Lawyerly

GR No. 186204

2015-09-02

SPS. ROMEO T. JAVIER AND ADORINA F. JAVIER v. SPS. EVANGELINE PINEDA DE GUZMAN AND VIRGILIO DE GUZMAN

PERALTA, J.

Opposing possessory rights over certain areas of adjacent lots, arising from claims of ownership thereof, cannot be resolved in a summary action such as an ejectment suit.[7] The issues involved in such a controversy should be fully threshed out in an action like accion reivindicatoria,[8] especially when plaintiff fails to establish actual prior possession. In a much earlier ruling of this Court, it was already held therein that "[i]f [a party] is indeed the owner of the premises subject of this suit and she was unlawfully deprived of the real right of possession or the ownership thereof, she should present her claim before the regional trial court in an accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria, and not before the municipal trial court in a summary proceeding of unlawful detainer or forcible entry."[9]

GR No. 156995

2015-01-12

RUBEN MANALANG v. BIENVENIDO

BERSAMIN, J.

The CA held that considering that the petitioners' complaint for unlawful detainer did not set forth when and how the respondents had entered the land in question and constructed their houses thereon, jurisdiction did not vest in the MTC to try and decide the case; that the complaint, if at all, made out a case for either accion reivindicatoria or accion publiciana, either of which fell within the original jurisdiction of the RTC; and that the RTC's reliance on Benitez v. Court of Appeals[16] and Calubayan v. Ferrer[17] was misplaced, because the controlling ruling was that in Sarmiento v. Court of Appeals,[18] in which the complaint was markedly similar to that filed in the case.

GR No. 156995

2015-01-12

RUBEN MANALANG v. BIENVENIDO

BERSAMIN, J.

Thirdly, the MTC dismissed the action because it did not have jurisdiction over the case. The dismissal was correct. It is fundamental that the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought by the complaint determine the nature of the action and the court that has jurisdiction over the action.[28] To be clear, unlawful detainer is an action filed by a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession by virtue of any contract, express or implied.[29] To vest in the MTC the jurisdiction to effect the ejectment from the land of the respondents as the occupants in unlawful detainer, therefore, the complaint should embody such a statement of facts clearly showing the attributes of unlawful detainer.[30] However, the allegations of the petitioners' complaint did not show that they had permitted or tolerated the occupation of the portion of their property by the respondents; or how the respondents' entry had been effected, or how and when the dispossession by the respondents had started. All that the petitioners alleged was the respondents' "illegal use and occupation" of the property. As such, the action was not unlawful detainer.

GR No. 174376

2012-09-12

ZOSIMA IN CORPORATED v. LILIA SALIMBAGAT

BRION, J.

The present petition is an action for unlawful detainer governed by Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.[9] As the principal issue in an unlawful detainer case is the right to possess a real property, the subject matter must refer to a particular property. In an unlawful detainer, the defendant's possession of the plaintiff's property is based on the plaintiff's permission expressed through an express or implied contract between them. The defendant's possession becomes illegal only when the plaintiff demands the return of the property, either because of the expiration of the right to possess it or the termination of their contract, and the defendant refuses to heed the demand.[10]

GR No. 172008

2012-08-01

ISIP v. RODOLFO QUINTOS

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, a case of forcible entry may be filed by, "a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth x x x." In cases of forcible entry, "the possession is illegal from the beginning and the basic inquiry centers on who has the prior possession de facto."[13]

GR No. 165769

2011-12-12

EDITO PAGADORA v. JULIETA S. ILAO

PERALTA, J.

Proceedings in forcible entry cases under Rule 70 are thus summary in nature, allowing as they do for an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or the right to possession of property. [62] Forcible entry into one's land is an open challenge to the right of the lawful possessor, the violation of which right authorizes the speedy redress in the inferior court. [63] The law is geared towards protecting the person who in fact has actual possession; and in case of a controverted proprietary right, the law requires the parties to preserve the status quo until one or the other sees fit to invoke the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction upon the question of ownership. [64]

