GR 195814; (April, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 195814 APRIL 4, 2018
EVERSLEY CHILDS SANITARIUM, represented by DR. GERARDO M. AQUINO, JR., Petitioner vs. SPOUSES ANASTACIO AND PERLA BARBARONA, Respondents
FACTS
Respondent Spouses Barbarona, claiming ownership of Lot No. 1936 in Mandaue City by virtue of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 53698, filed a Complaint for Ejectment against several occupants, including petitioner Eversley Childs Sanitarium, a public health facility. The Spouses alleged they sent demand letters and, upon the occupants’ refusal to vacate by April 15, 2005, were constrained to file the action. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of the Spouses, characterizing the case as one for unlawful detainer based on possession by tolerance, and ordered the occupants to vacate. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed this decision.
During the pendency of its motion for reconsideration before the RTC, a separate proceeding before the Court of Appeals resulted in the cancellation of the Spouses’ TCT and its mother title for lack of proper notice. Despite this development, the RTC denied Eversley’s motion. Eversley then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, arguing the MTC lacked jurisdiction and that the title’s invalidation prejudiced the Spouses’ case.
ISSUE
Whether the MTC had jurisdiction over the ejectment complaint filed by the Spouses Barbarona.
RULING
No, the MTC had no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that the allegations in the complaint failed to establish a case for unlawful detainer within the MTC’s exclusive jurisdiction. For unlawful detainer, the complainant must allege facts showing that possession was initially lawful, beginning by the owner’s tolerance, and that such tolerance was later withdrawn. The complaint merely stated the Spouses were the titled owners and that the occupants refused to vacate after demand. It did not specify when the alleged tolerance began or the acts constituting such tolerance. These omissions were fatal.
The Court clarified that where the plaintiff alleges ownership and asserts the defendant’s possession was unauthorized from the beginning, the essence of the action is not for unlawful detainer but for recovery of possession, which falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC in an accion publiciana. Since the Spouses’ claim was based solely on their title, effectively alleging that Eversley’s possession was never lawful, the MTC had no jurisdiction. The subsequent cancellation of the Spouses’ title only bolstered the conclusion that the core issue—possession and ownership—was beyond the MTC’s limited purview. The ejectment case was therefore dismissed without prejudice to the filing of the appropriate action.