then the body should be in
spouses Dulay alleged, inter alia, that they bought the lots from the ribbon impression and the underlining should be in ribbon. The supposed typewritten
spouses Rivera in 1957; defendants occupied a 370-square-meter body above the signature is an original ribbon impression, that is, it is direct from the
typewritten with the ribbon striking the sheet of paper, the underlining, however, on
portion on the western side, and were claiming ownership over one- which the signature is signed is a carbon impression, that means it is a duplicate
half of the property, as shown by their letter to plaintiffs appended to impression. (pp. 8-9, tsn., Oct. 30/85).” 10

their complaint; and they needed the property so that their daughters,
who already had their respective families, could build houses thereon. The spouses Dela Rosa and Corazon Medina appealed to the CA. The
The spouses Dulay prayed that defendants be evicted from the case was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 15455. On June 29, 1990, the
property and be required to pay reasonable compensation for their use appellate court rendered judgment granting the appeal and reversed
of the premises.  The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 6261.
3
the trial court’s ruling. According to the appellate court, the
In their answer to the complaint, defendants alleged the complaint was premature on account of plaintiffs’ failure to allege, in
following by way of special and affirmative defenses: Gideon and his their complaint, that there had been earnest efforts to have the case
sister Asuncion contributed equally to the purchase price of the amicably settled as mandated under Article 222 of the New Civil
property; plaintiffs secured a GSIS loan of P9,500.00, out of which Code. 11

P6,500.00 was paid to the vendors; Gideon and Asuncion verbally The spouses Dulay filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File a
agreed that plaintiffs would be indicated as the sole vendees in the Petition for Review on Certiorari with this Court which
deed of sale as they were the GSIS members; defendants had already _______________
paid their share of the purchase price of the property as of 1978,
except for the amount of P332.00; and, insofar as the one-half portion 10
 CA Rollo, pp. 29-31.
 Rollo, pp. 50-55.
on the western side of the property was concerned, plaintiffs were
11

trustees for defendants, who likewise owned the same. Defendants 42

interposed counterclaims for damages and prayed that the said one-
half portion be reconveyed to them. 4
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
_______________ 2 ANNOTATED
3
 Rollo, pp. 34-38. Dela Rosa vs. Roldan
4
 Id., at pp. 39-40. was granted. The motion was recorded as UDK-10069. However, the
spouses Dulay failed to file their petition. Thus, on November 19,
40
1990, the Court resolved to declare final and executory the decision
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 15455 for failure of plaintiffs-
0 ANNOTATED appellees to file their petition for review.  The resolution of the Court
12

became final and executory. 13

Dela Rosa vs. Roldan In the meantime, Gideon died. His wife Angela and Corazon
During the trial, the spouses Dulay adduced in evidence the Medina continued residing in the property without paying any rentals
following: the Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 16, 1957, with therefor. Asuncion Dulay passed away on June 26, 1995, survived by
Gideon as an instrumental witness;  the tax declarations in their
5
her husband Arsenio and their children: Orfelina Roldan, Lorna San
names covering the property; and receipts of realty tax payments Diego, Flordeliza Catacutan, and Norma Lacuesta.
made over the property. 6
In a letter dated October 2, 1995, Arsenio and his children,
Defendants spouses Dela Rosa adduced in evidence a small through counsel, made demands on Corazon and Angela to vacate the
notebook containing therein an alleged list of payments to the property within 30 days from receipt thereof, with a warning that
spouses Dulay of their share in the purchase price of the failure to do so would impel them to file the necessary legal
property.  They presented an NBI Questioned Documents Expert to
7
action.  Nevertheless, they suggested a conference to discuss the
14