GR No. 184285

2009-09-25

RODOLFO 'RUDY' CANLAS v. ILUMINADA TUBIL

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The ruling cited by the Court of Appeals in Sarmiento v. Court of Appeals,[21] i.e., 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 forcible entry or unlawful detainer, as where it does not state how entry was effected, or how and when dispossession started, the remedy should either be an accion publiciana or an accion reinvindicatoria in the proper regional trial court,[22] finds no application in the instant case. In Sarmiento, the complaint did not characterize the entry into the land as legal or illegal. It was also not alleged that dispossession was effected through force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth to make out a case of forcible entry, nor was there a contract, express or implied, as would qualify the case as unlawful detainer.[23] Contrarily, the complaint in this case specifically alleged that possession of the petitioners was by tolerance. The rule is that possession by tolerance is lawful, but such possession becomes unlawful upon demand to vacate made by the owner and the possessor by tolerance refuses to comply with such demand.[24] In Sarmiento, the claim that possession of the land was by tolerance was a mere afterthought, raised only in subsequent pleadings but not in the complaint.[25]

GR NO. 160406

2006-06-26

SPS. DOLORES MIRANDA PROVOST AND JEAN PROVOST v. CA AND SPS. VICTOR RAMOS AND FE A. RAMOS

QUISUMBING, J.

We stress that regional trial courts have jurisdiction over complaints for recovery of ownership or accion reivindicatoria.[9] Section 8, Rule 40[10] of the Rules on Civil Procedure nonetheless allows the RTC to decide the case brought on appeal from the MTC which, even without jurisdiction over the subject matter, may decide the case on the merits. In the instant case, the MTC of Mambajao should have dismissed the complaint outright for lack of jurisdiction but since it decided the case on its merits, the RTC rendered a decision based on the findings of the MTC.

GR NO. 132424

2006-05-04

SPS. BONIFACIO R. VALDEZ v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Indeed, to vest the court jurisdiction to effect the ejectment of an occupant, it is necessary that the complaint should embody such a statement of facts as brings the party clearly within the class of cases for which the statutes provide a remedy, as these proceedings are summary in nature.[19] The complaint must show enough on its face the court jurisdiction without resort to parol testimony.[20]

GR NO. 158687

2006-01-25

FRISCO F. DOMALSIN v. SPS. JUANITO VALENCIANO AND AMALIA VALENCIANO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

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.[43] In actions for forcible entry, the law tells us that two allegations are mandatory for the municipal court to acquire jurisdiction: First, the plaintiff must allege prior physical possession of the property. Second, he must also allege that he was deprived of his possession by any of the means provided for in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.[44] To effect the ejectment of an occupant or deforciant on the land, the complaint should embody such a 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.[45]

GR No. 152992

2005-07-28

LEONARDO DAVID v. NELSON

TINGA, J.

The facts upon which an action for forcible entry can be brought are specially mentioned in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. Said section likewise defines an action for unlawful detainer. In forcible entry (desahucio), one is deprived of physical possession of land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. In unlawful detainer (detentacion), one unlawfully withholds possession thereof after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied. In forcible entry, the possession is illegal from the beginning and the basic inquiry centers on who has the prior possession de facto. In unlawful detainer, the possession was originally lawful but became unlawful by the expiration or termination of the right to possess, hence the issue of rightful possession is decisive for, in such action, the defendant is in actual possession and the plaintiff's cause of action is the termination of the defendant's right to continue in possession.[38]

GR No. 152145

2004-03-30

SALUD D. LOPEZ v. ROBERT P. DAVID JR.

PANGANIBAN, J.

Well-settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of the court and the nature of the action are determined by the averments in the complaint.[12] To give the court jurisdiction to effect the ejectment of an occupant or a deforciant from the land, it is necessary that the complaint should embody a statement of facts that brings the party clearly within the class of cases for which the statutes provide a remedy, as these proceedings are summary in nature.[13] On its face, the complaint must show enough ground for the court to assume jurisdiction without resort to parol testimony.[14]

GR No. 143173

2001-03-28

SPS. PEDRO ONG AND VERONICA ONG v. SOCORRO PAREL

GONZAGA-REYES, J.

Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court requires that in actions for forcible entry the plaintiff is allegedly deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth and that the action is filed any time within one year from the time of such unlawful deprivation of possession. This requirement implies that in such cases, the possession of the land by the defendant is unlawful from the beginning as he acquires possession thereof by unlawful means. The plaintiff must allege and prove that he was in prior physical possession of the property in litigation until he was deprived thereof by the defendant. The one year period within which to bring an action for forcible entry is generally counted from the date of actual entry on the land,[8] except that when entry was made through stealth, the one year period is counted from the time the plaintiff learned thereof.[9] If the alleged dispossession did not occur by any of the means stated in section 1, Rule 70, the proper recourse is to file a plenary action to recover possession with the regional trial court.[10]

