G.R. No. 164213 - Cabrera vs. Getaruela

The case involves a petition for review regarding a decision and resolution from the Court of Appeals concerning an ejectment action.
The petitioners are Valentin Cabrera, Manuel Cabrera, and Rebecca Leslie Cabras, while the respondents include Elizabeth Getaruela and several others.
The core issue revolves around the ownership and possession of two lots in Cebu City.

Lot Nos. 3635-CC and 3635-Y were originally covered by tax declarations in the name of Arcadio Jaca.
A notarized document executed by Arcadio's heirs in 1951 designated Peregrina Jaca Cabrera as the inheritor of the properties.
A court-approved repartition in 1956 awarded the lots to Urbana Jaca Ababon, the mother of the respondents.
After Urbana's death in 1997, the respondents inherited the lots and later found the petitioners occupying them without rental payments.

The respondents notified the petitioners in 2001 of their intent to repossess the property, but the petitioners refused to vacate.
The matter was referred to the Lupong Tagapamayapa for possible settlement, which also failed.
Consequently, the respondents filed an ejectment case against the petitioners, who contested the validity of the repartition project and asserted their rights based on the 1951 document.

The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering the petitioners to vacate and demolish their improvements on the property.
The MTCC found that the 1951 document was superseded by the repartition project.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially reversed the MTCC's decision, recognizing Cabras as a co-owner of Lot No. 3635-Y and ruling that the petitioners could not be ejected.
The RTC later modified its ruling, allowing the ejectment from Lot No. 3635-CC while dismissing the case concerning Lot No. 3635-Y.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's orders, emphasizing that the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the allegations in the complaint.
It clarified that prior physical possession is not a requirement in unlawful detainer cases.
The Court of Appeals noted that the petitioners' occupation was based on an agreement that they would vacate when requested, which they failed to do.

The petitioners questioned the MTCC's jurisdiction due to the absence of a formal lease agreement.
They challenged the applicability of tolerance as a ground for ejectment.
They contended that the repartition project did not supersede the 1951 document.

The Supreme Court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments, affirming the lower courts' decisions.
It reit...continue reading