G.R. No. 155432 ; June 9, 2005
CRISPINA UNIDA, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF AMBROSIO URBAN, represented by LUCIO CABADDU, Respondent.

FACTS

The respondents, Heirs of Ambrocio Urban represented by Lucio Cabaddu, filed an unlawful detainer complaint against petitioners Crispina Unida et al. before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Camalaniugan, Cagayan. The complaint alleged that about ten years prior, petitioners unlawfully entered and cultivated the subject land without the owners’ consent. It further stated that the owners initially tolerated this possession due to the area being infested by the New People’s Army. Petitioners, in their answer, challenged Cabaddu’s authority to represent the heirs and asserted ownership over the land, claiming possession since time immemorial through their predecessors-in-interest.
The MTC ruled in favor of the respondents, finding implied toleration and upholding their ownership. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTC, dismissing the complaint. The RTC held that Lucio Cabaddu lacked the proper authority to institute the suit as he was not the real party in interest. On the substantive issue, it ruled that the action for unlawful detainer was improper, as the complaint itself alleged an unlawful entry from the start, which negates the concept of lawful initial possession terminated by mere tolerance. The Court of Appeals subsequently reversed the RTC and reinstated the MTC decision, prompting the petitioners to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the MTC had jurisdiction over the subject matter, specifically, whether the allegations in the complaint sufficiently constituted a valid cause of action for unlawful detainer.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the RTC’s dismissal of the unlawful detainer case for lack of jurisdiction. The legal logic centers on the jurisdictional requirements for an unlawful detainer action under the Rules of Court. For such an action to lie, the plaintiff’s prior physical possession must have been lawful, originating from contract, tolerance, or license, and such possession was later unlawfully withheld after the termination of the right.
The Court meticulously examined the allegations in the complaint. It found that the respondents explicitly averred the petitioners’ entry was “without the knowledge or consent of the owners” and “without any legal right whatsoever.” This unequivocally establishes that the petitioners’ initial possession was unlawful from its inception. An unlawful detainer action cannot be founded on an initial possession that is illegal. The subsequent alleged “toleration” due to NPA presence, as pleaded, does not convert the unlawful entry into a lawful one that can be the subject of an ejectment case. Since the complaint failed to allege a factual basis for lawful initial possession, it did not state a cause of action for unlawful detainer, and the MTC therefore lacked jurisdiction. The proper remedy for the respondents, as suggested by the RTC, would be an accion publiciana or reivindicatoria in the proper RTC. Consequently, the Supreme Court ordered the remand of the case records to the RTC for appropriate action in accordance with the rules governing cases tried without jurisdiction.