	GR No. 186204 2015-09-02	SPS. ROMEO T. JAVIER AND ADORINA F. JAVIER v. SPS. EVANGELINE PINEDA DE GUZMAN AND VIRGILIO DE GUZMAN PERALTA, J.
Opposing possessory rights over certain areas of adjacent lots, arising from claims of ownership thereof, cannot be resolved in a summary action such as an ejectment suit.[7] The issues involved in such a controversy should be fully threshed out in an action like accion reivindicatoria,[8] especially when plaintiff fails to establish actual prior possession. In a much earlier ruling of this Court, it was already held therein that "[i]f [a party] is indeed the owner of the premises subject of this suit and she was unlawfully deprived of the real right of possession or the ownership thereof, she should present her claim before the regional trial court in an accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria, and not before the municipal trial court in a summary proceeding of unlawful detainer or forcible entry."[9]
	GR No. 156995 2015-01-12	RUBEN MANALANG v. BIENVENIDO BERSAMIN, J.
The CA held that considering that the petitioners' complaint for unlawful detainer did not set forth when and how the respondents had entered the land in question and constructed their houses thereon, jurisdiction did not vest in the MTC to try and decide the case; that the complaint, if at all, made out a case for either accion reivindicatoria or accion publiciana, either of which fell within the original jurisdiction of the RTC; and that the RTC's reliance on Benitez v. Court of Appeals[16] and Calubayan v. Ferrer[17] was misplaced, because the controlling ruling was that in Sarmiento v. Court of Appeals,[18] in which the complaint was markedly similar to that filed in the case.
	GR No. 156995 2015-01-12	RUBEN MANALANG v. BIENVENIDO BERSAMIN, J.
Thirdly, the MTC dismissed the action because it did not have jurisdiction over the case. The dismissal was correct. It is fundamental that the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought by the complaint determine the nature of the action and the court that has jurisdiction over the action.[28] To be clear, unlawful detainer is an action filed by a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession by virtue of any contract, express or implied.[29] To vest in the MTC the jurisdiction to effect the ejectment from the land of the respondents as the occupants in unlawful detainer, therefore, the complaint should embody such a statement of facts clearly showing the attributes of unlawful detainer.[30] However, the allegations of the petitioners' complaint did not show that they had permitted or tolerated the occupation of the portion of their property by the respondents; or how the respondents' entry had been effected, or how and when the dispossession by the respondents had started. All that the petitioners alleged was the respondents' "illegal use and occupation" of the property. As such, the action was not unlawful detainer.
	GR No. 174376 2012-09-12	ZOSIMA IN CORPORATED v. LILIA SALIMBAGAT BRION, J.
The present petition is an action for unlawful detainer governed by Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.[9] As the principal issue in an unlawful detainer case is the right to possess a real property, the subject matter must refer to a particular property. In an unlawful detainer, the defendant's possession of the plaintiff's property is based on the plaintiff's permission expressed through an express or implied contract between them. The defendant's possession becomes illegal only when the plaintiff demands the return of the property, either because of the expiration of the right to possess it or the termination of their contract, and the defendant refuses to heed the demand.[10]
	GR No. 172008 2012-08-01	ISIP v. RODOLFO QUINTOS DEL CASTILLO, J.
Under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, a case of forcible entry may be filed by, "a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth x x x." In cases of forcible entry, "the possession is illegal from the beginning and the basic inquiry centers on who has the prior possession de facto."[13]
	GR No. 165769 2011-12-12	EDITO PAGADORA v. JULIETA S. ILAO PERALTA, J.
Proceedings in forcible entry cases under Rule 70 are thus summary in nature, allowing as they do for an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or the right to possession of property. [62] Forcible entry into one's land is an open challenge to the right of the lawful possessor, the violation of which right authorizes the speedy redress in the inferior court. [63] The law is geared towards protecting the person who in fact has actual possession; and in case of a controverted proprietary right, the law requires the parties to preserve the status quo until one or the other sees fit to invoke the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction upon the question of ownership. [64]
