Case Summary (G.R. No. 132424)
Procedural History
Petitioners filed a complaint for unlawful detainer in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Antipolo. The MTC ruled for petitioners, ordering respondents to vacate the premises and to pay rent and attorney’s fees. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 74, affirmed the MTC decision in toto. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed and dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners filed a Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the CA decision. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals.
Allegations in the Complaint (Petitioners’ Factual Allegations)
Petitioners alleged ownership of Lot No. 3, Block 19, Carolina Executive Village, acquired by sales contract and evidenced by Torrens title. They alleged that respondents, without any color of title, occupied the lot and built a house, thereby depriving petitioners of possession. Petitioners claim repeated oral demands to vacate were ignored, barangay intervention produced a Certification to File Action, and a formal demand by counsel was likewise ignored. They sought recovery of possession, rent, attorneys’ fees, and damages for anxiety and mental suffering.
Defendants’ Answer and Contentions
Respondents argued the complaint failed to allege that petitioners had prior physical possession or that petitioners were their lessors; alternatively, respondents asserted ownership by adverse possession (open, continuous, adverse possession for more than thirty years) supported by a Department of Environment and Natural Resources ocular inspection report. Respondents also contended the complaint failed to comply with Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 on affidavits against forum shopping.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
Petitioners framed two closely related issues: (1) whether the allegations of the complaint sufficiently stated a case for unlawful detainer; and (2) whether, on the complaint’s face, the MTC had original jurisdiction over the action filed before it. The Supreme Court treated the issues together because jurisdictional sufficiency and the proper characterization of the cause of action are interdependent in summary possessory proceedings.
Governing Legal Principles on Actions to Recover Possession
The Court reiterated the well-established taxonomy of possessory remedies: (a) accion interdictal (summary possessory remedies, comprising forcible entry and unlawful detainer), (b) accion publiciana (plenary remedy to recover possession when dispossession has lasted more than one year), and (c) accion reivindicatoria (plenary action to recover ownership). Forcible entry (detentacion) addresses dispossession by force, stealth, intimidation or similar acts and raises the question of prior de facto possession. Unlawful detainer (desahuico) addresses situations where the occupant’s possession was originally legal (by permission or tolerance) but has become illegal upon termination or expiration of that right. Summary possessory actions lie in the municipal or metropolitan trial courts and are subject to a one-year prescriptive period measured from the date of entry (for forcible entry) or from the date of last demand (for unlawful detainer).
Jurisdictional Requirements and the Necessity of Face-Value Allegations
Because forcible entry and unlawful detainer are summary in nature, the complaint must, on its face, present facts that clearly place the case within the statutory and procedural class for which summary relief is available. Jurisdictional facts must be pleaded; the court should not have to look to parol testimony to establish jurisdiction. For unlawful detainer specifically, the plaintiff must allege that the occupant’s possession was by permission or tolerance from the inception of possession so that the owner may demand surrender and, upon refusal, bring a summary action. If possession was unlawful ab initio, the proper remedy is forcible entry (if within one year) or accion publiciana (if more than one year), not unlawful detainer.
Application of Law to the Complaint’s Allegations
The Supreme Court examined the complaint’s averments and concluded they failed to allege the essential jurisdictional facts for unlawful detainer. The complaint only alleged that respondents occupied the property without color of title and built a house, and that petitioners were deprived of possession. It did not state whether petitioners had prior material possession, how or when respondents’ entry occurred, or that respondents’ possessi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 132424)
Case Citation, Court, and Author
- Reported at 523 Phil. 39, First Division; G.R. No. 132424, May 04, 2006.
- Decision authored by Justice CHICO-NAZARIO.
- Petitioner: Spouses Bonifacio R. Valdez, Jr. and Venida M. Valdez.
- Respondents: Hon. Court of Appeals; Spouses Gabriel Fabella and Francisca Fabella.
- Relief sought: Petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to nullify and set aside the 22 April 1997 decision and 30 January 1998 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 43492.
Nature and Origin of the Action
- The case originated from a complaint for unlawful detainer filed by petitioners (the Valdez spouses) against private respondents (the Fabella spouses) before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch II, Civil Case No. 2547.
- The complaint alleged that petitioners were the registered owners of Lot No. 3 Blk 19, Carolina Executive Village, Brgy. Sta. Cruz, Antipolo, Rizal, acquired from Carolina Realty, Inc., supported by a Sales Contract (Annex "A") and a Torrens Certificate of Title in petitioners’ name (Annex "B").
- Petitioners alleged that respondents occupied the lot without any color of title and built a house thereon, thereby depriving petitioners of rightful possession.
- The complaint further alleged oral demands to vacate, intervention by the barangay ending in a Certification to File Action (Annex "C"), a formal demand by counsel dated July 12, 1994 (Annex "D"), and that petitioners incurred attorney’s fees and suffered anxiety, sleepless nights, mental torture, and moral erosion.
Specific Allegations and Documentary Attachments in the Complaint
- Petitioners alleged ownership based on a Sales Contract and Torrens title (Annexes "A" and "B").
- Alleged repeated oral requests to respondents to surrender the premises, which respondents refused.
- Alleged barangay involvement culminating in a Certification to File Action (Annex "C").
- Alleged retention of counsel with incurred expenses: TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) acceptance fee and ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) per appearance; counsel sent a formal demand on July 12, 1994 (Annex "D").
- Alleged nonpecuniary harms: serious anxiety, sleepless nights, mental torture, and moral erosion.
Defenses and Replies of the Private Respondents
- The respondents contended that the complaint failed to state that petitioners had prior physical possession or that petitioners were lessors of respondents, i.e., they challenged the complaint’s sufficiency to maintain unlawful detainer or forcible entry.
- In the alternative, respondents asserted ownership by open, continuous, and adverse possession for more than thirty years, supported by an ocular inspection report from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
- Respondents also stressed a procedural deficiency alleging noncompliance with Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91 regarding affidavits against non-forum shopping.
Disposition Below — MTC and RTC
- The MTC rendered judgment in favor of petitioners, ordering respondents to vacate the property and to pay rent for use and occupation, plus attorney’s fees.
- Respondents appealed the MTC decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Antipolo, Branch 74, Civil Case No. 3607.
- The RTC, by decision dated 8 January 1997, affirmed in toto the MTC decision.
Court of Appeals Decision and Rationale
- Respondents filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals on 10 March 1997.
- The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated 22 April 1997, reversed and set aside the RTC decision, dismissing the complaint in Civil Case No. 2547 of the MTC for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Court of Appeals held that petitioners failed to make out a case for unlawful detainer because they did not allege that they had given respondents the right to occupy the premises or had tolerated respondents’ possession — an essential allegation in unlawful detainer cases.
- The CA found the complaint also lacked jurisdictional elements for forcible entry (forcible entry requiring an allegation of prior material possession).
- The CA expressly stated that “key jurisdictional allegations that will support an action for ejectment are conspicuously lacking,” and concluded the MTC had no jurisdiction and that dismissal was in order.
- Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals was denied in a resolution dated 30 January 1998.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the allegations of the complaint clearly made out a case for unlawful detainer.
- Whether, based on the allegations of the com