GR L 2132; (May, 1949) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2132. May 30, 1949.
JUANA SAVINADA, petitioner, vs. J.M. TUASON & CO., INC. represented by its managing partner, GREGORIO ARANETA, INC., and PRUDENCIO M. ENCOMIENDA, Judge of Municipal Court of Quezon City, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. filed an unlawful detainer complaint against petitioner Juana Savinada in the Municipal Court of Quezon City. The complaint alleged the plaintiff’s ownership of a parcel of land covered by a Transfer Certificate of Title and that the defendant was “unlawfully withholding” possession of a portion thereof. Savinada moved to quash the complaint, arguing it failed to allege the date and manner of her entry into the premises and that the court lacked jurisdiction because she claimed ownership of the land. The respondent judge initially dismissed the complaint but later reconsidered and reinstated it, prompting Savinada to file this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
1. Whether the complaint for unlawful detainer sufficiently states a cause of action despite not alleging the date and manner of the defendant’s entry.
2. Whether the municipal court loses jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case simply because the defendant, in her answer, claims ownership of the property.
RULING
1. Yes. The complaint is sufficient. It follows Form No. 1 appended to the Rules of Court as a model for ejectment complaints. The Supreme Court, citing Co Tiamco vs. Diaz, held that an allegation that the defendant is “unlawfully withholding” possession is adequate. Such wording implies possession that was initially legal (arising from a contract, express or implied) but whose right has since expired. The details of entry and the one-year period for filing the action are matters of proof, not essential allegations in the complaint.
2. No. The municipal court retains jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint. A mere claim of ownership by the defendant in the answer does not automatically divest the inferior court of jurisdiction. The court would only lose jurisdiction if the evidence presented during trial shows that resolving the question of possession necessarily requires adjudicating the question of title.
The petition is denied.
AI Generated by Armztrong.