Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1


CA|CRUZ, 250 SCRA 108

Generosa Cruz owned a parcel of land in Bataan. The adjacent land belongs to the Nuguids but
is being used and occupied by Eufemia Sarmiento for several years now. It was found out by
the Geodetic Engineer that Sarmientos fence is encroaching Cruzs land for about 71 meters.
Cruz requested Sarmiento to remove the fence, but the latter refused so Cruz filed a complaint
for ejectment in the Municipal Trial Court.

MTC decided for Cruz. Sarmiento appealed in the RTC, assailing the jurisdiction of the MTC.
RTC decided for Sarmiento and held that the MTC had no jurisdiction to hear the case. CA
reversed RTC and reinstated the MTC decision.

Whether or not the court of origin (MTC) had jurisdiction over the ejectment case? (Apparently,
Cruz failed to state details on how the encroachment was done.)

No. To give the court jurisdiction to effect the ejectment of an occupant or deforciant on the
land, it is necessary that the complaint should embody such statement of facts as brings the
party clearly within the class of cases for which the statutes provide a remedy, as the
proceedings are summary in nature. The complaint must show enough on its face to give the
court jurisdiction without resort to parol evidence.

The jurisdictional facts must appear on the face of the complaint. When the complaint fails to
aver facts constitutive of forcible entry or unlawful detainer, as when it does not state how entry
was effected or how and when dispossession started, as in the case at bar, the remedy should
either be an accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria in the proper regional trial court.