Lawyerly

GR No. 161589

2014-11-24

PENTA PACIFIC REALTY CORPORATION v. LEY CONSTRUCTION

BERSAMIN, J.

The jurisdiction of the MeTC was not ousted by the fact that what was ultimately proved as to how entry by the respondent had been made or when the dispossession had started might have departed from that alleged in the complaint. As earlier stated, jurisdiction over the subject matter was determined from the allegations of the complaint, which clearly set forth a cause of action for unlawful detainer.[34]

GR No. 202354

2014-09-24

AMADA C. ZACARIAS v. VICTORIA ANACAY

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The above complaint failed to allege a cause of action for unlawful detainer as it does not describe possession by the respondents being initially legal or tolerated by the petitioner and which became illegal upon termination by the petitioner of such lawful possession. Petitioner's insistence that she actually tolerated respondents' continued occupation after her discovery of their entry into the subject premises is incorrect. As she had averred, she discovered respondents' occupation in May 2007. Such possession could not have been legal from the start as it was without her knowledge or consent, much less was it based on any contract, express or implied. We stress that the possession of the defendant in unlawful detainer is originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess.[18]

GR No. 192893

2013-06-05

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. HEIRS OF SPS. DIONISIO DELOY AND PRAXEDES MARTONITO

MENDOZA, J.

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 of the defendant in unlawful detainer is originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess.[18] The only issue to be resolved in an unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties involved.[19]

GR No. 194270

2012-12-03

LORETO BOTE v. SPS. ROBERT VELOSO AND GLORIA VELOSO

VELASCO JR., J.

Nevertheless, such rule admits of an exception as enunciated in Canlas v. Tubil,[32] to wit: As a rule, a change of theory cannot be allowed. However, when the factual bases thereof would not require presentation of any further evidence by the adverse party in order to enable it to properly meet the issue raised in the new theory, as in this case, the Court may give due course to the petition and resolve the principal issues raised therein.

GR No. 190071

2012-08-15

UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. MAUNLAD HOMES

BRION, J.

Unlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real property from one who unlawfully withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied. The possession of the defendant in unlawful detainer is originally legal but became illegal due to expiration or termination of the right to possess.[16] Under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, the action must be filed "within one (1) year after [the] unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession[.]" Thus, to fall within the jurisdiction of the MeTC, the complaint must allege that

GR No. 194880

2012-06-20

REPUBLIC v. SUNVAR REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

SERENO, J.

"On the other hand, accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the right of possession which should be brought in the proper regional trial court when dispossession has lasted for more than one year. It is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title. In other words, if at the time of the filing of the complaint, more than one year had elapsed since defendant had turned plaintiff out of possession or defendant's possession had become illegal, the action will be, not one of forcible entry or illegal detainer, but an accion publiciana."[64]

GR No. 183822

2012-01-18

RUBEN C. CORPUZ v. SPS. HILARION AGUSTIN AND JUSTA AGUSTIN

SERENO, J.

In Canlas v. Tubil,[24] we enumerated the elements that constitute the sufficiency of a complaint for unlawful detainer, as follows: 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.

GR No. 151369

2011-03-23

ANITA MONASTERIO-PE AND SPS. ROMULO TAN AND EDITHA PE-TAN v. JOSE JUAN TONG

PERALTA, J.

Respondent alleged in his complaint that petitioners occupied the subject property by his mere tolerance. While tolerance is lawful, such possession becomes illegal upon demand to vacate by the owner and the possessor by tolerance refuses to comply with such demand.[19] Respondent sent petitioners a demand letter dated December 1, 1999 to vacate the subject property, but petitioners did not comply with the demand. A person who occupies the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against him.[20] Under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, the one-year period within which a complaint for unlawful detainer can be filed should be counted from the date of demand, because only upon the lapse of that period does the possession become unlawful.[21] Respondent filed the ejectment case against petitioners on March 29, 2000, which was less than a year from December 1, 1999, the date of formal demand. Hence, it is clear that the action was filed within the one-year period prescribed for filing an ejectment or unlawful detainer case.

GR No. 178096

2011-03-23

ROSA DELOS REYES v. SPS. FRANCISCO ODONES

NACHURA, 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. 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.[25]

GR No. 178159

2011-03-02

SPS. VICENTE DIONISIO v. WILFREDO LINSANGAN

ABAD, J.

Is the action one for unlawful detainer? An action is for unlawful detainer if the complaint sufficiently alleges the following: (1) initially, the defendant has possession of property by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) eventually, however, such possession became illegal upon plaintiff's notice to defendant, terminating the latter's right of possession; (3) still, the defendant remains in possession, depriving the plaintiff of the enjoyment of his property; and (4) within a year from plaintiff's last demand that defendant vacate the property, the plaintiff files a complaint for defendant's ejectment.[12] If the defendant had possession of the land upon mere tolerance of the owner, such tolerance must be present at the beginning of defendant's possession.[13]

GR No. 182953

2010-10-11

CORAZON D. SARMIENTA v. MANALITE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

VILLARAMA, JR., 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.[19] In ejectment cases, the complaint should embody such statement of facts as to bring the party clearly within the class of cases under Section 1, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Section 1 provides: SECTION 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when.-- Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or 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, or the legal representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession, together with damages and costs.

GR No. 180687

2010-10-06

ESMERALDO C. ROMULLO v. SAMAHANG MAGKAKAPITBAHAY NG BAYANIHAN COMPOUND HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

NACHURA, J.

