Case Digest (G.R. No. 164213)
Facts:
The case involves a petition for review filed by Valentin Cabrera, Manuel Cabrera, and Rebecca Leslie Cabras (petitioners) against Elizabeth Getaruela, Eulogio Ababon, Leonida Ligan, Marietto Ababon, Gloria Panal, Leonora Ocariza, Sotero Ababon, Jr., and Joseph Ababon (respondents). The events leading to the case began with Lot Nos. 3635-CC and 3635-Y in Inayawan, Pardo, Cebu City, which were covered by Tax Declaration Nos. GR2K-12-078-02409 and GR2K-12-078-02431 in the name of Arcadio Jaca. On July 25, 1951, the heirs of Arcadio executed a notarized document called "Kasabutan nga Hinigala," which stated that all inherited properties, including Lot No. 3635, would be transferred to Peregrina Jaca Cabrera. However, a Repartition Project approved on November 21, 1956, by Judge Jose M. Mendoza of the Court of First Instance of Cebu City, allocated Lot Nos. 3635-CC and 3635-Y to Urbana Jaca Ababon, the mother of the respondents. After Urbana's death in 1997, the res...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 164213)
Facts:
1. Ownership and Partition of the Property:
- Lot Nos. 3635-CC and 3635-Y, located in Inayawan, Pardo, Cebu City, were originally covered by Tax Declaration Nos. GR2K-12-078-02409 and GR2K-12-078-02431 in the name of Arcadio Jaca (Arcadio).
- The heirs of Arcadio executed a notarized document called "Kasabutan nga Hinigala" on 25 July 1951, stipulating that all inherited properties, including Lot No. 3635, would go to Peregrina Jaca Cabrera (Peregrina).
- However, in a Repartition Project approved on 21 November 1956 by Judge Jose M. Mendoza of the Court of First Instance of Cebu City, Branch 6, in Special Proceedings No. 211-V, Lot Nos. 3635-CC and 3635-Y were given to Urbana Jaca Ababon (Urbana), the mother of the respondents.
2. Occupation of the Property:
- Upon Urbana's death in 1997, the respondents inherited the lots.
- Valentin Cabrera (Valentin), Manuel Cabrera (Manuel), and Rebecca Leslie Cabras (Cabras), Peregrina's adopted daughter, occupied the lots with the knowledge and consent of the respondents.
- Respondents alleged that petitioners were occupying portions of the lots without paying rent, with an agreement that they would vacate and demolish their houses if respondents needed the property.
3. Demand to Vacate and Ejectment Case:
- In 2001, respondents personally notified petitioners to vacate the premises and remove their houses. Despite repeated demands, petitioners refused to vacate.
- The matter was referred to the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay Inayawan, Cebu, but no amicable settlement was reached.
- Respondents filed an action for ejectment against petitioners, docketed as Civil Case No. R-45280.
4. Petitioners' Defense:
- Petitioners challenged the validity of the Repartition Project, claiming it was incomplete and lacked signatures.
- They asserted the validity of the "Kasabutan nga Hinigala" and claimed ownership of the property through Peregrina.
- Cabras alleged that as Peregrina's heir, she could not be ejected from the property.
- Valentin and Manuel claimed they built their houses with Peregrina's knowledge and consent.
Issue:
- Whether the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) had jurisdiction to entertain the ejectment case, given the absence of a formal contract between the parties.
- Whether tolerance as a ground for ejectment is tenable in this case.
- Whether the Repartition Project superseded the "Kasabutan nga Hinigala."
Ruling:
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, which upheld the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) ruling. The Court held that:
Jurisdiction of the MTCC:
- The MTCC had jurisdiction over the ejectment case. The complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action for unlawful detainer, as it established that petitioners' possession was by tolerance of respondents and became illegal upon demand to vacate.
- The absence of a formal contract did not negate the MTCC's jurisdiction, as the complaint met the requirements for an unlawful detainer case.
Tolerance as Ground for Ejectment:
- Tolerance as a ground for ejectment was valid in this case. Petitioners' possession was initially lawful due to respondents' tolerance but became unlawful when they refused to vacate after demand.
Supersession of the "Kasabutan nga Hinigala":
- The Repartition Project, being a court-approved document, superseded the "Kasabutan nga Hinigala." The MTCC, RTC, and Court of Appeals all upheld this finding.
- The Court emphasized that the determination of ownership in an ejectment case is provisional and does not bar a separate action to resolve the issue of title.
Ratio:
Jurisdiction in Ejectment Cases:
- The jurisdiction of the court in ejectment cases is determined by the allegations in the complaint. A complaint for unlawful detainer is sufficient if it alleges that the withholding of possession is unlawful and that the plaintiff has demanded the defendant to vacate the property.
- The absence of a formal lease agreement does not preclude jurisdiction if the complaint establishes that possession was initially lawful but became unlawful upon demand.
Tolerance and Unlawful Detainer:
- Possession by tolerance is lawful at the outset but becomes unlawful when the possessor refuses to vacate after the owner demands possession. This is sufficient to establish a cause of action for unlawful detainer.
Provisional Determination of Ownership:
- In ejectment cases, the court may provisionally determine ownership to resolve the issue of possession. However, this determination is not conclusive and does not bar a separate action to resolve the issue of title.
- The Repartition Project, being a court-approved document, prevails over the "Kasabutan nga Hinigala" for the purpose of determining possession in the ejectment case.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' rulings, affirming that the MTCC had jurisdiction over the ejectment case, tolerance was a valid ground for ejectment, and the Repartition Project superseded the "Kasabutan nga Hinigala." The Court reiterated that the determination of ownership in ejectment cases is provisional and does not preclude a separate action to resolve the issue of title.