G.R. No. 174082 Case Digest

G.R. No. 174082, January 16, 2012

Georgia Estel, petitioner

vs Recaredo Diego, Sr. and Recaredo Diego,Jr., respondents

Ponente: Peralta

Facts:

This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to annul and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the RTC - Gingoog City denying the motion for reconsideration.

There was a complaint for forcible entry, damages and injunction with application for TRO by Recaredos' with the MTCC of Gingoog. This complaint alleges that on April 1991, they entered with a contract of sale of a parcel of land with the Estel. Estel voluntarily delivered the physical and material possession of the the subject matter after receiving the down payment. Then the Recaredos have occupied the land since then without any disturbances. 5 years after, Esthel with her two sons and 5 other people uprooted the fence surrounding the land, entered the premises and destroyed the trees and plants found therein. Recaredo Sr., witnessed the incident but found himself helpless at that time.

Respondents then prayed for the restoration of their possession, issuance of permanent injunction against petitioner. MTCC issued a TRO against petitioner and any person acting in her behalf.

In her defense and counterclaims, Estel denied the material allegations in the complaint contending that respondents were never physical, actual, public, adverse and uninterrupted possession of the land. Also saying that he sale done before was abrogated when she offered to return the amount which the respondents refused.

MTCC rendered order saying that the petitioners must vacate the premises of the land and return the same to the respondents with additional payments.

Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the RTC of Gingoog, but RTC affirmed the decision of MTCC. Petitioner then filed a petition for review with the CA, CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the CA denied it as well.

Issue: (1) MTCC of Gingoog has jurisdiction over the subject matter? (2) Complaint states no cause of action? (3) Conclusions are not supported by competent material evidence?

Held:

(1) Petitioner did not raise the issue of jurisdiction in the MTCC and RTC, so she is estopped from raising that issue now. Estoppel sets in when a party participates in all stages of a case before challenging the jurisdiction of the lower court.

(2) Respondents sufficiently alleged in their complaint the material facts constituting forcible entry, as they explicitly claimed that they had prior possession of the land since its purchase from the petitioner, who voluntarily delivered it to them.