Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURTManila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No.

178096 March 23, 2011

ROSA DELOS REYES, Petitioner, vs.SPOUSES RANC!SCO ODONES a"# AR$EN!A ODONES, NOEM! OTALES, a"# GREGOR!O RAM!RE%, Respondents. DECISION NAC&URA, J.: his petition for certiorari under Rule !" of the Rules of Court see#s the reversal of the $ebruar% &', ())* Decision & and the Ma% ((, ())* Resolution( of the Court of +ppeals ,C+-, affir.in/ the 0une (), ())1 decision2 of the Re/ional rial Court ,R C-, 3ranch 14, Ca.ilin/, arlac, 5hich in turn set aside the March (4, ())1 decision ! of the Municipal rial Court ,M C- of Ca.ilin/, arlac, in a co.plaint for unla5ful detainer, disposed as follo5s6 78ERE$ORE, 9ud/.ent is hereb% rendered in favor of the plaintiff and a/ainst defendants, orderin/ defendants, spouses +r5enia Odones and $rancisco Odones, their heirs and assi/ns and all persons actin/ in their behalves to vacate the pre.ises and to surrender possession thereof to the plaintiff. Defendants are li#e5ise ordered to pa% One housand ,P&,))).))- Pesos as reasonable co.pensation for the use of the land and +ttorne%:s fees in the a.ount of $ive housand ,P",))).))- Pesos. SO ORDERED." he $acts his case e.anated fro. a co.plaint for ;nla5ful Detainer 5ith Preli.inar% In9unction1 filed b% petitioner Rosa delos Re%es ,petitioner- a/ainst respondents spouses +r5enia and $rancisco Odones, Noe.i Otales, and <re/orio Ra.ire= ,respondents- before
1

the M C of Ca.ilin/, arlac, on 0ul% &(, ())". he co.plaint alle/ed these .aterial facts6 2. hat >petitioner? is the o5ner of a parcel of land covered @ @ @ b% ransfer Certificate of itle No. 2'(!2), of the Aand Records for the Province of arlac, located at Pao, Ca.ilin/, arlac, @ @ @. !. hat even before the docu.ent upon 5hich the title 5as based, >petitioner? has lon/ been the o5ner thereofB ". hat >respondents? are sta%in/ on the said propert% 5ith a houseCi.prove.ents therein, 5ith the .ere tolerance of >petitioner? onl% 5ithout an% contract 5hatsoever and for 5hich there is an i.plied understandin/ to vacate upon the de.andB 1. hat >petitioner? previousl% de.anded verball% upon >respondents? to vacate 5hich the% refused and for 5hich a 5ritten notice 5as sent advisin/ the. to vacate the said propert% 5ithin fifteen ,&"- da%s fro. receipt of the letter to vacate @ @ @. *. hat the said letter 5as sent b% re/istered .ail on 0une &*, ())", 5hich 5as dul% received @ @ @.* In their +ns5er 5ith Counterclai., 4 respondents clai.ed that the% are the o5ners of the lot, havin/ purchased the sa.e b% virtue of an E@tra9udicial Succession of Estate and Sale' dated 0anuar% (', ())!, e@ecuted b% the heirs of Donata Aardi=abal, the land:s ori/inal o5ner. Respondents denied that their occupanc% of the propert% 5as b% virtue of petitioner:s tolerance.&) Respondents further ar/ued that the basis of petitioner:s ransfer Certificate of itle , C -, 5hich is a Deed of +bsolute Sale dated +pril &4, &'*(,&& 5as a for/er% because the purported vendors therein, Donata Aardi=abal and $rancisco Ra=alan, died on 0une 2), &'(1&( and 0une ", &'*&,&2 respectivel%. Incidentall%, the said C and Deed of +bsolute Sale are the sub9ect of a pendin/ case for annul.ent of title before the R C, 3ranch 14, Ca.ilin/, arlac. &! In a decision dated March (4, ())1, the M C ruled in favor of petitioner, and ordered respondents to vacate the propert% and to pa% rent for the use and occupation of the sa.e, plus attorne%Ds fees.
2

