Facts:

The case of Carlos Calubayan and Emilia Ferrer vs. Cirilo Pascual was initiated on May 6, 1963, in the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The plaintiffs, Carlos Calubayan and Emilia Ferrer, are the registered owners of two parcels of land located at the corner of 6th Avenue and F. Roxas Streets in Grace Park, Caloocan City, identified as Lots Nos. 1 and 3, Block No. 48-C of Subdivision Plan Psd-15136, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 7200. They acquired these properties from the Philippine Realty Corporation on October 22, 1957. The defendant, Cirilo Pascual, was identified as a squatter occupying a portion of the plaintiffs' land. After acquiring the properties, the plaintiffs made several attempts to notify Pascual of their ownership and requested him to meet with them to discuss arrangements for his continued use of the land. However, Pascual consistently ignored these requests. On February 2, 1963, the plaintiffs formally notified Pascual that they requir...

Facts:

1. Ownership of the Land:

   • Plaintiffs Carlos Calubayan and Emilia Ferrer are the registered owners of two parcels of land located at the corner of 6th Avenue and F. Roxas Streets, Grace Park, Caloocan City. The lots are known as Lots Nos. 1 and 3, Block No. 48-C, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 7200.
   • They purchased the land from the Philippine Realty Corporation on October 22, 1957.

2. Defendant's Occupation:

   • Defendant Cirilo Pascual is a squatter occupying a portion of the plaintiffs' land.
   • After acquiring the land, the plaintiffs notified the defendant multiple times of their ownership and requested him to meet with them to discuss arrangements for his continued use of the land.
   • The defendant ignored these requests and continued to occupy the land without any formal agreement.

3. Demand to Vacate:

   • On February 2, 1963, the plaintiffs formally demanded that the defendant vacate the land within 20 days. The defendant received this demand on February 7, 1963, but refused to comply.

4. Filing of the Complaint:

   • The plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Rizal on May 6, 1963, seeking to recover possession of the land.
   • The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the case was one for ejectment and should be filed in the inferior court, as the action was initiated within one year of the demand to vacate.

5. Lower Court's Decision:

   • The lower court dismissed the case on September 3, 1963, agreeing with the defendant that the case was for ejectment and fell under the jurisdiction of the inferior court.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Nature of the Action:

   • The nature of an action is determined by the allegations in the complaint. The plaintiffs' complaint sought to recover possession of the land from the defendant, who was occupying it without a formal agreement. This made the case one for ejectment, not recovery of possession (accion publiciana).

2. Toleration of Possession:

   • The defendant's occupation of the land was initially tolerated by the plaintiffs, as they allowed him to remain on the property for nearly six years without taking legal action. This tolerance created an implied promise that the defendant would vacate upon demand.

3. Demand to Vacate:

   • The one-year period for filing an ejectment case begins from the date of the formal demand to vacate. In this case, the formal demand was made on February 2, 1963, and the complaint was filed on May 6, 1963, well within the one-year period.
   • The plaintiffs' prior notifications to the defendant were not considered demands to vacate but rather invitations to discuss arrangements for his continued use of the land.

4. Jurisdiction:

   • Ejectment cases must be filed in the inferior court if the action is initiated within one year from the date of the unlawful withholding of possession. Since the plaintiffs filed their complaint within this period, the inferior court had exclusive jurisdiction over the case.

5. Ownership Allegations:

   • While the plaintiffs alleged ownership of the land, this was not the primary issue. The case was about recovering possession, which could be resolved through an ejectment action. The plaintiffs' ownership was not disputed, and the complaint did not seek a declaration of ownership.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the case by the lower court, ruling that the action was one for ejectment and should have been filed in the inferior court. The plaintiffs' failure to file the case in the proper court deprived the Court of First Instance of jurisdiction. Costs were imposed on the plaintiffs-appellants.