Facts:

The case involves plaintiffs-appellants Margarito Sarona and others against defendants-appellees Felipe Villegas and Ramona Carillo. The dispute centers around a parcel of land located in Paligue, Padada, Davao. On January 28, 1963, the plaintiffs filed a complaint for "Unlawful Detainer" in the Municipal Court of Padada, asserting that they were the absolute owners and in possession of the land. They claimed that the defendants entered the property on April 1, 1958, constructed a residential house, and unlawfully withheld possession from the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs demanded that the defendants vacate the premises and pay back rent of P20.00 per month, which the defendants failed to do.

In response, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the municipal court lacked jurisdiction because the case was one of forcible entry, and the one-year period for filing such a case had elapsed. The municipal court denied the motion to dismiss and later ruled i...

Facts:

1. Ownership and Possession: Plaintiffs Margarito Sarona et al. claimed to be the absolute owners and in possession of a parcel of land in Paligue, Padada, Davao.
2. Defendants' Entry: On April 1, 1958, defendants Felipe Villegas and Ramona Carillo entered the land, constructed a residential house, and remained in possession.
3. Demand to Vacate: On December 28, 1962, plaintiffs demanded that defendants vacate the premises and pay rentals in arrears, but defendants refused.
4. Filing of Complaint: On January 28, 1963, plaintiffs filed a complaint for "Unlawful Detainer" in the Municipal Court of Padada, Davao, seeking possession, unpaid rentals, attorneys' fees, and costs.
5. Defendants' Defense: Defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that it was a case of forcible entry, and the one-year reglementary period had lapsed. They also claimed that plaintiffs sold a portion of the land to them, making their possession legal.
6. Municipal Court Decision: The municipal court denied the motion to dismiss and ruled in favor of plaintiffs, ordering defendants to vacate and pay rentals.
7. Appeal to Court of First Instance: Defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance of Davao, which dismissed the case, ruling it was a forcible entry case filed beyond the one-year period.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Nature of the Action: The cause of action depends on the nature of the defendants' entry into the land. If the entry was illegal from the start, it is forcible entry. If the entry was legal but possession later became unlawful, it is unlawful detainer.
2. Jurisdictional Facts: The complaint must clearly state whether the entry was legal or illegal. In this case, the complaint failed to specify the nature of the defendants' entry, and the evidence revealed that the entry was forcible and without consent.
3. Tolerance of Possession: For a case to be considered unlawful detainer, the possession must have been legal at the start and later became unlawful due to the owner's tolerance. Here, the defendants' possession was illegal from the beginning, and there was no evidence of tolerance by the plaintiffs.
4. One-Year Period: The one-year period for filing a forcible entry case starts from the date of illegal entry. In this case, the entry occurred on April 1, 1958, and the complaint was filed on January 28, 1963, well beyond the one-year period.
5. Jurisdiction: The municipal court lacked jurisdiction because the case was filed beyond the one-year period for forcible entry. The proper remedy after the lapse of the one-year period is an accion publiciana in the Court of First Instance.