Facts:

This case involves the petitioners Fortunato Banayos, Constante Banayos, and Federico Bringas against Susana Realty, Inc., which is represented by Honorable Amador Gomez in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and Nicanor Salaysay as the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal. The events took place in Mandaluyong, Rizal, where Susana Realty, Inc. is the registered owner of two parcels of land under Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 28350 and 28351. The registered owner sought to recover possession of the properties from the defendants, who allegedly entered the premises without consent, constructed houses, and occupied the lots for more than three years. Upon learning of the illegal occupancy, the plaintiff demanded the defendants vacate the premises, which they ignored. The plaintiff sought damages estimated at ₱27,600.00 per annum due to the loss of income attributed to the occupancy.

In response to the civil proceedings, the petitioners filed their answer wi

...

Facts:

Parties and Property

• Plaintiff: Susana Realty, Inc., the registered owner of two parcels of land in Mandaluyong, Rizal, as evidenced by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 28350 and 28351.
• Petitioners/Defendants: Fortunato Banayos, Constante Banayos, and Federico Bringas, alleged occupants who entered the premises without the plaintiff’s knowledge or consent.

Allegations and Occupancy

• The defendants allegedly entered the premises through strategy and stealth, built houses, and occupied the lots for at least three years prior to the filing of the complaint.
• Plaintiff asserts that despite being the lawful owner, its properties were unlawfully occupied, preventing the proper use of the land for corporate purposes and causing an estimated annual income loss of approximately P27,600.00.

Plaintiff’s Actions and Relief Sought

• The plaintiff demanded that the defendants vacate the property and remove any structures upon detecting their unauthorized occupancy, but these demands were ignored.
• The relief prayed for included:

- An order for the defendants to vacate the premises and remove all improvements. - Enforcement measures via the Provincial Sheriff if the defendants failed to vacate. - Payment of damages computed at P0.50 per month per square meter for the area occupied, covering the period from the filing of the complaint until complete vacation. - Payment of litigation costs.

Procedural History in the Court Below

• The case (Civil Case No. 7373) was initially filed by Susana Realty, Inc. in the Court of First Instance of Rizal.
• Petitioners filed an answer with counterclaim several years late, resulting in their default and the subsequent striking from the records.
• On July 9, 1968, the respondent court rendered a judgment ordering the eviction of the defendants and required them to pay back rentals from October 1, 1959, to June 30, 1968.
• Petitioners filed an urgent ex parte motion for an extension of time to appeal, followed by a notice of appeal with an appeal bond, but their motion for extension was eventually denied on August 23, 1968.
• Subsequent motions included:

- Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration regarding the order of immediate execution. - A motion to set aside judgment and/or dismiss the case on the ground of jurisdictional error.

Nature of the Case and Alleged Jurisdictional Issue

• Petitioners contested that the case, characterized by allegations of "stealth and strategy" in the taking of possession, qualified as a forcible entry or unlawful detainer, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of municipal courts.
• The complaint, however, did not allege plaintiff’s prior physical possession, a key element required for a forcible entry action.
• The plaintiff’s complaint also described the case as one involving illegal occupancy without specifying the exact date upon which eviction demands were made.
• Given the elapsed time (more than one year) since the alleged initial unlawful possession, the proper characterization of the action emerged as an "accion publiciana" – an action for the recovery of the right to possess, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.

Issue:

Jurisdiction Determination

• Whether Civil Case No. 7373 should be classified as a forcible entry or unlawful detainer case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the municipal courts.
• Whether the case is, in fact, an accion publiciana, which would place it within the plenary jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.

Sufficiency of Allegations

• Whether the allegations in the complaint, particularly those involving “strategy and stealth” without a clear demonstration of prior physical possession, suffice to invoke the summary remedies reserved for forcible entry cases.
• Whether the mere assertion of occupation for a period of three years converts the case into an accion publiciana.

Execution and Procedural Motions

• The propriety of the writ of execution issued by the respondent court, considering the pending motions for reconsideration and issues regarding the immediacy of the execution order.
• The impact of the unresolved status of motions on the present certiorari petition.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)