Barrazona vs. San-an Realty and Development Corporation

Jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action is determined by the allegations of the complaint at the time of its filing, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon the claims asserted therein. A complaint captioned as "Collection of Sum of Money with Damages" but containing allegations of demand to pay and vacate is in substance an ejectment case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court, not the Regional Trial Court.

San-An Realty and Development Corporation owns a building at Naguilian corner Asin Road, Baguio City. Barrazona leased Units 203 A and B on the second floor of that building for a two-year term commencing July 15, 2001 and ending June 30, 2003, at monthly rentals of ₱400.00 per square meter for Unit 203 A and ₱500.00 per square meter for Unit 203 B. The dispute arose from Barrazona's default in rental payments beginning August 2001.

San-An Realty and Development Corporation owns a building located at Naguilian corner Asin Road, Baguio City. Vangie Barrazona leased portions of that building — specifically Units 203 A and B on the second floor — under a lease contract for a period of two years, commencing July 15, 2001 and ending June 30, 2003. The agreed monthly rental was ₱400.00 per square meter for Unit 203 A and ₱500.00 per square meter for Unit 203 B.

Starting August 2001, Barrazona defaulted in the payment of monthly rentals and failed to pay despite repeated demands by San-An Realty. On March 27, 2002, San-An Realty made a final written demand upon Barrazona to pay her overdue rentals, then amounting to ₱971,838.15, and to vacate the premises.

On May 14, 2002, San-An Realty, represented by Rodrigo Chua Tiu, filed a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money with Damages with the RTC, Branch 61, Baguio City, docketed as Civil Case No. 5238-R. The complaint alleged that Barrazona had failed to pay rentals from August 2001 up to the present and that the last demand to vacate and pay arrears had been made in writing on March 27, 2002.

On June 3, 2002, Barrazona filed a Motion to Dismiss, contending that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over the complaint because its allegations showed the action to be one for ejectment — illegal detainer — which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court. She pointed specifically to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the complaint, which alleged non-payment of rentals and a demand to pay and vacate. By Order dated June 19, 2002, the RTC denied the motion, stating only that the grounds therein were "without merit." Barrazona then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.

• Lack of Jurisdiction: Petitioner argued that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the complaint because the allegations therein — particularly paragraphs 4 and 5, which state non-payment of rentals and a demand to vacate and pay arrears — clearly indicate that the action is one for ejectment (illegal detainer) cognizable by the Municipal Trial Court, not the RTC.
• Unconstitutionality of the Order: Petitioner maintained that the RTC Order denying her Motion to Dismiss is unconstitutional because it does not state the facts and the law on which it is based, consisting only of a bare finding that the grounds were "without merit."

• Nature of the Complaint: Respondent countered that the complaint is for collection of unpaid rentals, as there is absolutely no allegation that its intent is to eject petitioner from the premises.
• Premature Certiorari: Respondent argued that petitioner should have first filed a motion for reconsideration before resorting to the extraordinary remedy of certiorari.
• Interlocutory Order: Respondent contended that the assailed order denying the motion to dismiss is interlocutory and therefore cannot be the subject of a petition for certiorari.

• Jurisdiction: Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the complaint captioned "Collection of Sum of Money with Damages," given that its allegations include a demand to pay and vacate.
• Constitutionality of the Order: Whether the RTC Order denying the Motion to Dismiss violates the Constitution for failing to state the facts and the law on which it is based.
• Propriety of Certiorari: Whether a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to assail an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss, and whether the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent.

• Jurisdiction: No. The RTC has no jurisdiction over the complaint. Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint, and the allegations therein — particularly the demand to pay and vacate — show that the action is for ejectment under the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC pursuant to Section 2, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Constitutionality of the Order: Yes, the order is deficient. The RTC's bare minute order — stating only that the grounds were "without merit" — violates Section 3, Rule 16, which requires that resolutions on motions to dismiss state clearly and distinctly the reasons therefor.
• Propriety of Certiorari: Yes, certiorari is proper. While an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and non-appealable, certiorari lies when the denial is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and the filing of a motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with where the lower court lacks jurisdiction.