	GR No. 184285 2009-09-25	RODOLFO 'RUDY' CANLAS v. ILUMINADA TUBIL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The ruling cited by the Court of Appeals in Sarmiento v. Court of Appeals,[21] i.e., 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 forcible entry or unlawful detainer, as where it does not state how entry was effected, or how and when dispossession started, the remedy should either be an accion publiciana or an accion reinvindicatoria in the proper regional trial court,[22] finds no application in the instant case. In Sarmiento, the complaint did not characterize the entry into the land as legal or illegal. It was also not alleged that dispossession was effected through force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth to make out a case of forcible entry, nor was there a contract, express or implied, as would qualify the case as unlawful detainer.[23] Contrarily, the complaint in this case specifically alleged that possession of the petitioners was by tolerance. The rule is that possession by tolerance is lawful, but such possession becomes unlawful upon demand to vacate made by the owner and the possessor by tolerance refuses to comply with such demand.[24] In Sarmiento, the claim that possession of the land was by tolerance was a mere afterthought, raised only in subsequent pleadings but not in the complaint.[25]
	GR NO. 160406 2006-06-26	SPS. DOLORES MIRANDA PROVOST AND JEAN PROVOST v. CA AND SPS. VICTOR RAMOS AND FE A. RAMOS QUISUMBING, J.
We stress that regional trial courts have jurisdiction over complaints for recovery of ownership or accion reivindicatoria.[9] Section 8, Rule 40[10] of the Rules on Civil Procedure nonetheless allows the RTC to decide the case brought on appeal from the MTC which, even without jurisdiction over the subject matter, may decide the case on the merits. In the instant case, the MTC of Mambajao should have dismissed the complaint outright for lack of jurisdiction but since it decided the case on its merits, the RTC rendered a decision based on the findings of the MTC.
	GR NO. 132424 2006-05-04	SPS. BONIFACIO R. VALDEZ v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Indeed, to vest the court jurisdiction to effect the ejectment of an occupant, it is necessary that the complaint should embody such a statement of facts as brings the party clearly within the class of cases for which the statutes provide a remedy, as these proceedings are summary in nature.[19] The complaint must show enough on its face the court jurisdiction without resort to parol testimony.[20]
	GR NO. 158687 2006-01-25	FRISCO F. DOMALSIN v. SPS. JUANITO VALENCIANO AND AMALIA VALENCIANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
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.[43] In actions for forcible entry, the law tells us that two allegations are mandatory for the municipal court to acquire jurisdiction: First, the plaintiff must allege prior physical possession of the property. Second, he must also allege that he was deprived of his possession by any of the means provided for in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.[44] To effect the ejectment of an occupant or deforciant on the land, the complaint should embody such a 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.[45]
	GR No. 152992 2005-07-28	LEONARDO DAVID v. NELSON TINGA, J.
The facts upon which an action for forcible entry can be brought are specially mentioned in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. Said section likewise defines an action for unlawful detainer. In forcible entry (desahucio), one is deprived of physical possession of land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. In unlawful detainer (detentacion), one unlawfully withholds possession thereof after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied. In forcible entry, the possession is illegal from the beginning and the basic inquiry centers on who has the prior possession de facto. In unlawful detainer, the possession was originally lawful but became unlawful by the expiration or termination of the right to possess, hence the issue of rightful possession is decisive for, in such action, the defendant is in actual possession and the plaintiff's cause of action is the termination of the defendant's right to continue in possession.[38]
	GR No. 152145 2004-03-30	SALUD D. LOPEZ v. ROBERT P. DAVID JR. PANGANIBAN, J.
Well-settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of the court and the nature of the action are determined by the averments in the complaint.[12] To give the court jurisdiction to effect the ejectment of an occupant or a deforciant from the land, it is necessary that the complaint should embody a statement of facts that brings the party clearly within the class of cases for which the statutes provide a remedy, as these proceedings are summary in nature.[13] On its face, the complaint must show enough ground for the court to assume jurisdiction without resort to parol testimony.[14]
	GR No. 143173 2001-03-28	SPS. PEDRO ONG AND VERONICA ONG v. SOCORRO PAREL GONZAGA-REYES, J.
Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court requires that in actions for forcible entry the plaintiff is allegedly deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth and that the action is filed any time within one year from the time of such unlawful deprivation of possession. This requirement implies that in such cases, the possession of the land by the defendant is unlawful from the beginning as he acquires possession thereof by unlawful means. The plaintiff must allege and prove that he was in prior physical possession of the property in litigation until he was deprived thereof by the defendant. The one year period within which to bring an action for forcible entry is generally counted from the date of actual entry on the land,[8] except that when entry was made through stealth, the one year period is counted from the time the plaintiff learned thereof.[9] If the alleged dispossession did not occur by any of the means stated in section 1, Rule 70, the proper recourse is to file a plenary action to recover possession with the regional trial court.[10]

EUFEMIA SARMIENTO v. CA