Title
Pharma Industries, Inc. vs. Pajarillaga
Case
G.R. No. L-53788
Decision Date
Oct 17, 1980
Pharma Industries sued Sergia del Rosario for ejectment after her right to repurchase expired; Supreme Court ruled City Court had jurisdiction, affirming unlawful detainer.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-53788)

Factual Background

The facts of the case reveal that on November 12, 1977, Sergia A. del Rosario executed a Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase in favor of Pharma Industries, Inc. regarding a land parcel that is the subject of the dispute. This right was to expire one year later, on November 12, 1978. After the expiration of the period, the petitioner filed for consolidation of ownership, which led to a ruling in favor of Pharma Industries, Inc. Ordering the cancellation of the old title and the issuance of a new one in its name. Despite the order to vacate issued to del Rosario, she failed to leave the premises, which prompted Pharma Industries, Inc. to file an ejectment complaint.

Jurisdictional Issues

The respondent judge dismissed the ejectment complaint due to a purported lack of jurisdiction, asserting that such matters should be heard by the Court of First Instance. The judge concluded that the nature of the case required the plaintiff to establish prior possession of the land, which Pharma Industries, Inc. did not do according to his interpretation.

Legal Framework

The dismissal referenced specific legal actions in ejecting a person from land, distinguishing between forcible entry and unlawful detainer, which include:

  1. Summary action for forcible entry or detainer within one year in a Justice of the Peace Court.
  2. Accion publiciana, an ordinary civil proceeding in the Court of First Instance aimed at recovering the right to file an action for possession.
  3. Accion de reivindicacion for recovering ownership, typically pursued in the Court of First Instance.

The respondent judge determined the nature of the action did not fit an ejectment claim due to the absence of prior possession.

Ruling on Ejectment Action

The higher court determined that the proper remedy should be an ejectment under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, indicating that possession could be sought directly against someone unlawfully withholding it after the expiration of a right to occupy. It clarified that unlawful detainer, as the present situation presented, does not require prior possession to be established in all circumstances, especially when considering the vendor's obligation to vacate after failing to repurchase.

Acquisition of Possession

The court highlighted that Pharma Industries, Inc. acquired possession upon the execution of the Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase, regardless of the subsequent disputes. The ability o

...continue reading

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