G.R. No. 220057 . July 12, 2017. RENE MICHAEL FRENCH, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTEENTH DIVISION, CEBU CITY and MAGDALENA O’DELL, represented by HECTOR P. TEODOSIO as her Attorney-in-fact, Respondents.
FACTS

Magdalena O’dell, a registered owner of land in Passi City, filed an ejectment complaint against Rene Michael French. She alleged that in the 1980s, she permitted Rene’s father, Henry French, to cultivate the land without rent on condition he pay some of her bank loans and vacate upon demand. Upon Henry’s death in 1991, Rene occupied the land without her consent. After a demand letter in January 2008 was ignored, she filed the case in October 2008. Rene countered that his father had redeemed the property from a mortgage after Magdalena defaulted, and that through assignment, abandonment, or waiver, ownership had been transferred. He claimed open, continuous, and public possession as owner for 23 years, including payment of real property taxes.
The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) ruled for Magdalena, finding Rene’s possession was by mere tolerance, with no written proof of any ownership transfer. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the factual findings but dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding the allegations constituted an accion publiciana. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, reinstating the MTCC judgment, and ruled the MTCC properly exercised jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer case.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that the MTCC had jurisdiction over the complaint as a valid action for unlawful detainer.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. For unlawful detainer, jurisdiction is conferred by the allegations in the complaint regarding the nature of the defendant’s entry and the timing of the demand and filing. Magdalena’s complaint clearly alleged that Rene’s possession originated from her tolerance of his father’s occupation under a conditional agreement. The demand to vacate was made on January 10, 2008, and the complaint was filed on October 13, 2008, well within the one-year period from the last demand required by the Rules of Court. These allegations sufficiently constituted a cause of action for unlawful detainer. The RTC erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction; the defense of ownership raised by Rene does not divest the MTCC of jurisdiction over the possessory action. In ejectment cases, the issue of ownership is merely provisional, and the principal question remains physical possession. Rene’s claim of ownership, unsupported by written evidence and contradicted by documents showing he acted merely as an administrator, did not convert the action into one beyond the MTCC’s jurisdiction.