Facts:

The case involves Eusebio Bernabe and Teresita P. Bernabe as petitioners against Judge Abelardo M. Dayrit, acting for Branch II of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and Melchor Tamayo as respondents. The events leading to this case began when the Bernabe spouses filed a verified complaint on February 16, 1981, seeking to have Melchor Tamayo vacate their lot located in Tondo, Manila. The lot was covered by a Torrens title in the names of the Bernabe spouses. They demanded that Tamayo remove his illegally constructed house from the property and pay reasonable compensation for its use, amounting to P6,375 for the period from January 1, 1974, to January 31, 1981, and P75 per month starting February 1981. The demand for vacating the property was made through a letter from their counsel dated November 8, 1980. In his answer, Tamayo claimed that he had been residing on the lot since 1951 under a lease agreement with Fejosera Investment, Inc., paying a monthly rent of fifteen pe...

Facts:

The case involves the Bernabe spouses, Eusebio Bernabe and Teresita P. Bernabe, who filed a verified complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila on February 16, 1981. They sought to eject Melchor Tamayo from their lot in Tondo, Manila, which is covered by Torrens title in their names. The Bernabes demanded that Tamayo vacate the lot, remove his illegally constructed house, and pay compensation for the use of the lot from January 1, 1974, to January 31, 1981, and continue paying P75 a month from February 1981. Tamayo, in his answer, claimed that he had been staying on the lot since 1951 under a lease from Fejosera Investment, Inc. and constructed his house with the lessor's consent. He moved to dismiss the case on the ground that it was either an unlawful detainer or forcible entry case and, as it was filed within one year from the date of the last demand to vacate, the city court had jurisdiction over it. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the action on the ground that it was not an accion publiciana but a case where the unlawful deprivation is to be reckoned from the date of the last demand and, as the action was brought within one year from that demand, it falls within the jurisdiction of the city court.

Issue:

The propriety of the lower court's dismissal of the action of the Bernabe spouses is the central issue. The lower court dismissed the action on the ground that it is an ejectment suit filed within one year from the date of the last demand and, hence, it falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the city court. The Bernabe spouses argue that the purpose of their action is to establish that they have a better right than Tamayo to possess the land, notwithstanding that he had occupied it since 1951 under an alleged lease contract with Fejosera Investment, Inc., from which the Bernabes bought the land in 1973.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the action. The purpose of the Bernabes' action is to establish that they have a better right than Tamayo to possess the land, notwithstanding that he had occupied it since 1951 under an alleged lease contract with Fejosera Investment, Inc., from which the Bernabes bought the land in 1973. The instant case is not a forcible entry case, nor a case of unlawful detainer because Tamayo claims that he is occupying the lot as the lessee of the Bernabes' predecessor-in-interest. Necessarily, the court would have to resolve whether such lease is binding on the Bernabe vendees. The Court reversed the lower court's order of dismissal and set it aside, directing the lower court to proceed with the case.

Ratio:

The Court reasoned that the action is not a forcible entry case or a case of unlawful detainer because Tamayo claims that he is occupying the lot as the lessee of the Bernabes' predecessor-in-interest. The court would have to resolve whether such lease is binding on the Bernabe vendees. It is a plenary action to determine the better right of possession. From the practical standpoint, since the instant action for recovery of possession was filed on February 19, 1981, it would not be expedient to ask the Bernabes to refile it now in the city court, which would be called upon to decide the questions as to the effect of the sale on the alleged lease and on the house constructed by Tamayo and his liability for the use and occupation of the lot since January 1, 1974. Such questions could be more competently resolved by the Regional Trial Court. ###