ROSS RICA SALES CENTER, INC. and JUANITO KING & SONS, INC. vs.

SPOUSES
GERRY ONG and ELIZABETH ONG | G.R. No. 132197 | August 16, 2005 | Tinga, J.
Ownership

Doctrine (Simplified Take away):

The issue involved in accion reivindicatoria is the recovery of ownership of real property. This
differs from accion publiciana where the issue is the better right of possession or possession de
jure, and accion interdictal where the issue is material possession or possession de facto. In an
action for unlawful detainer, the question of possession is primordial, while the issue of
ownership is generally unessential.

FACTS: The spouses Ong are the original owners of 3 parcels of land which they occupy. They
sold it to Mandaue Prime Estate Realty, which then sold it to Ross Rica Sales Center, Inc. The
spouses Ong filed an action to annul the sale and transfer of property to Mandaue Prime Estate
Realty and at present, the case is still pending. In the meantime, an ejectment case was filed
against spouses Ong in the MTC, which ruled against the latter. On appeal to the RTC, the
judgment was affirmed by a decision dated March 1, 1997. The spouses Ong received a copy of
the decision on April 28, 1997.

The spouses Ong first filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC (May 8, 1997) but on the very next
day filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied on June 23, 1997. The spouses Ong
received a copy of the order on July 9, 1997. On July 24, 1997 respondents filed with the CA a
motion for an additional 10 days to file their Petition for Review, which they would eventually file
on July 30, 1997.

The CA gave their petition for review due course and reversed the decision of the RTC on the
finding that the action filed was not one for unlawful detainer based on two grounds: that the
allegations fail to show that petitioners were deprived of possession by force, intimidation,
threat, strategy or stealth; and that there is no contract, express or implied, between the parties
that would qualify the case as one of unlawful detainer.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the complaint satisfies the jurisdictional requirements for a case of unlawful
detainer properly cognizable by the MTC.
2. Whether the case should be considered as one for accion reivindicatoria, and thus
the jurisdiction would lie with the RTC.

RULING:

1. YES. Well-settled is the rule that what determines the nature of an action as well as
which court has jurisdiction over it are the allegations of the complaint and the
character of the relief sought. In Javelosa vs. Court of the Appeals, it was held that
the allegation in the complaint that there was unlawful withholding of possession is
sufficient to make out a case for unlawful detainer. It is equally settled that in an
action for unlawful detainer, an allegation that the defendant is unlawfully withholding
possession from the plaintiff is deemed sufficient, without necessarily employing the
terminology of the law. Hence, the phrase “unlawful withholding” has been held to
imply possession on the part of defendant, which was legal in the beginning, having
no other source than a contract, express or implied, and which later expired as a
 right and is being withheld by defendant. In Rosanna B. Barba vs. Court of Appeals,
the Supreme Court held that a simple allegation that the defendant is unlawfully
withholding possession from plaintiff is sufficient.

2. NO. The issue involved in accion reivindicatoria is the recovery of ownership of real
property. This differs from accion publiciana where the issue is the better right of
possession or possession de jure, and accion interdictal where the issue is material
possession or possession de facto. In an action for unlawful detainer, the question of
possession is primordial, while the issue of ownership is generally unessential.
Petitioners, in all their pleadings, only sought to recover physical possession of the
subject property. The mere fact that they claim ownership over the parcels of land as
well did not deprive the MTC of jurisdiction to try the ejectment case. Even if
respondents claim ownership as a defense to the complaint for ejectment, the
conclusion would be the same, for mere assertion of ownership by the defendant in
an ejectment case will not oust the municipal court of its summary jurisdiction.