Spouses A sued B for forcible entry before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC). The trial court ruled in favor of B, dismissing the case against him. Spouses A appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which ruled that the MTC had no jurisdiction over the case. Instead of dismissing the case, the RTC tried the case anew and rendered a decision in favor of the complainant-appellant spouses.

This prompted B to file an ordinary appeal at the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed his action, citing wrong mode. It said he should have filed a petition for review. B elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

On this issue, the Supreme Court ruled against him.

“The Decision of the RTC appealed from was rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Thus, under Rule 41, Section 2(b) of the Rules of Court, the proper mode of appeal to the CA is via petition for review.

“To recap, the RTC decided the present case pursuant to the second paragraph of Rule 40, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, which states that if the MTC tried a case on the merits despite having no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the RTC, on appeal, shall not dismiss the case if it has jurisdiction.

“Instead, the RTC shall try the case on the merits as if the said case was originally filed with it. The whole text of Rule 40, Section 8 reads: Sec. 8. Appeal from orders dismissing case without trial; lack of jurisdiction. If an appeal is taken from an order of the lower court dismissing the case without a trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court may affirm or reverse it, as the case may be.

“In case of affirmance and the ground of dismissal is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Regional Trial Court, if it has jurisdiction thereover, shall try the case on the merits as if the case was originally filed with it. In case of reversal, the case shall be remanded for further proceedings.

“If the case was tried on the merits by the lower court without jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Regional Trial Court on appeal shall not dismiss the case if it has original jurisdiction thereof, but shall decide the case in accordance with the preceding section, without prejudice to the admission of amended pleadings and additional evidence in the interest of justice.

“Indeed, a textual reading of the foregoing provision gives the impression that cases decided by the RTC pursuant to it are rendered in the exercise of the RTC’s original jurisdiction. This is incorrect. In De Vera v. Spouses Santiago, the Court deemed a Decision of the RTC under Rule 40, Section 8 of the Rules of the Court as one promulgated in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. There, the MTC decided a complaint for reconveyance of ownership and possession with damages on the merits despite having no jurisdiction over the subject matter.

“On appeal, the RTC, since it has jurisdiction, proceeded to try the case as if the same was originally filed before it. When the case was elevated to the CA, the CA found that the RTC had no jurisdiction.

“In reversing the CA, the Court declared that: In contrast, the CA erroneously reversed and set aside the RTC Decision for lack of jurisdiction. Indeed, the RTC has appellate jurisdiction over the case and its decision should be deemed promulgated in the exercise of that jurisdiction.

“Consequently, the phrase in Rule 40, Section 8 that the RTC shall decide the case ‘as if the same was originally filed before it’ does not convert the type of jurisdiction being exercised by the RTC, which remains to be appellate. The phrase does not change the fact that the case was originally or first filed before the MTC and reached the RTC only via appeal.”

So to my comparers, please take note. This is one we should always be conscious of. Otherwise...

The facts and redacted portion of the decision are from Reynaldo San Pedro v. spouses Angelito Trinidad (G.R. No. 272300, 7 April 2025)