CaseDig: Delos Reyes vs. Sps. Odones

G.R. No. 178096; March 23, 2011
Posted by: Ana R. Bonita on July 27, 2018



FACTS:
  • Petitioner is the owner of a parcel of land and that, even before the document upon which the title was based, Petitioner has long been the owner thereof.
  • Respondents are staying on the said property with a house/improvements therein, with the mere tolerance of Petitioner only, without any contract whatsoever and for which there is an implied understanding to vacate upon the demand.
  • Petitioner previously demanded verbally upon Respondents to vacate which they refused and for which a written notice was sent advising them to vacate the said property within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the letter to vacate and the said letter was sent by registered mail which was duly received.
  • Upon failure from the Respondents to vacate, a complaint for Unlawful Detainer with Preliminary Injunction was filed by Petitioner against the Respondents.
  • Respondents argued that since the complaint failed to allege how respondents entered the property or when they erected their houses thereon, it is an improper action for unlawful detainer, and the MTC had no jurisdiction over the same.
  • The MTC ruled in favor of the Petitioner but the RTC and the CA ruled otherwise.
  • The RTC held that the complaint failed to aver acts constitutive of forcible entry or unlawful detainer since it did not state how entry was effected or how and when the dispossession started. Hence, the remedy should either be accion publiciana or accion reinvindicatoria in the proper RTC.
  • The CA affirmed the judgment of the RTC, citing that in order to justify an action for unlawful detainer, the owner's permission or tolerance must be present at the beginning of the possession.
ISSUE:
  • Whether or not the MTC acquired jurisdiction over the case.
HELD:
  • Well-settled is the rule that what determines the nature of the action, as well as the court which has jurisdiction over the case, are the allegations in the complaint.
  • In ejectment cases, the complaint should embody such statement of facts as to bring the party clearly within the class of cases for which the statutes provide a remedy, as these proceedings are summary in nature. The complaint must show enough on its face to give the court jurisdiction without resort to parol evidence.
  • Unlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real property from one who illegally withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied. The possession by the defendant in unlawful detainer is originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess.
  • The proceeding is summary in nature, jurisdiction over which lies with the proper MTC or metropolitan trial court. The action must be brought up within one year from the date of last demand, and the issue in the case must be the right to physical possession.
  • A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it recites the following:
  1. initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
  2. eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter's right of possession;
  3. thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and
  4. within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.
  • to the findings of the RTC and the CA, petitioner's allegations in the complaint clearly makes out a case for unlawful detainer, essential to confer jurisdiction over the subject matter on the MTC.
  • Petitioner alleges that she is the owner of the lot; that respondents are occupying the lot by virtue of petitioner's tolerance; and that petitioner sent a letter to respondents, demanding that they vacate the property, but they failed and refused to do so. The complaint was filed within one year from the time the last demand to vacate was made.
  • Firm is the rule that as long as these allegations demonstrate a cause of action for unlawful detainer, the court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter.
  • The CA misapplied the ruling in one case, that tolerance must be present right from the start of possession, which possession is sought to be recovered.
  • The CA, in affirming the RTC, likewise erroneously applied the rule that jurisdictional facts must appear on the face of the complaint for ejectment, such that when the complaint fails to faithfully aver facts constitutive of unlawful detainer, as where it does not state when and how entry was effected, or how and when dispossession started, the remedy should either be accion publiciana or accion reinvindicatoria in the proper RTC.
  • The requirement that the complaint should aver, as jurisdictional facts, when and how entry into the property was made by the defendants applies only when the issue is the timeliness of the filing of the complaint before the MTC, and not when the jurisdiction of the MTC is assailed because the case is one for accion publiciana cognizable by the RTC.
  • Based on the foregoing, the MTC validly acquired jurisdiction over the complaint and we agree with its conclusion that petitioner is entitled to the physical possession of the lot, she having been able to prove by preponderance of evidence, through the TCT registered in her name, that she is entitled to possession of the property as owner. The countervailing evidence presented by respondents that sought to dispute the authenticity of petitioner's TCT cannot be given weight in this case. Settled is the rule that the validity of a certificate of title cannot be attacked in an action for ejectment.
  • This notwithstanding, the determination made herein as regards petitioner's ownership of the lot is only prima facie and only for purposes of resolving the issue of physical possession. These pronouncements are without prejudice to the case of annulment of the deed of sale and TCT filed by respondents against petitioner.
  • WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The decision of the Municipal Trial Court is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED. #END