prove the authenticity of the signature of Asuncion Dulay on one of amicable settlement of the matter. Corazon and Angela ignored the
the receipts.  However, Asuncion denied that she bought the property
8
letter. This prompted Arsenio and his children to file a complaint for
with her brother Gideon, and that she received any amount from him eviction against Angela and Corazon in the Office of
the Barangay Captain. The parties did not arrive at a settlement, and however, refused to discuss an amicable settlement. The
on December 1, 1995, the Pangkat Secretary issued a certification to certification to file action issued by the lupon chairman is
file action. 15
attached and made an integral part hereof as Annex “F.”
On January 29, 1996, Arsenio and his children, as plaintiffs, filed 5. 10.Defendants have been occupying and using the premises
a complaint for unlawful detainer against Corazon and Angela, as without paying any rent therefor. The present reasonable
defendants, in the MTC of Tarlac, Tarlac. Plaintiffs alleged the rental value of the premises is Fifty Pesos (P50.00) per
following: month, which amount defendants should be made to pay
3. Plaintiffs are the co-owners of two adjoining parcels of residential land from September 1957 until possession is restored to
located at Tarlac, Tarlac, and more particularly described as follows: plaintiffs.
_______________ 6. 11.By reason of the unjustifiable refusal to vacate and the
unlawful detainer of the subject property by defendants
12
 Id., at p. 56. and all persons claiming rights under them, plaintiffs
13
 CA Rollo, p. 40. were constrained to seek redress in court to protect their
14
 Rollo, p. 64. own rights and interests, thereby causing them to incur
 Id., at p. 65.
litigation expenses in the amount of not less than Fifty
15

43 Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), for which amount the

defendant should be made liable to plaintiffs.” 16

VOL. 501, SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 43

Dela Rosa vs. Roldan Plaintiffs therein prayed that, after due proceedings, judgment be
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 29040 rendered in their favor as follows:
_______________
“A parcel of land (Lot “B” of the subdivision plan Psd2284, being a portion of the land
described on the original plan II-5215, G.L.R.O. Record No. 7962), situated in the Barrio 16
 Id., at pp. 58-62.
of San Roque, Municipality of Tarlac, Province of Tarlac. Bounded on the N.E., by Lot
“C” of the subdivision plan; on the S.E., by Lot No. “3-B-2” of the subdivision plan and
property of Concepcion Cider; on the W., by property of Timotea Mercado; and on the 45
N.W., by Lot “A” of the subdivision plan, containing an area of TWO HUNDRED
SIXTY-ONE (261) SQUARE METERS, more or less.”
VOL. 501, SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 45
Dela Rosa vs. Roldan
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 29041 “WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiffs most respectfully pray that,
after trial, judgment be rendered by this Honorable Court in favor of plaintiffs
“A parcel of land (Lot No. “3-B-2” of the subdivision plan Psd-2284, being a and ordering as follows:
portion of Lot No. “3-B,” plan II-2977-Amd., G.L.R.O. Record No. 1955), situated in the
Barrio of San Roque, Municipality of Tarlac, Province of Tarlac. Bounded on the N.E.,
by Lot 87-C of the subdivision plan; on the S.E., by Lot No. 3-B-1 of the subdivision 1. 1.Defendants and all persons claiming rights under them to
plan; on the S.W., by property of Concepcion Cider; and on the N.W., by Lot B of the immediately vacate the premises;
subdivision plan, containing an area of SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY-TWO (772) 2. 2.Defendants to pay all rental arrears at the monthly rate of P50.00
SQUARE METERS, more or less.” from September 1957 until possession is restored or a total of
P23,000.00;
Copies of the transfer certificates of title are attached as Annexes “A” and 3. 3.Defendants to pay litigation expenses in the amount of
“B,” respectively. The total assessed value of said lands does not exceed P50,000.00; and
Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00).
4. 4.Defendants to pay the costs of this suit. Plaintiffs pray for such
other and further reliefs just and equitable under the premises.”
17