Respondents appealed&" to the R C, ar/uin/ that since the co.plaint failed to alle/e ho5 respondents entered the propert% or 5hen the% erected their houses thereon, it is an i.proper action for unla5ful detainer, and the M C had no 9urisdiction over the sa.e. &1 In its 0une (), ())1 decision,&* the R C set aside the M C:s 9ud/.ent and dis.issed the co.plaint. he R C held that the co.plaint failed to aver acts constitutive of forcible entr% or unla5ful detainer since it did not state ho5 entr% 5as effected or ho5 and 5hen the dispossession started. 8ence, the re.ed% should either be accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria in the proper R C. +//rieved, petitioner sou/ht recourse 5ith the C+, asseveratin/ that the R C .isappreciated the alle/ations in the co.plaint and that respondents 5ere estopped fro. assailin/ the M C:s 9urisdiction because the% did not raise such issue in the proceedin/s before that court. Petitioner insisted that, as the re/istered o5ner of the lot, she has a preferential ri/ht of possession over it.&4 On $ebruar% &', ())*, the C+ affir.ed the 9ud/.ent of the R C, addin/ that, as pronounced in <o, 0r. v. Court of +ppeals, &' in order to 9ustif% an action for unla5ful detainer, the o5ner:s per.ission or tolerance .ust be present at the be/innin/ of the possession. () Petitioner .oved for reconsideration, (& but the .otion 5as denied in a Resolution dated Ma% ((, ())*. (( 8ence, the instant petition (2 ascribin/ the follo5in/ errors to the C+6 8E 8ON. CO;R O$ +PPE+AS ERRED IN +PPAEIN< 8E C+SE O$ <O, 0R. v. CO;R O$ +PPE+AS. 8E 8ON. CO;R O$ +PPE+AS ERRED IN 8OADIN< 8+ 8E 8ON. M;NICIP+A RI+A CO;R O$ C+MIAIN<, +RA+C NEVER +CF;IRED 0;RISDIC ION OVER 8E C+SE. 8E 8ON. CO;R O$ +PPE+AS ERRED IN NO 8OADIN< 8+ 8E RESPONDEN S +RE +ARE+DE ES OPPED $ROM R+ISIN< 8E ISS;E O$ 0;RISDIC ION. 8E 8ON. CO;R O$ +PPE+AS ERRED IN NO +PPAEIN< 8E PRINCIPAE O$ S +RE DECISIS.(!

he petition is .eritorious. 7ellGsettled is the rule that 5hat deter.ines the nature of the action, as 5ell as the court 5hich has 9urisdiction over the case, are the alle/ations in the co.plaint. In e9ect.ent cases, the co.plaint should e.bod% such state.ent of facts as to brin/ the part% clearl% 5ithin the class of cases for 5hich the statutes provide a re.ed%, as these proceedin/s are su..ar% in nature. he co.plaint .ust sho5 enou/h on its face to /ive the court 9urisdiction 5ithout resort to parol evidence.(" ;nla5ful detainer is an action to recover possession of real propert% fro. one 5ho ille/all% 5ithholds possession after the e@piration or ter.ination of his ri/ht to hold possession under an% contract, e@press or i.plied. he possession b% the defendant in unla5ful detainer is ori/inall% le/al but beca.e ille/al due to the e@piration or ter.ination of the ri/ht to possess. (1 he proceedin/ is su..ar% in nature, 9urisdiction over 5hich lies 5ith the proper M C or .etropolitan trial court. he action .ust be brou/ht up 5ithin one %ear fro. the date of last de.and, and the issue in the case .ust be the ri/ht to ph%sical possession.(* + co.plaint sufficientl% alle/es a cause of action for unla5ful detainer if it recites the follo5in/6 &. initiall%, possession of propert% b% the defendant 5as b% contract 5ith or b% tolerance of the plaintiffB (. eventuall%, such possession beca.e ille/al upon notice b% plaintiff to defendant of the ter.ination of the latterDs ri/ht of possessionB 2. thereafter, the defendant re.ained in possession of the propert% and deprived the plaintiff of the en9o%.ent thereofB and !. 5ithin one %ear fro. the last de.and on defendant to vacate the propert%, the plaintiff instituted the co.plaint for e9ect.ent. (4 Contrar% to the findin/s of the R C and the C+, petitioner:s alle/ations in the co.plaint clearl% .a#es out a case for unla5ful detainer, essential to confer 9urisdiction over the sub9ect .atter on the M C. Petitioner alle/es that she is the o5ner of the lot, as sho5n b%
4

