G.R. No. L-53788 - Pharma Industries, Inc. vs. Pajarillaga

Pharma Industries, Inc. (petitioner) initiated an ejectment action against Sergia A. del Rosario (private respondent) and others to recover possession of a piece of land.
The dispute arose from a Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase executed on November 12, 1977, whereby del Rosario sold and retained a right to repurchase the property.
According to the petitioner, the right to repurchase expired on November 12, 1978, and subsequent consolidation of title declared the petitioner as the full owner.

The case was originally filed in Civil Case No. 8126 of the City Court of Cabanatuan City.
On January 7, 1980, the respondent judge rendered a Decision dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
A motion to reconsider the dismissal was filed but was denied by the lower court, leading to the present petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.

The complaint alleges that after the consolidation decision ordered the cancellation of the old land title (TCT No. 12481, now TCT No. 35940) and the issuance of a new title in favor of Pharma Industries, Inc., the defendant refused to vacate the premises despite receiving a demand (letter dated June 8, 1979, acknowledged on June 13, 1979).
The defendant’s answer admitted certain key material allegations such as the execution of the deed of sale and the demand to vacate, while contesting other allegations based on a purported agreement and differences on the computation of obligations.
In her defense, the defendant admitted some averments regarding the deed and the actions taken by the plaintiff but alleged that an agreement had been reached, which the plaintiff did not honor, thus causing damage and prejudice.

The plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on November 28, 1979, asserting that the defendant admitted all the material allegations of the complaint.
The defendant opposed the motion and moved to dismiss the case on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, contending that the proper forum is the Court of First Instance.
The respondent judge, relying on the classification of ejectment actions, held that because the complaint did not allege prior possession by the plaintiff, it must be reclassified as a forcible entry or detainer suit — which should be filed in the Court of First Instance.

Summary action for forcible entry or detainer (an interdictal action filed within one year before Justice of the Peace Courts).
Accion publiciana aimed at recovering the right to possess the property, which is a plenary action filed in the Court of First Instance.
Accion de reivindicacion, which is an action for recovery of ownership and also falls under the Court of First Instance’s jurisdiction.

The respondent judge concluded that since the complaint alleged that the defendant was in possession of the land (and not the plaintiff), it should be considered an action for recovery of possession (accion publiciana) rather than a forcible entry case.

The petitioner argued that the proper remedy is an ejectment proceeding under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, which is designed to address unlawful detainer where the defendant’s possession has become unlawful due to the expiration of the right to repurchase.
It was further emphasized that the summary action for ejectment under Rule 70 allows recovery of possession without the technical requirement of alleging prior possession by the plaintiff.

Whether the proper remedy in the case should be classified and treated as an action for ejectment (unlawful detainer) under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, rather than reclassified as an accion publiciana requiring prior possession.
Whether the requirement of alleging prior possession by the plaintiff is a sine qua non in an unlawful detainer action under the circumstances presented.
Whether the jurisdictional issue raised by the defendant — asserting that the Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction over such actions — is tenable when the complaint is for ejectment under the provision of Rule 70.
How the legal distinctions among the three types of ejectment actions affect the proper forum and remedy for the present case.