1. 4.Said parcels of land were formerly owned by the spouses

Asuncion dela Rosa and Arsenio Dulay. Plaintiffs Orfelina
Roldan, Lorna San Diego, Flordeliza Catacutan, and Norma The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 6089.
Lacuesta are the children of the spouses Asuncion dela Rosa and In their answer, defendants reiterated their allegations in their
plaintiff Arsenio Dulay. Upon the death of Asuncion dela Rosa answer to the complaint in Civil Case No. 6261 in the CFI of Tarlac.
on 26 June 1995, said parcels of land became jointly owned by On April 30, 1996, Angela filed a complaint against Arsenio and
herein plaintiffs. A copy of Asuncion dela Rosa’s certificate of his children in the MTC of Tarlac, Tarlac for recovery of ownership,
death is attached as Annex “C.” reconveyance, cancellation of title, and damages. The case was
2. 5.The spouses Dulay bought said parcels of land sometime in
docketed as Civil Case No. 6154. Angela, as plaintiff, reiterated her
1957. Defendants and their predecessors-in-interest have
occupied and are continuously occupying about five hundred allegations in her answer and counterclaim in Civil Case No. 6261 as
(500) square meters, more or less, of said parcels of land. allegations comprising her causes of action. She prayed that, after due
Defendants and their predecessors-in-interest have occupied said proceedings, judgment be rendered in their favor, thus:
parcels of land since 1957 without paying any rent. “WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Hon. Court that
judgment shall issue:
44
1. 1.Ordering that an immediate temporary restraining order
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the
4 ANNOTATED Plaintiff over the property in question until the case is finally
dissolved;
Dela Rosa vs. Roldan
_______________
1. 6.The occupation by defendants of said parcels of land
were at the mere tolerance of the spouses Dulay and, 17
 Id., at pp. 60-61.
thereafter, of the plaintiffs. Defendants have promised to
vacate the premises if and when needed by the spouses 46
Dulay and plaintiffs. 4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
2. 7.Demands were made on defendants to vacate the
6 ANNOTATED
premises, which demands, however, were ignored and not
heeded. Defendants refused and continues to refuse to Dela Rosa vs. Roldan
vacate the premises. A copy of the final demand letters
sent to Angela dela Rosa and Corazon Medina are 1. 2.Declaring the Plaintiff as owner of the one-half (1/2)
attached as Annexes “D” and “E,” respectively. property in question, thereby reconveying the ownership
3. 8.In an attempt to arrive at an amicable settlement and in thereof and cancelling the title;
recognition of their being blood relatives, plaintiffs 2. 3.Ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay
exerted earnest efforts towards a compromise with Plaintiff the amount of P30,000.00 as attorney’s fee, plus
defendants. Defendants were invited to discuss and settle P1,000.00 per hearing;
the matter amicably. Defendants, however, refused to 3. 4.Ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay
meet and discuss any settlement and ignored the Plaintiff the amount of P10,000.00 as acceptance fee, plus
invitation extended by plaintiffs. P20,000.00 as litigation expenses;
4. 9.In compliance with Section 412 of the Local Government 4. 5.Ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay
Code (R.A. No. 7160) and as a further attempt to settle Plaintiff the amount of P20,000.00 as exemplary
the dispute amicably, plaintiffs brought the matter to damages;
the lupong tagapamayapa of their barangay. Defendants,
 5. 6.Ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, WITH DUE RESPECT, ERRED IN
Plaintiff the amount of P10,000.00 as moral damages; CONSIDERING THAT THE CASE AT BAR IS ONE OF UNLAWFUL
DETAINER, WHEN IT IS ONE OF RECOVERY OF OWNERSHIP AND
6. 7.And granting such other reliefs and remedies just and POSSESSION.
equitable in the premises.”
18

II
On July 17, 1996, the MTC issued a pre-trial order in Civil Case No.
6089 defining the issue, thus: THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, WITH DUE RESPECT, ERRED IN
“Whether or not Unlawful Detainer is proper in the premises considering the CONSIDERING THAT THERE WAS NO TRUST CREATED BY
claim of ownership by defendants from the beginning of these litigations AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES.
sometime in 1982 followed by this case at bench. Otherwise stated, is the
occupation of the land in dispute by the defendants by tolerance of plaintiffs.”
19

III

On September 25, 1996, the MTC rendered judgment in Civil Case THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, WITH DUE RESPECT, ERRED IN
No. 6089 in favor of Corazon and Angela and ordered the dismissal CONSIDERING THAT THE PETITIONERS’ CLAIM HAS BEEN
of the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.  The court held
20
BARRED BY PRESCRIPTION OR LACHES.
that the issue between the parties was one of ownership and not
merely possession de facto. Thus, the possession of the property by IV
defendants was not by mere tolerance, but by virtue of a claim of
ownership; in fact, defendants never recognized the plaintiffs’ claim THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, WITH DUE RESPECT, ERRED IN
of ownership over the property. In ruling against Arsenio and his AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEE FOR RESPONDENTS.” 25

children,
_______________ _______________

18
 CA Rollo, pp. 55-56. 25
 Rollo, p. 16.
19
 Id., at p. 62.
20
 Id., at pp. 60-71. 49

47 VOL. 501, SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 49

VOL. 501, SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 47 Dela Rosa vs. Roldan
Dela Rosa vs. Roldan According to petitioners, during the pre-trial in the MTC, the parties
stipulated on the following issues to be resolved by the court:
the trial court relied on their pleadings, the decision of the CFI
whether or not the action for unlawful detainer of respondents was
in Civil Case No. 6261, the ruling of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No.
proper considering that petitioners claimed ownership over the
15455, and the resolution of this Court in UDK-10069.  It declared 21

