GR 148759; (June, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148759 ; June 8, 2006
GERMELINA TORRES RACAZA and BERNALDITA TORRES PARAS, Petitioners, vs. ERNESTO GOZUM, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners, co-owners of a property in Pasig City, filed an accion publiciana (recovery of possession) against respondent Gozum before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). They alleged that Gozum occupied the property as a lessee under a verbal contract. After their father’s death, they sent a demand to vacate in July 1995. An initial ejectment case was dismissed on a technicality. In May 1997, they sent another demand, stating the lease had expired in July 1995 and rentals were unpaid. Upon Gozum’s refusal, they filed the RTC case in June 1997. Gozum claimed a valid 10-year written lease from the petitioners’ father, expiring in September 1999, and asserted payments were tendered but refused. The RTC ruled for the petitioners, ordering Gozum to vacate and pay rentals and attorney’s fees.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the complaint on the ground that the RTC lacked jurisdiction because the action should have been for unlawful detainer, not accion publiciana.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the RTC decision. The Court held that the RTC correctly exercised jurisdiction over the accion publiciana. Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint. Petitioners alleged a lease that expired in July 1995, with a demand to vacate made that same month. The action for recovery of possession was filed in June 1997, which is beyond the one-year period from the last demand for filing an unlawful detainer case under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. Since the one-year period for summary ejectment had lapsed, the proper remedy was indeed an accion publiciana, which is a plenary action for recovery of possession filed in the RTC. The Court further clarified that the subsequent demand letter in May 1997 did not convert the action into an unlawful detainer or restart the one-year period, as the alleged unlawful withholding of possession commenced from the expiration of the lease and the first demand in 1995. The nature of the action and the court’s jurisdiction are fixed at the time of the filing of the complaint.