C No. 2'(!2), issued b% the Re/istr% of Deeds of arlacB that respondents are occup%in/ the lot b% virtue of petitioner:s toleranceB and that petitioner sent a letter to respondents on 0une &*, ())", de.andin/ that the% vacate the propert%, but the% failed and refused to do so. he co.plaint 5as filed on 0ul% &(, ())", or 5ithin one %ear fro. the ti.e the last de.and to vacate 5as .ade. $ir. is the rule that as lon/ as these alle/ations de.onstrate a cause of action for unla5ful detainer, the court acHuires 9urisdiction over the sub9ect .atter. he C+ .isapplied the rulin/ in <o (' that tolerance .ust be present ri/ht fro. the start of possession, 5hich possession is sou/ht to be recovered. he C+, in affir.in/ the R C, li#e5ise erroneousl% applied the rule that 9urisdictional facts .ust appear on the face of the co.plaint for e9ect.ent, such that 5hen the co.plaint fails to faithfull% aver facts constitutive of unla5ful detainer, as 5here it does not state 5hen and ho5 entr% 5as effected, or ho5 and 5hen dispossession started, the re.ed% should either be accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria in the proper R C. he reHuire.ent that the co.plaint should aver, as 9urisdictional facts, 5hen and ho5 entr% into the propert% 5as .ade b% the defendants applies onl% 5hen the issue is the ti.eliness of the filin/ of the co.plaint before the M C, and not 5hen the 9urisdiction of the M C is assailed because the case is one for accion publiciana co/ni=able b% the R C.2) his is because, in forcible entr% cases, the prescriptive period is counted fro. the date of defendants: actual entr% into the propert%B 5hereas, in unla5ful detainer cases, it is counted fro. the date of the last de.and to vacate. 8ence, to deter.ine 5hether the case 5as filed on ti.e, there is a necessit% to ascertain 5hether the co.plaint is one for forcible entr% or for unla5ful detainerB and since the .ain distinction bet5een the t5o actions is 5hen and ho5 defendant entered the propert%, the deter.inative facts should be alle/ed in the co.plaint. 2&
1avvphi1

In <o, there 5as evidence that the possession b% the defendant 5as ille/al at the inception and not .erel% tolerated as alle/ed in the co.plaint. No such si.ilar findin/ is e@tant in this case. $urther, one of the factual issues raised in <o 5as 5hether the action 5as filed