property in their answer to the complaint; and whether petitioners

that, although the CA reversed the decision of the CFI in Tarlac, the
possessed the property by mere tolerance of respondents. Petitioners
facts show that the dispute between the parties constitutes
insist that during the pretrial conference, respondents admitted that
possession de jure; the action of the spouses Dulay in Civil Case No.
they had filed a complaint for recovery of possession of property
6261 which was an accion publiciana cannot be converted into one
against petitioners in the CFI of Tarlac, docketed as Civil Case No.
for unlawful detainer in Civil Case No. 6089.
6261.
Arsenio and his children appealed to the RTC. The case was
Petitioners maintain that the principal issue is one of ownership
docketed as Civil Case No. 8396. On June 25, 1997, it reversed the
over the property and not merely whether or not respondents, as
decision of the MTC and ordered the eviction of defendants, holding
plaintiffs, were entitled to possession de facto as the registered
that the issue was the entitlement to the physical possession de
owners thereof; hence, the MTC had no jurisdiction over the action of
facto of the property, an issue within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
respondents.
MTC;  in contrast, the issue between the parties in Civil Case No.
22

Petitioners are of the view that the trial court and the CA erred in
6261 was possession de jure and not possession de facto. The RTC
declaring that there was no trust created over the property. They
further declared that the spouses Dulay had a Torrens title over the
maintain that there was a verbal agreement between Gideon and his
property which was conclusive against the whole world; as such, they
sister Asuncion that the property would be purchased by them; that
were entitled to the possession of the property as owners thereof.
the purchase price thereof would be advanced by Asuncion; that
Citing the ruling of this Court in Peran v. Espera,  the RTC ruled that
23

Asuncion would be indicated as the vendee in the deed of absolute

Corazon and Angela possessed the property for a considerable length
sale to enable her to secure a GSIS loan to pay for the property, with
of time only through mere tolerance of plaintiffs.
the concomitant agreement that Gideon would pay one-half of the
Corazon and Angela moved to reconsider the decision, which the
purchase price for the property; and that the property will be titled in
RTC denied in an Order  dated September 22, 1997. They filed a
24

their name as trustees for the spouses Gideon and Angela dela Rosa
petition for review in the CA, praying that the RTC decision be
over one-half portion of the lots. They insist that they are not barred
reversed and the decision of the MTC be affirmed. Angela claimed
from assailing the deed of absolute sale executed in favor of the
that she owned one-half of the property as co-owner of the spouses
spouses Dulay by the spouses Rivera. There is likewise no factual
Dulay. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 45560.
_______________ and legal basis for the award of attorney’s fees.
In their comment on the petition, respondents aver that the stay
21
 Exhibits “1,” “2” and “3.” of petitioners in the property after 1982 was by mere tolerance. The
22
 CA Rollo, pp. 72-81. MTC had exclusive jurisdiction over their action because it was filed
23
 G.R. No. L-57259, October 13, 1983, 125 SCRA 78. within one year from petitioners’ last demand to vacate the property.
 CA Rollo, p. 90.
The CA correctly ruled that
24

