G.R. No.

138258 January 18, 2002

EDDIE HERRERA, ERNESTO T. TIJING, and CONRADO BOLLOS, petitioners,

vs.
TEODORA BOLLOS and RICO GO, respondents.

FACTS:
Teodora Bollos commenced before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court a civil case for
Forcible Entry solely against Eddie Herrera alleging that the latter through stealth and strategy
and taking advantage of the absence of Teodora, entered and occupied her Sugarland. Teodora
claims to have inherited said parcel, being the only heir, from her deceased father, Alfonso.
Herrera, denied the allegations against him maintaining that his occupation of the property was
not through stealth or strategy but by virtue of a contract of lease executed between Conrado
Bollos (Alfonso’s brother), as lessor, and Ernesto Tijing, as lessee. As a consequence, the
complaint was twice amended, first, on March 23, 1994 to include Ernesto T. Tijing as a party-
defendant and much later on October 4, 1995, this time to implead Conrado Bollos as an
additional defendant.

The first level court dismissed the case due to the reason that Teodora failed to make-out
a forcible entry case because of lack of jurisdiction. On appeal to RTC, the decision of the first
level court was reversed and ruled that the lot be restored to the respondents and that the
petitioners be ejected from the said lot plus actual and moral damages and attorney’s fees be
awarded to the respondents. In this regard, petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a petition
for review assailing the ruling of the regional trial court. However, the CA affirmed the RTC’s
ruling except that the award of actual and moral damages therein contained are deleted.
Petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for reconsideration of the decision, but was
denied by the same. Hence, a petition for review on certiorari has been filed by petitioners ,
before the Supreme Court, of the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that of the Regional
Trial Court, which reversed the ruling of the municipal trial court that it has jurisdiction over the
case of forcible entry.

ISSUES:

(a) Is the municipal trial court vested with jurisdiction over a second amended complaint
impleading a new defendant filed beyond one year from dispossession alleging a case of
forcible entry in the original action?

(b) May the regional trial court award moral and exemplary damages against petitioners
in an appeal from a dismissal of the case for forcible entry by the lower court?