22-Santos Vs Ayon, G.R. No. 137013, May 6, 2005

G.R. No. 137013 May 6, 2005 Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.
00); and to pay

the costs of suit.
RUBEN SANTOS, petitioner,
vs. SO ORDERED."3
SPOUSES TONY AYON and MERCY
AYON, respondents. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 11,
Davao City, in its Decision dated February 12, 1998 in
DECISION Civil Case No. 25, 654-97, affirmed in toto the MTCC
judgment.4 The RTC upheld the finding of the MTCC that
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: respondents' occupation of the contested portion was by
mere tolerance. Hence, when petitioner needed the same,
he has the right to eject them through court action.
For our resolution is the petition for review
on certiorari assailing the Decision1 of the Court of
Appeals dated October 5, 1998 in CA-G.R. SP No. 4735 Respondents then elevated the case to the Court of
and its Resolution2 dated December 11, 1998 denying the Appeals through a petition for review. In its Decision dated
motion for reconsideration. October 5, 1988 now being challenged by petitioner, the
Court of Appeals held that petitioner's proper remedy
should have been an accion publiciana before the RTC,
The petition alleges that on November 6, 1996, Ruben not an action for unlawful detainer, thus:
Santos, petitioner, filed with the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities (MTCC), Branch 2, Davao City a complaint for illegal
detainer against spouses Tony and Mercy Ayon, "In this case, petitioners were already in
respondents, docketed as Civil Case No. 3506-B-96. possession of the premises in question at the
time private respondent bought three (3) lots at
the Lanzona Subdivision in 1985, a portion of
In his complaint, petitioner averred that he is the registered which is occupied by a building being used by the
owner of three lots situated at Lanzona Subdivision, former as a bodega. Apart from private
Matina, Davao City, covered by Transfer Certificates of respondent's bare claim, no evidence was
Title (TCT) Nos. 108174, 108175, and 108176. alluded to show that petitioners' possession was
Respondent spouses are the registered owners of an tolerated by (his) predecessor-in-interest. The
adjacent parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-247792. fact that respondent might have tolerated
The previous occupant of this property built a building petitioners' possession is not decisive. What
which straddled both the lots of the herein parties. matters for purposes of determining the proper
Respondents have been using the building as a cause of action is the nature of petitioners'
warehouse. possession from its inception. And in this regard,
the Court notes that the complaint itself merely
Petitioner further alleged in his complaint that in 1985, alleges that defendants-petitioners have been
when he bought the three lots, he informed respondents 'occupying a portion of the above properties of
that the building occupies a portion of his land. However, the plaintiff for the past several years by virtue of
he allowed them to continue using the building. But in the tolerance of the plaintiff.' Nowhere is it
1996, he needed the entire portion of his lot, hence, he alleged that his predecessor likewise tolerated
demanded that respondents demolish and remove the part petitioners' possession of the premises. x x x.
of the building encroaching his property and turn over to
him their possession. But they refused. Instead, they Consequently, x x x, respondent should present
continued occupying the contested portion and even made his claim before the Regional Trial Court in
improvements on the building. The dispute was then an accion publiciana and not before the
referred to the barangay lupon, but the parties failed to Municipal Trial Court in a summary proceeding of
reach an amicable settlement. Accordingly, on March 27, unlawful detainer.
1996, a certification to file action was issued.
WHEREFORE, the decision under review is
In their answer, respondents sought a dismissal of this hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
case on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction over it Accordingly, the complaint for unlawful detainer is
since there is no lessor-lessee relationship between the ordered DISMISSED."5
parties. Respondents denied they were occupying
petitioner's property by mere tolerance, claiming they own
the contested portion and have been occupying the same Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but was
long before petitioner acquired his lots in 1985. denied by the Appellate Court in its Resolution dated
December 11, 1998.
On July 31, 1997, the MTCC rendered its Decision in favor
of petitioner, thus: Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari ascribing
to the Court of Appeals the following errors:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of
the plaintiff and against the defendants ordering "I
the latter, their successors-in-interest and other THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
persons acting in their behalf to vacate the MISAPPLIED THE LAW IN DISMISSING THE
portion of the subject properties and peacefully INSTANT CASE ON THE GROUND THAT
surrender possession thereof to plaintiff as well PETITIONER SHOULD PRESENT HIS CLAIM
as dismantle/remove the structures found BEFORE THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN
thereon. AN ACCION PUBLICIANA.
II
Defendants are further ordered to pay reasonable THE FINDINGS OF THE HONORABLE COURT
value for the use and occupation of the OF APPEALS IS NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH
encroached area in the amount of One Thousand EXISTING LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE."
Pesos (P1,000.00) a month beginning September
1996 and the subsequent months thereafter until
premises are vacated; to pay attorney's fees of
Page 1 of 2
The sole issue here is whether the Court of Appeals when he continued his possession despite the termination
committed a reversible error of law in holding that of his right thereunder.10
petitioner's complaint is within the competence of the RTC,
not the MTCC. Petitioner's complaint for unlawful detainer in Civil Case
No. 3506-B-96 is properly within the competence of the
Petitioner contends that it is not necessary that he has MTCC. His pertinent allegations in the complaint read:
prior physical possession of the questioned property