50
48
5 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
0 ANNOTATED
8 ANNOTATED
Dela Rosa vs. Roldan
Dela Rosa vs. Roldan
no trust was created over the property, with petitioners as trustors and
On March 16, 1998, the CA rendered judgment in CA-G.R. SP No.
respondents as trustees; whether a trust agreement was created is a
45560 affirming the decision of the RTC and dismissing the petition.
question of fact which cannot be raised in this Court in a petition for
The CA ruled that, contrary to the claim of Angela, there was no trust
review on certiorari.
created over one-half of the property in her favor. Since the
In any event, petitioners’ claim of a constructive trust was barred
complaint against Angela and Corazon in the MTC was one for
by prescription since more than ten years had elapsed from the time
unlawful detainer, the MTC had exclusive jurisdiction over the case.
the titles over the properties in favor of respondents were issued on
Moreover, they had been in possession of the property by tolerance.
September 16, 1957.
In any case, their action was barred by prescription and laches.
Angela and Corazon filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied.
Respondents further point out that the MTC of Tarlac rendered
Angela and Corazon, now petitioners, filed the instant petition for review judgment in Civil Case No. 6154 dismissing the complaint on the
on certiorari, claiming that the CA erred as follows: ground of prescription or laches; on April 6, 2000, the RTC affirmed
the decision on appeal; the CA affirmed the decision in CA-G.R. SP
I No. 58857 on February 14, 2002; and on January 22, 2003, this Court
denied petitioners’ petition for review of the decision of the CA
in G.R. No. 155599.  Thus, the fact that no constructive trust existed
26
on October 2, 1995 for petitioners to vacate the property but the latter
in favor of petitioners has been laid to rest by the Court. refused, prompting an action to be filed in the Office of the Pangkat;
The Ruling of the Court and, on December 1, 1995, the Pangkat Secretary issued a
The threshold issues are: (1) whether the MTC had jurisdiction over certification to file action. As gleaned from the petitory portion of the
the action of respondents (plaintiffs therein); (2) whether the CA complaint, respondents likewise prayed for the eviction of petitioners
erred in declaring that there was no trust relationship between from the property with a plea for judgment for reasonable
petitioners as trustors and respondents as trustees; (3) whether the compensation for petitioners’ occupation of the premises.
appellate court erred in ruling that the action of petitioners to enforce Respondents filed their complaint on January 29, 1996 in the MTC,
the trust against respondents had prescribed; and (4) whether within the period of one year from the final demand made against
respondents are entitled to attorney’s fees. petitioners to vacate the property.
On the first issue, we agree with the decision of the CA that the It is true that during the pre-trial, the MTC issued an order
action of respondents against petitioners was one for unlawful defining the issue to be litigated by the parties—whether or not
detainer, and that the MTC had jurisdiction over the same. Indeed, unlawful detainer is proper in the premises considering defendants’
petitioners claimed ownership over one-half of the property in their claim of ownership from 1982; otherwise stated, whether petitioners’
answer to the complaint and alleged that respondents were merely occupation of the land in dispute was by mere tolerance of
trustees thereof for their bene- respondents. As framed by the MTC, the issue before it was basically
_______________ one of physical or material pos-
53
26
 Id., at pp. 294-301. VOL. 501, SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 53
51 Dela Rosa vs. Roldan
session of the property, although petitioners raised ownership as an
VOL. 501, SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 51 issue. Thus, the MTC erred when it declared that, since defendants
Dela Rosa vs. Roldan claimed ownership over the property, it was divested of its
fit as trustors; and, during the pre-trial, respondents admitted having jurisdiction to take cognizance of and decide the case on its merits.
filed their complaint for recovery of possession of real property It bears stressing that in unlawful detainer cases, the only issue
(accion publiciana) against petitioners before the CFI of Tarlac, for resolution, independent of any claim of ownership by any party
docketed as Civil Case No. 6261. However, these did not divest the litigant, is: who is entitled to the physical and material possession of
MTC of its inceptial jurisdiction over the complaint for unlawful the property involved? The mere fact that defendant raises the
detainer of respondents. defense of ownership of the property in the pleadings does not
It is settled jurisprudence that what determines the nature of an deprive the MTC of its jurisdiction to take cognizance of and decide
action as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it are the the case. In cases where defendant raises the question of ownership in
allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought, the pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved
whether or not plaintiff is entitled to any and all of the reliefs prayed without deciding the issue of ownership, the court may proceed and
for.  The jurisdiction of the court or tribunal over the nature of the
27 resolve the issue of ownership but only for the purpose of
action cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the court determining the issue of possession. However, the disposition of the
or upon a motion to dismiss, for otherwise, the question of issue of ownership is not final, as it may be the subject of separate
jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on defendant. Once proceeding specifically brought to settle the issue. Hence, the bare
jurisdiction is vested, the same is retained up to the end of the fact that petitioners, in their answer to the complaint, raised the issue
litigation. 28 of whether they owned the property as trustors of a constructive trust
Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the voluntary act or (with the spouses Dulay as the trustees), did not divest the MTC of its
agreement of the parties; it cannot be acquired through or waived, jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case and decide the same on its
enlarged or diminished by their act or omission. Neither is it merits. 30

conferred by the acquiescence of the court. It is neither for the court Petitioners were well aware that the issue of ownership over the
nor the parties to violate or disregard the rule, this matter being property had to be resolved in a proper action for the purpose,
legislative in character. Thus, the jurisdiction over the nature of an separate from and independent of Civil Case No. 6089 in the MTC of
action and the subject matter thereof is not affected by the theories set Tarlac. It is for this reason that petitioner Angela filed a complaint for
up by defendant in an answer or motion to dismiss. 29 recovery of ownership, reconveyance, cancellation of title and
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 7691, amending Section 33(2) damages against respondents,
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, which was the law in effect when _______________
respondents filed their complaint against petitioners, provides that
“Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial  Tumlos v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 137650, April 12, 2000, 330 SCRA 718; Tala
30

