SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 254055. February 3, 2021.]
ANA MARIE A. ZAPATA, petitioner,vs. HENRY PEGENIA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 February 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 254055 (Ana Marie A. Zapata v. Henry Pegenia). — After a review of the records, this Court resolves to DENY the appeal by certiorari for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its November 28, 2019 Decision 1 and October 9, 2020 Resolution 2 as to warrant the exercise of this Court's appellate jurisdiction.
As correctly held by the CA, it was premature to dismiss the ejectment case merely because Ana Marie A. Zapata (petitioner) took possession of the subject property during the pendency of said case. The filing of the complaint conferred upon the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) the bounden duty to determine who between the parties had a better right of possession over the subject property. The dismissal of the ejectment case essentially awarded that right to petitioner who, in the first place, violated the status quo by taking possession of the subject property. Indeed, the essence of an ejectment suit is for the rightful possessor to lawfully recover the property through lawful means instead of unlawfully wresting possession of the property from its current occupant. 3 Concomitant thereto is the parties' duty to preserve the status quo until one of them sees it fit to invoke the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction upon the question of ownership. The party who first acquired possession should remain in possession pending the decision. 4 HTcADC
This Court, however, deems it proper to modify the CA decision, specifically, the latter's remanding of the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for determination of the merits. The case should be remanded to the MTCC, not the RTC, since it is the MTCC which has exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer. 5
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The November 28, 2019 Decision and October 9, 2020 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 149700 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the case is REMANDED to the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Tagaytay City, for determination of the merits of the case. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 38-45; penned by Associate Justice Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon, with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring.
2.Id. at 47-49.
3.Province of Camarines Sur v. Bodega Glassware, 807 Phil. 865, 874-875 (2017).
4.Reyes, Sr. v. Heirs of Deogracias Forlales, 787 Phil. 541, 558 (2016), citing Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals, 570 Phil. 130, 139 (2008).
5. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing Footnote Text.