Title
Jose vs. Alfuerto
Case
G.R. No. 169380
Decision Date
Nov 26, 2012
Petitioner leased land occupied by respondents, filed ejectment case; courts ruled for petitioner, but CA reversed, finding no unlawful detainer due to lack of initial lawful possession. SC affirmed CA, holding ejectment improper as respondents’ possession predated lease.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 169380)

Background of the Dispute

The case revolves around a parcel of land registered in the name of Rodolfo Chua Sing under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 52594, covering an area of 1,919 square meters in Barangay San Dionisio, Parañaque City. Chua Sing purchased the property in 1991 and subsequently leased it to the petitioner on April 1, 1999, under a contract that was not notarized or registered. Significantly, the respondents were already occupying the land before the lease agreement was executed.

Procedural History and Initial Rulings

Following the execution of the lease, the petitioner demanded the respondents vacate the property within 30 days and pay rental fees but received a refusal. Consequently, the petitioner filed an ejectment case on October 20, 1999, in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Parañaque City, which ruled in favor of the petitioner. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) upheld this ruling on appeal, affirming that a case for unlawful detainer was appropriate as the respondents occupied the land merely by tolerance.

Court of Appeals Decision

However, the Court of Appeals, in its ruling dated March 14, 2005, reversed the lower courts' decisions, stating that the respondents' possession was not based on the petitioner's or his lessor's tolerance. The appellate court emphasized that the respondents had been in possession of the land prior to the lessor's purchase, indicating that their entry could not be characterized as unauthorized. The Court of Appeals concluded that the complaint for ejectment should be dismissed as it was essentially an action for recovery of possession, not unlawful detainer.

Issues Raised in Appeal

In the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court, the petitioner raised three main issues regarding whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the case based on its characterization of the nature of the action, the respondents' change of theory, and the merits of the case.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' ruling and clarified that unlawful detainer is a summary action concerning the recovery of possession, which applies when the initial possession was legal, transitioning to illegal following a demand to vacate. The Court highlighted that the allegations made in the complaint suggested that the respondents' possession was unlawful from its inception, contradicting the requirements for an action of unlawful detainer.

Legal Principles Confirmed

The Court reaffirm

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.