G.R. No. 110427 February 24, 1997
The Incompetent, CARMEN CAÑIZA, represented by her legal guardian, AMPARO EVANGELISTA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION), PEDRO ESTRADA and his wife, LEONORA ESTRADA, respondents.

FACTS

Carmen Cañiza, a declared incompetent, owned a house and lot in Quezon City. Through her legal guardian, Amparo Evangelista, she filed an ejectment complaint (unlawful detainer) against the spouses Pedro and Leonora Estrada, who had been living in the premises since the 1960s. The complaint alleged the Estradas’ occupancy was by mere tolerance, that demands to vacate had been made and refused, and that the action was filed within one year from the last demand. The Estradas defended their possession by presenting a xerox copy of an alleged holographic will where Cañiza purportedly bequeathed the property to them.
The Metropolitan Trial Court ruled in favor of Cañiza and ordered the Estradas to vacate. The Regional Trial Court, on appeal, reversed the decision, holding that the action should have been an accion publiciana, not an ejectment case, because the issue of ownership was raised by the defense. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s reversal. During the pendency of the appeal to the Supreme Court, Carmen Cañiza passed away.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Metropolitan Trial Court correctly took cognizance of the case as an action for unlawful detainer (ejectment) despite the defendants’ claim of ownership based on an alleged holographic will.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the Court of Appeals and REINSTATED the MTC decision. The nature of an action is determined by the allegations in the complaint, not by the defenses raised. Cañiza’s complaint unequivocally alleged a cause of action for unlawful detainer: possession by tolerance, withdrawal of that tolerance through demands to vacate, refusal by the defendants to vacate, and filing of the suit within one year from demand. The jurisdiction of the court is not ousted by the defendants’ claim of ownership; such a claim is merely a defense that the court can provisionally rule upon to determine the issue of possession. The alleged holographic will, being merely a xerox copy and unprobated, cannot confer any right to the Estradas and is irrelevant to the summary issue of physical possession in an ejectment suit. The Court further held that the death of Cañiza did not extinguish the ejectment case, as an action for recovery of possession survives and can be continued by her legal representative. The MTC thus retained jurisdiction over the ejectment suit.