before he could file an action for unlawful detainer. He "4. That defendants (spouses) have constructed
stresses that he tolerated respondents' occupancy of the an extension of their residential house as well as
portion in controversy until he needed it. After his demand other structures and have been occupying a
that they vacate, their continued possession became portion of the above PROPERTIES of the plaintiff
illegal. Hence, his action for unlawful detainer before the for the past several years by virtue of the
MTCC is proper. tolerance of the plaintiff since at the time he
has no need of the property;
Respondents, in their comment, insisted that they have
been in possession of the disputed property even before 5. That plaintiff needed the property in the
petitioner purchased the same on April 10, 1985. Hence, early part of 1996 and made demands to the
he cannot claim that they were occupying the property by defendants to vacate and turn over the
mere tolerance because they were ahead in time in premises as well as the removal (of) their
physical possession. structures found inside the PROPERTIES of
plaintiff; that without any justifiable reasons,
We sustain the petition. defendants refused to vacate the portion of
the PROPERTIES occupied by them to the
It is an elementary rule that the jurisdiction of a court over damage and prejudice of the plaintiff.
the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the
complaint and cannot be made to depend upon the 6. Hence, plaintiff referred the matter to the Office
defenses set up in the answer or pleadings filed by the of the Barangay Captain of Matina Crossing 74-
defendant.6 This rule is no different in an action for forcible A, Davao City for a possible settlement sometime
entry or unlawful detainer.7 All actions for forcible entry or in the latter part of February 1996.
unlawful detainer shall be filed with the proper The barangay case reached the Pangkat but no
Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts and settlement was had. Thereafter, a 'Certification
the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, which actions shall To File Action' dated March 27, 1996 was issued
include not only the plea for restoration of possession but x x x; x x x."11 (underscoring ours)
also all claims for damages and costs arising
therefrom.8 The said courts are not divested of jurisdiction Verily, petitioner's allegations in his complaint clearly make
over such cases even if the defendants therein raises the a case for an unlawful detainer. We find no error in the
question of ownership over the litigated property in his MTCC assuming jurisdiction over petitioner's complaint. A
pleadings and the question of possession cannot be complaint for unlawful detainer is sufficient if it alleges that
resolved without deciding the issue of ownership.9 the withholding of the possession or the refusal to vacate
is unlawful without necessarily employing the terminology
Section 1, Rule 70 on forcible entry and unlawful detainer of the law.12 Here, there is an allegation in petitioner's
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, reads: complaint that respondents occupancy on the portion of
his property is by virtue of his tolerance. Petitioner's
"Section 1. Who may institute proceedings, and cause of action for unlawful detainer springs from
when. – Subject to the provisions of the next respondents' failure to vacate the questioned premises
succeeding section, a person deprived of the upon his demand sometime in 1996. Within one (1) year
possession of any land or building by force, therefrom, or on November 6, 1996, petitioner filed the
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a instant complaint.
lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against
whom the possession of any land or building is It bears stressing that possession by tolerance is lawful,
unlawfully withheld after the expiration or but such possession becomes unlawful when the
termination of the right to hold possession, by possessor by tolerance refuses to vacate upon demand
virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the made by the owner. Our ruling in Roxas vs. Court of
legal representatives or assigns of any such Appeals13 is applicable in this case: "A person who
lessor, vendor, vendee or other person may, at occupies the land of another at the latter's tolerance or
any time within one (1) year after such unlawful permission, without any contract between them, is
deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will
action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against vacate upon demand, failing which, a summary action for
the person or persons unlawfully withholding or ejectment is the proper remedy against him."
depriving of possession, or any person or
persons claiming under them, for the restitution of WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed
such possession, together with damages and Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-
costs." G.R. SP No. 47435 are hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The Decision dated February 12, 1998 of the
Under the above provision, there are two entirely distinct Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Davao City in Civil Case
and different causes of action, to wit: (1) a case for forcible No. 25, 654-97, affirming the Decision dated July 31, 1997
entry, which is an action to recover possession of a of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Davao City
property from the defendant whose occupation thereof is in Civil Case No. 3506-B-96, is hereby REINSTATED.
illegal from the beginning as he acquired possession by
force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth; and (2) a SO ORDERED.
case for unlawful detainer, which is an action for recovery
of possession from defendant whose possession of the
property was inceptively lawful by virtue of a contract Panganiban, (Chairman), Corona, Carpio-Morales, and
(express or implied) with the plaintiff, but became illegal Garcia, JJ., concur.
Page 2 of 2

22-Santos Vs Ayon, G.R. No. 137013, May 6, 2005

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

22-Santos Vs Ayon, G.R. No. 137013, May 6, 2005

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

22-Santos Vs Ayon, G.R. No. 137013, May 6, 2005

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 137013 May 6, 2005 Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.

00); and to pay

You might also like