Realty Services Coporation v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, G.R. No.
_______________
129887, February 17, 2000, 325 SCRA 768; Arcal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127850,
January 26, 1998, 285 SCRA 34; Refugia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118284, July 5,
 Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 352 Phil. 808, 828-829; 290
27
1996, 258 SCRA 347.
SCRA 198, 218 (1998).
 Heirs of Rafael Magpily v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 167748, No-vember 8, 2005, 474
28

54
SCRA 366.
 Ramos v. Stateland Investment Corporation, G.R. No. 161973, November 11,
29
5 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
2005, 474 SCRA 726, 737-738, citing Oca v. Court of Appeals, 378 SCRA 642 (2002).
4 ANNOTATED
52 Dela Rosa vs. Roldan
5 SUPREME COURT REPORTS docketed as Civil Case No. 6154, wherein she prayed that
2 ANNOTATED respondents, as defendants, be ordered to convey to her onehalf
portion of the property. However, her claim was rejected by the trial
Dela Rosa vs. Roldan court, which ordered the complaint dismissed; the RTC likewise
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts exercise exclusive original dismissed the case on appeal. In affirming this dismissal in CA-G.R.
jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer; SP No. 58857 promulgated on February 14, 2002, the CA
provided that, when, in such cases, defendant raises the questions of ratiocinated as follows:
ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be “Nevertheless, notwithstanding the foregoing, this Court finds that petitioner’s
resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of complaint should be dismissed. This is so because petitioner miserably failed
ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issues of to establish her claim to the property. It must be stressed that while an implied
possession.” trust may be established by parol evidence, such evidence must be as fully
convincing as if the acts giving rise to the trust obligation are proven by an
As gleaned from the averments of the complaint, respondents, as
authentic document. (Heirs of Lorenzo Yap v. Court of Appeals, 312 SCRA
plaintiffs below, alleged that they were the owners of parcels of land 603 [1999], at page 609). An implied trust cannot be made to rest on vague
covered by TCT Nos. 29040 and 29041, hence, entitled to the and inconclusive proof. (Ibid.)
possession of the property; petitioners (defendants therein) and their Unfortunately for petitioner, the evidence she presented in her attempt to
predecessors-in-interest had occupied the said parcels of land since establish their so-called trust agreement is not sufficient or convincing. The
1957 without paying any rent; their possession over the property list of dates and amounts written by her purportedly showing payments made
continued even after the spouses Dulay purchased the property; and to the late Asuncion dela Rosa Dulay cannot even be given credence as
that their occupation of the property was by mere tolerance of the appreciation of such list can be equivocal (see Exhibit “H,” page 152, Original
Records). The list was made in petitioner’s handwriting and there was no
spouses Dulay and, after Asuncion died on June 26, 1995, by
counter-signature made by Dulay showing acknowledgment of such listing. At
respondents; petitioners promised to vacate the premises when best, the list can merely be appreciated as it is, a list, but definitely, it does not
respondents needed the property; demands were made by respondents prove payments made on the purchase price of the ½ portion of the property.
 Also, the Court notes the NBI’s Questioned Documents Report No. 316- 34
 Section 5, Rule 16 of the Revised Rules of Court.
884 (dated Nov. 14, 1984) finding that the signature of Asuncion Dulay in the 35
 Valdez, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132424, May 4, 2006, 489 SCRA 369.
receipt allegedly acknowledging partial payment in the amount of P500.00
was signed over a typewritten carbon or duplicate impression which is not part 57
of the main entries in the receipt (see Exhibit “7,” page 154, Original VOL. 501, SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 57
Records). Such conclusion shows that the entries made on the receipt were not
written on a single occasion but rather separately executed. Thus, the Court Dela Rosa vs. Roldan
cannot give any evidentiary value on said receipt considering that its owners, the spouses Rivera, and by the spouses Dulay after they
credibility is suspect. purchased the property. After all, Angela was the granddaughter of
Meanwhile, private respondents have in their favor TCT Nos. 29040 and Consolacion Rivera, the sister of Adriano Rivera, and Gideon was the
29041 in the name of the spouses Arsenio Dulay and
brother of Asuncion. However, when the spouses Dulay needed the
55
property for their children’s use and requested petitioners to vacate
the property, the latter refused. From then on, petitioners’ possession
VOL. 501, SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 55 of the property became deforciant. A person who occupies the land of
Dela Rosa vs. Roldan another on the latter’s tolerance, without any contract between them,
Asuncion dela Rosa (see Exhibits “1” and “2,” pages 181-182, Original is necessarily barred by an implied provision that he will vacate the
Records); the Deed of Absolute Sale executed in 1957 by the spouses Adriano same upon demand.  Respondents thus had the option to file a
36