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 of the defendant in unlawful detainer is originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess. An unlawful detainer proceeding is summary in nature, jurisdiction of which lies with the proper municipal trial court or metropolitan trial court. The action must be brought within one year from the date of last demand; and the issue in said case is the right to physical possession.[13]

	GR No. 161589 2014-11-24	PENTA PACIFIC REALTY CORPORATION v. LEY CONSTRUCTION BERSAMIN, J.
The jurisdiction of the MeTC was not ousted by the fact that what was ultimately proved as to how entry by the respondent had been made or when the dispossession had started might have departed from that alleged in the complaint. As earlier stated, jurisdiction over the subject matter was determined from the allegations of the complaint, which clearly set forth a cause of action for unlawful detainer.[34]
	GR No. 202354 2014-09-24	AMADA C. ZACARIAS v. VICTORIA ANACAY VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The above complaint failed to allege a cause of action for unlawful detainer as it does not describe possession by the respondents being initially legal or tolerated by the petitioner and which became illegal upon termination by the petitioner of such lawful possession. Petitioner's insistence that she actually tolerated respondents' continued occupation after her discovery of their entry into the subject premises is incorrect. As she had averred, she discovered respondents' occupation in May 2007. Such possession could not have been legal from the start as it was without her knowledge or consent, much less was it based on any contract, express or implied. We stress that the possession of the defendant in unlawful detainer is originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess.[18]
	GR No. 192893 2013-06-05	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. HEIRS OF SPS. DIONISIO DELOY AND PRAXEDES MARTONITO MENDOZA, J.
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 of the defendant in unlawful detainer is originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess.[18] The only issue to be resolved in an unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties involved.[19]
	GR No. 194270 2012-12-03	LORETO BOTE v. SPS. ROBERT VELOSO AND GLORIA VELOSO VELASCO JR., J.
Nevertheless, such rule admits of an exception as enunciated in Canlas v. Tubil,[32] to wit: As a rule, a change of theory cannot be allowed. However, when the factual bases thereof would not require presentation of any further evidence by the adverse party in order to enable it to properly meet the issue raised in the new theory, as in this case, the Court may give due course to the petition and resolve the principal issues raised therein.
	GR No. 190071 2012-08-15	UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. MAUNLAD HOMES BRION, J.
Unlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real property from one who unlawfully withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied. The possession of the defendant in unlawful detainer is originally legal but became illegal due to expiration or termination of the right to possess.[16] Under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, the action must be filed "within one (1) year after [the] unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession[.]" Thus, to fall within the jurisdiction of the MeTC, the complaint must allege that
	GR No. 194880 2012-06-20	REPUBLIC v. SUNVAR REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SERENO, J.
"On the other hand, accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the right of possession which should be brought in the proper regional trial court when dispossession has lasted for more than one year. It is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title. In other words, if at the time of the filing of the complaint, more than one year had elapsed since defendant had turned plaintiff out of possession or defendant's possession had become illegal, the action will be, not one of forcible entry or illegal detainer, but an accion publiciana."[64]
	GR No. 183822 2012-01-18	RUBEN C. CORPUZ v. SPS. HILARION AGUSTIN AND JUSTA AGUSTIN SERENO, J.
In Canlas v. Tubil,[24] we enumerated the elements that constitute the sufficiency of a complaint for unlawful detainer, as follows: 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.
	GR No. 151369 2011-03-23	ANITA MONASTERIO-PE AND SPS. ROMULO TAN AND EDITHA PE-TAN v. JOSE JUAN TONG PERALTA, J.
Respondent alleged in his complaint that petitioners occupied the subject property by his mere tolerance. While tolerance is lawful, such possession becomes illegal upon demand to vacate by the owner and the possessor by tolerance refuses to comply with such demand.[19] Respondent sent petitioners a demand letter dated December 1, 1999 to vacate the subject property, but petitioners did not comply with the demand. A person who occupies the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against him.[20] Under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, the one-year period within which a complaint for unlawful detainer can be filed should be counted from the date of demand, because only upon the lapse of that period does the possession become unlawful.[21] Respondent filed the ejectment case against petitioners on March 29, 2000, which was less than a year from December 1, 1999, the date of formal demand. Hence, it is clear that the action was filed within the one-year period prescribed for filing an ejectment or unlawful detainer case.
	GR No. 178096 2011-03-23	ROSA DELOS REYES v. SPS. FRANCISCO ODONES NACHURA, 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. 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.[25]
	GR No. 178159 2011-03-02	SPS. VICENTE DIONISIO v. WILFREDO LINSANGAN ABAD, J.
Is the action one for unlawful detainer? An action is for unlawful detainer if the complaint sufficiently alleges the following: (1) initially, the defendant has possession of property by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) eventually, however, such possession became illegal upon plaintiff's notice to defendant, terminating the latter's right of possession; (3) still, the defendant remains in possession, depriving the plaintiff of the enjoyment of his property; and (4) within a year from plaintiff's last demand that defendant vacate the property, the plaintiff files a complaint for defendant's ejectment.[12] If the defendant had possession of the land upon mere tolerance of the owner, such tolerance must be present at the beginning of defendant's possession.[13]
	GR No. 182953 2010-10-11	CORAZON D. SARMIENTA v. MANALITE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VILLARAMA, JR., 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.[19] In ejectment cases, the complaint should embody such statement of facts as to bring the party clearly within the class of cases under Section 1, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Section 1 provides: SECTION 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when.-- Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or 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, or the legal representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession, together with damages and costs.
	GR No. 180687 2010-10-06	ESMERALDO C. ROMULLO v. SAMAHANG MAGKAKAPITBAHAY NG BAYANIHAN COMPOUND HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION NACHURA, J.
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 of the defendant in unlawful detainer is originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess. An unlawful detainer proceeding is summary in nature, jurisdiction of which lies with the proper municipal trial court or metropolitan trial court. The action must be brought within one year from the date of last demand; and the issue in said case is the right to physical possession.[13]

RODOLFO 'RUDY' CANLAS v. ILUMINADA TUBIL