• Jurisdiction: The basic rule, as emphasized in Herrera vs. Bollos, is that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint at the time of its filing, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon the claims asserted. The averments and the character of the relief sought are controlling, not the caption. Here, paragraph 5 of the complaint alleged that respondent demanded petitioner to pay her overdue account and that "the last demand to vacate and payment of arrears having been made in writing on March 27, 2002." This allegation shows that respondent made several demands to pay and to vacate, satisfying the jurisdictional requirement under Section 2, Rule 70 for an ejectment action. Although the complaint was captioned "Collection of Sum of Money with Damages," the allegations therein reveal that the action is for ejectment, which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC. The RTC therefore acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss.
• Constitutionality of the Order: The challenged RTC order stated only: "This Court finds that the grounds stated in the Motion to Dismiss to be without merit, hence, the same is denied." Such a perfunctory disposition violates Section 3, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that the resolution of a motion to dismiss "shall state clearly and distinctly the reasons therefor." Trial courts have been admonished against issuing minute orders, as cavalier dispositions pose difficulty for the aggrieved party in seeking recourse and for the appellate court called upon to review the same.
• Propriety of Certiorari: While an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and non-appealable, certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies where the denial is without or in excess of jurisdiction, as held in Time, Inc. vs. Reyes and Ablan, Sr. vs. Madarang. The writ of certiorari exists to keep an inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction. As for the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration, the Court recognized established exceptions, including where the court a quo has no jurisdiction — as in this case — rendering the filing of a motion for reconsideration unnecessary.

• Determination of Jurisdiction by Allegations of the Complaint — Jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action is determined by the allegations of the complaint at the time of its filing, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted. What determines jurisdiction is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint; the averments therein and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Applied here, the complaint's allegations of demand to pay and vacate showed the action to be ejectment, notwithstanding its caption as "Collection of Sum of Money with Damages."
• Requirement of Stated Reasons in Resolutions on Motions to Dismiss — Under Section 3, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, resolutions disposing of a motion to dismiss must state clearly and distinctly the reasons therefor. This proscribes the practice of perfunctorily dismissing motions for "lack of merit," which poses difficulty for the aggrieved party and the appellate court.
• Certiorari from Interlocutory Orders — While an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and non-appealable, certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies where the denial is without or in excess of jurisdiction or attended by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
• Exceptions to the Motion for Reconsideration Requirement in Certiorari — Before certiorari may be availed of, a motion for reconsideration must generally be filed with the lower court. However, this requirement is excused where: (a) the proceedings are a patent nullity; (b) the question is purely of law; (c) public interest is involved; (d) judicial intervention is urgent or its application may cause great and irreparable damage; or (e) the court a quo has no jurisdiction.

• "jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is determined by the allegations of the complaint at the time of its filing, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint." — This is the canonical formulation of the rule on determining jurisdiction by the complaint's allegations, frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on jurisdiction.
• "Indeed, while the complaint is captioned 'Collection of Sum of Money with Damages,' the allegations therein show that respondent's action is for ejectment. All ejectment cases are within the jurisdiction of the MTC." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi: the caption does not control jurisdiction; the substance of the allegations does.
• "This requirement proscribes the common practice of perfunctorily dismissing a motion to dismiss for 'lack of merit.'" — This defines the procedural obligation of trial courts under Section 3, Rule 16 and condemns the practice of issuing minute orders on motions to dismiss.

• Herrera vs. Bollos, G.R. No. 138258, January 18, 2002, 374 SCRA 107 — Controlling authority for the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the complaint at the time of filing. Followed and applied directly to the facts of this case.
• Time, Inc. vs. Reyes, L-28882, May 31, 1971, 39 SCRA 303 — Authority for the proposition that certiorari or prohibition may issue from a denial of a motion to dismiss predicated on lack of jurisdiction. Followed.
• Ablan, Sr. vs. Madarang, L-32963, September 30, 1971, 41 SCRA 213 — Authority that while an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and non-appealable, certiorari is proper where the denial is without or in excess of jurisdiction. Followed.
• Tala Realty Services Corporation vs. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, G.R. No. 137533, November 22, 2002, 392 SCRA 506 — Cited for the proposition that all ejectment cases are within the jurisdiction of the MTC. Followed.
• Continental Bank vs. Tiangco, G.R. No. 50480, December 14, 1979, 94 SCRA 715 — Authority for the admonition against trial courts issuing minute orders that fail to state reasons for dismissal. Followed.

• Section 1, Rule 16, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Enumerates the grounds for a motion to dismiss, including lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim. Petitioner invoked this provision as the basis for her motion to dismiss.
• Section 3, Rule 16, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Requires that resolutions disposing of a motion to dismiss state clearly and distinctly the reasons therefor. Applied to condemn the RTC's bare minute order as procedurally deficient.
• Section 2, Rule 70, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Provides that a lessor's action against a lessee shall be commenced only after demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate is made upon the lessee. The complaint's allegation of a written demand to pay and vacate on March 27, 2002 satisfied this jurisdictional prerequisite, confirming the action as ejectment.

Puno (Chairperson), Corona, Azcuna, and Garcia, JJ., concurred.