Rivera and Aurora Mercado (petitioner’s paternal grandparents) conveying the complaint for unlawful detainer within one year therefrom, or
entire property to the spouses Dulay for the price of P7,000 (see Exhibit “3,” an accion publiciana beyond the one-year period from the demand of
page 148, Original Records); the tax declaration receipts showing tax respondents as plaintiffs for petitioners to vacate the property.
payments made by private respondents on the property (see Exhibits “3” to
The Court notes that the property was sold to respondents, and
“3-b,” pages 183-185, Original Records); and the tax declaration of real
property for the year 1974 in the name of the spouses Dulay (see Exhibit “C” that it was titled in their names (TCT Nos. 29040 and 29041). The
to “C-1,” pages 150-151, Original Records). said deed and titles support the right of respondents to the material
All told, petitioner failed to discharge that onus incumbent upon her to possession of the property.  Under all the circumstances and facts in
37

prove her claim over the property.”

31 this case, petitioners’ claim, that they had the right to the material
possession of the property, has no factual and legal basis. We quote
Angela assailed the decision of the CA in this Court in G.R. No. with approval the decision of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 45560:
155599, and this Court resolved to deny the petition as follows: “Private respondents are entitled to its possession from the time title was
“G.R. No. 155599 (Angela dela Rosa v. Orfelina Roldan, et al.).— issued in their favor as registered owners. “An action for unlawful detainer
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the petition for may be filed when possession by a landlord, vendor, vendee or other person
review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld
dated February 14, 2002 and October 14, 2002, respectively, the Court after the expiration or termination of their right to hold possession, by virtue
Resolves to DENY the petition for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently of a contract, express or implied.”
show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in the Second. “The age-old rule is that ‘the person who has a torrens title over
challenged decision and resolution as to warrant the exercise by this Court of a land is entitled to possession thereof.’ ” Except for the claim that the title of
its discretionary appellate jurisdiction in this case.”
32 private respondents is not conclusive proof of

The resolution of the Court became final and executory on May 20, _______________
2003.  Thus, the issue of whether or not respondents were trustees of
33

one-half of the property had been finally resolved by this Court in

36
 Refugia v. Court of Appeals, supra note 30.
37
 Boy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125088, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 196, 206.
favor of respondents; in fine, the validity of TCT Nos. 29040 and
29041 in the names of the spouses Dulay had been affirmed by the 58
trial court, the MTC, the CA and this Court. The claim of co-
ownership of petitioner 5 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
_______________ 8 ANNOTATED
31
 Rollo, pp. 298-299. Dela Rosa vs. Roldan
32
 Id., at p. 301. ownership, petitioners have shown no right to justify their continued
33
 Id. possession of the subject premises.” 38

