UNLAWFUL DETAINER

Penta Pacific Realty Corporation v. Ley Construction and Development

Corporation
G.R. No. 161589, November 24, 2014
BERSAMIN, J.
FACTS:
Petitioner Penta Pacific Realty Corporation owned the 25th floor of the Pacific Star
Building in Makati City and leased a portion thereof to the respondent Ley
Construction and Development Corporation. By virtue of the contract of lease,
respondent is in possession of said portion under a stipulation that in case of the
respondents default in its monthly rentals, the petitioner could immediately repossess
the subject property. A few months later, the parties executed a contract to sell,
denominated as a reservation agreement, for the whole 25 th floor which provided a
cancellation or forfeiture provision, stipulating that any failure of the respondent to
pay the full downpayment, or deliver the post-dated checks or pay the monthly
amortization on the due date, shall entitle the petitioner, at its option, to impose a
penalty interest at the rate of 3% per month on the outstanding balance or to cancel the
agreement without need of any court action and to forfeit any reservation deposits or
payments already made on the unit, without prior notice. After several payments
made, the respondent stopped paying the monthly amortizations and proposed to
modify the agreement to allow the purchase of only the leased portion of the property,
to which petitioner did not heed. Due to respondents failure to pay, and after notices
of non-payment and demands for payment were sent, petitioner cancelled the
reservation agreement and forfeited the previous payments made and demanded the
respondent to vacate the premises. Respondents failure to comply resulted to the
filing of an ejectment complaint in the MeTC by the petitioner. MeTC ruled in favour
of the petitioner but was reversed by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, hence, this
petition to review.
MeTC found that the respondents lawful possession of the property had been by
virtue of the contract of lease, but had become unlawful when the respondent had
failed to comply with its obligation to pay; and that, in any event, the reservation
agreement proved that the petitioner had held the better right to possess the subject
property as the owner thereof. RTC, as affirmed by the CA, nullified the decision on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction, holding that the appropriate action was either accion
publiciana or accion reivindicatoria over which the MeTC had no jurisdiction, and
that the complaint did not specifically aver facts constitutive of unlawful detainer, i.e.,
it did not show how entry had been effected and how the dispossession had started.

ISSUE:
Is the suit that of accion publiciana, accion reinvidicatoria, unlawful detainer?
HELD:
The suit is that of unlawful detainer and is within the jurisdiction of MeTC.
There are three kinds of possessory actions, namely: accion de reivindicacion, accion
publiciana and accion interdictal. The first seeks the recovery of ownership as well as
possession of realty. The second proposes to recover the right to possess and is a
plenary action in an ordinary civil proceeding. The third refers to the recovery of
physical or actual possession only (through a special civil action either for forcible
entry or unlawful detainer).
A suit for unlawful detainer is premised on Section 1, Rule 70, 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, of which there are two kinds, namely: (1) that filed against a tenant, and
(2) that brought against a vendee or vendor, or other person unlawfully withholding
possession of any land or building after the expiration or termination of the right to
hold possession by virtue of any contract, express or implied. Whether the cause of
action is from vendor-vendee relationship or lessor-lessee is immaterial. The principal
issue is the existence of actual possession or possession de facto, ownership is merely
ancillary.
BP 129 and Section 1 of Republic Act No. 7691 provides that the MeTC/MTC/MCTC
has exclusive original jurisdiction over accion interdictal and over the other
possessory actions of accion publiciana and accion de reivindicacion where the
assessed value of the realty involved did not exceed P20,000.00, or, if the realty
involved was in Metro Manila, such value did not exceed P50,000.00 (anything of
higher value falls within the jurisdiction of RTC).
For the action to come under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC, Sec 2,
Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides that the complaint must allege that: (a) the
defendant originally had lawful possession of the property, either by virtue of a
contract or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (b) the defendants possession of the property
eventually became illegal or unlawful upon notice by the plaintiff to the defendant of
the expiration or the termination of the defendants right of possession; (c) the
defendant thereafter remained in possession of the property and thereby deprived the
plaintiff the enjoyment thereof; and (d) the plaintiff instituted the action within one
year from the unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession. This was met with
the property being previously lawfully possessed by the respondent by virtue of the

contracts, until it failed to pay the monthly amortizations and vacate the premises
making the possession unlawful, and respondents extended possession despite the
demands to vacate were made, and with the action filed months after demand was
given.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined from the allegations of the
complaint. It is not ousted by the fact of what was ultimately proved may have
departed from that alleged in the complaint. The allegations of the complaint made out
a case of unlawful detainer, and in itself vested the MeTC with exclusive original
jurisdiction over the complaint.