5ithin one ,&- %ear fro. the date the last de.and 5as .ade. 8ere, it is be%ond dispute that the co.plaint for unla5ful detainer 5as filed 5ithin one ,&- %ear fro. the date the de.and letter 5as sent on 0une &*, ())". 3ased on the fore/oin/, the M C validl% acHuired 9urisdiction over the co.plaint and 5e a/ree 5ith its conclusion that petitioner is entitled to the ph%sical possession of the lot, she havin/ been able to prove b% preponderance of evidence, throu/h the C re/istered in her na.e, that she is entitled to possession of the propert% as o5ner. he countervailin/ evidence presented b% respondents that sou/ht to dispute the authenticit% of petitioner:s C cannot be /iven 5ei/ht in this case. Settled is the rule that the validit% of a certificate of title cannot be attac#ed in an action for e9ect.ent. 2( his not5ithstandin/, the deter.ination .ade herein as re/ards petitioner:s o5nership of the lot b% virtue of C No. 2'(!2) is onl% pri.a facie and onl% for purposes of resolvin/ the issue of ph%sical possession. hese pronounce.ents are 5ithout pre9udice to the case of annul.ent of the deed of sale and C filed b% respondents a/ainst petitioner.22 Aastl%, these pronounce.ents are not bindin/ on respondents Noe.i Otales and <re/orio Ra.ire= over 5hose persons no 9urisdiction 5as acHuired b% the M C. 2! 78ERE$ORE, the petition is <R+N ED. he $ebruar% &', ())* Decision and the Ma% ((, ())* Resolution of the Court of +ppeals are hereb% REVERSED and SE +SIDE. he March (4, ())1 decision of the Municipal rial Court of Ca.ilin/, arlac, is REINS + ED and +$$IRMED. SO ORDERED. ANTON!O EDUARDO '. NAC&URA+ssociate 0ustice + ES + ION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case 5as assi/ned to the 5riter of the opinion of the Court:s Division. ANTON!O T. CARP!O+ssociate 0usticeChairperson, Second Division
6

CER

I$IC+

ION

Pursuant to Section &2, +rticle VIII of the Constitution and the Division ChairpersonDs +ttestation, I certif% that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case 5as assi/ned to the 5riter of the opinion of the Court:s Division. RENATO C. CORONAChief 0ustice oo("o()* +dditional .e.ber in lieu of +ssociate 0ustice 0ose Catral Mendo=a per Special Order No. '*" dated March (&, ()&&.
I

Penned b% +ssociate 0ustice 0ose A. Sabio, 0r., 5ith +ssociate 0ustices 0ose C. Re%es, 0r. and M%rna Di.aranan Vidal, concurrin/B rollo, pp. (4G2".
& (

Id. at 24. Id. at &(!G&(1. Id. at 4"G4'. Id. at 44G4'. Id. at "!G1). Id. at "!G"1. Id. at 1*G*). Id. at *&G*(. Supra note 4. Id. at *2. Id. at **. Id. at *4.
7

"

'

&)

&&

&(

&2

&!

Id. at *!G*1. Notice of +ppealB id. at '). +ppeal Me.orandu.B id. at '&G'1. Supra note 2. Petition for Revie5B rollo, pp. &!*G&*". <.R. No. &!((*1, +u/ust &!, ())&, 21( SCR+ *"". Supra note &. Rollo, pp. !)G"2. Supra note (. Rollo, pp. 2G(1. Fuoted in brevit%B id. at &).

&"

&1

&*

&4

&'

()

(&

((

(2

(!

Canlas v. ubil, <.R. No. &4!(4", Septe.ber (", ())', 1)& SCR+ &!*, &"1, citin/ Domalsin v. Valenciano, <.R. No. &"414*, 0anuar% (", ())1, !4) SCR+ &&!, &22G&2!.
("

Valdez, Jr. v. CA, <.R. No. &2(!(!, Ma% !, ())1, !4' SCR+ 21', 2*1.
(1 (*

Id.

Cabrera v. Getaruela, <.R. No. &1!(&2, +pril (&, ())', "41 SCR+ &(', &2*.
(4 ('

Supra note &'. Canlas v. ubil, supra note (", at &1). Id., citin/ 0avelosa v. C+, 222 Phil. 22&, 2!) ,&''1-.

2)

2&

Soriente v. Estate of the Aate +rsenio E. Concepcion, <.R. No. &1)(2', Nove.ber (", ())', 1)" SCR+ 2&", 22).
2(

3arias v. 8eirs of 3artolo.e 3oneo, <.R. No. &11'!&, Dece.ber &!, ())', 1)4 SCR+ &1', &*".
22 2!

Supra note !, at 44.

Вам также может понравиться