56 On the issue of whether the RTC acted in excess of its appellate

5 SUPREME COURT REPORTS jurisdiction in awarding P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees in favor of
respondents, petitioners aver that under the Rules on Summary
6 ANNOTATED Procedure, respondents are entitled to a maximum amount of only
Dela Rosa vs. Roldan P20,000.00; hence, the RTC acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it
Angela and possession over the western portion of the property thus awarded P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees, as it is in excess of the
have no factual and legal basis. maximum amount under the said Rules. Besides, petitioners aver, the
We agree with petitioners that the complaint of the spouses amount of P50,000.00 is unjust and inequitable. Moreover, the RTC
Dulay filed in 1982 docketed as Civil Case No. 6261 was one for ordered petitioners to pay attorney’s fees of P50,000.00 without even
recovery of possession of the property (accion publiciana) and that supporting the award with its finding and citing legal provisions or
they likewise later filed a complaint with the MTC, on January 29, case law.
1996, for unlawful detainer in Civil Case No. 6089 instead of For its part, the CA ruled that the award of P50,000.00 as
an accion publiciana. However, respondents were not proscribed attorney’s fees under the Rules on Summary Procedure does not
from filing a complaint for unlawful de-tainer five (5) or six (6) years apply in a case where the decision of the MTC is appealed to the
from the dismissal of their complaint for recovery of possession of RTC. The latter court may award an amount beyond the maximum
real property. The dismissal of respondents’ complaint in Civil Case amount of P20,000.00 under the Rules on Summary Procedure as
No. 6261 by the CA was not based on the merits of the case, but attorney’s fees for the reason that, on appeal in the RTC, the regular
solely because it was premature on account of the failure to allege rules of civil procedure apply. According to the CA, there was factual
that earnest efforts were made for the amicable settlement of the and legal basis for the award of P50,000.00 as respondents’
cases as required by Article 222 of the New Civil Code. The attorney’s fees:
dismissal of the complaint was thus without prejudice. 34 Second. Decisional law states—
It bears stressing that, after the Court declared in UDK-10069 on “There is no question that a court may, whenever it deems just and
equitable, allow the recovery by the prevailing party of attorney’s fees. In
November 19, 1990 that the decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No.
determining the reasonableness of such fees, this Court in a number of cases
15455 was final and executory, respondents did not immediately file has provided various criteria which, for convenient guidance, we might
their complaint for unlawful detainer against petitioners for their collate, thusly: a) the quantity and character of the services rendered; b) the
eviction. Respondents filed their complaint only on January 29, 1996, labor, time and trouble involved; c) the nature and importance of the
or after the lapse of almost six (6) years, but barely four (4) months litigation; d) the amount of money or the value of the property affected by the
after respon-dents’ final demand to vacate the property on October 2, controversy; e) the novelty and difficulty of questions involved; f) the
1995 and the issuance of the certification of the Pangkat Secretary on responsibility imposed on
December 1, 1995.
_______________
We agree with the contention of petitioners that for an action for
unlawful detainer based on possession by mere tolerance to prosper, 38
 Rollo, p. 116.
the possession of the property by defendant must be legal from the
very beginning.  In this case, petitioners’ possession of the property
35
59
was tolerated by the former
_______________ VOL. 501, SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 59
 Dela Rosa vs. Roldan
counsel; g) the skill and experience called for in the performance of the service; h) the
professional character and social standing of the lawyer; i) the customary charges of the
bar for similar services; j) the character of employment, whether casual or for established
client; k) whether the fee is absolute or contingent (it being the rule that an attorney may
properly charge a higher fee when it is contingent than when it is absolute; and l) the
results secured.”

In view thereof, the award of attorney’s fees is justified. That is, in addition to
the provisions of Article 2208 of the New Civil Code which reads—
“In the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation, other than
judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
xxxx
(2) When the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with
third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest;”
xxxx

considering that petitioners refused to vacate the subject premises despite

demands by the private respondents.
Finally, the Supreme Court has explained—
“The Rule on Summary Procedure applies only in cases filed before the Metropolitan
Trial Court and Municipal Trial Courts pursuant to Section 36 of Batas Pambansa Blg.
129. x x x Hence, when the respondents appealed the decision of the Municipal Trial
Court to the Regional Trial Court, the applicable rules are those of the latter court.”

Thus, the award of the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as

attorney’s fees is justified considering that the jurisdictional amount of twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000.00) under Section 1, paragraph (A), subparagraph
(1) of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure applies only to the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial
Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.” 39

_______________

39
 Id., at pp. 117-118.

60
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
0 ANNOTATED
Dela Rosa vs. Roldan
We agree with the ruling of the CA. The ceiling of P20,000.00
applies only in the MTC where the Rules on Summary Procedure are
applied. On appeal to the RTC, the RTC may affirm, modify or even
reverse the decision of the MTC; as such, the RTC may increase the
award for attorney’s fees in excess of P20,000.00 if there is factual
basis therefor.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is
DENIED. Costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
     Panganiban (C.J., Chairperson), Ynares-Santiago and
     Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
     Austria-Martinez, J., No part.

Petition denied.