G.R. No. L-15872; April 26, 1961
THE CITY OF MANILA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ANTONIA EBAY, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

The City of Manila filed a complaint against Antonia Ebay in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila. The City alleged that Ebay, in February 1950, through strategy and stealth and without its knowledge or consent, constructed a house on a portion of city-owned land intended as a children’s playground. The complaint sought her ejectment and payment of accrued rentals amounting to P164.34 from April 1950 to October 1958, at a rate of P1.60 per month. The City sent a demand letter to vacate and pay on November 3, 1958, and filed the case on November 11, 1958, after Ebay failed to comply.
In her answer, Ebay admitted building the house without prior permission but claimed the City later tolerated her possession and collected rentals from her. As a special defense, she asserted that the action was for unlawful detainer, which falls under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Court, not the CFI. The trial court, after hearing evidence including testimony from a City Treasurer’s Office employee confirming rental collections from Ebay in 1956 and 1957, dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction over the ejectment case filed by the City of Manila against Antonia Ebay.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the CFI correctly declared it had no jurisdiction. The legal logic hinges on the nature of the action as determined by the allegations and the evidence. Although the complaint initially described Ebay’s entry as illegal, the City’s own evidence established that it had accepted rental payments from her for specific periods in 1956 and 1957. This act of accepting rentals converted Ebay’s possession from a mere illegal occupant into a tenant, thereby creating a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties.
Consequently, the cause of action transformed into one for ejectment based on the failure to pay rents and to vacate upon demand, which is governed by the rules on unlawful detainer. Under Section 2, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court then in force, such actions fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the municipal court, provided they are filed within one year from the last demand. The City’s demand was made on November 3, 1958, and the complaint was filed on November 11, 1958, well within the one-year period, making it a proper case for the municipal court. The Supreme Court also rejected the City’s new argument on appeal regarding Ebay’s lack of a building permit, as it was not raised in the pleadings or during trial and could not be entertained for the first time on appeal.