GR 164213; (April, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 164213 ; April 21, 2009
Valentin Cabrera, Manuel Cabrera, and Rebecca Leslie Cabras, Petitioners, vs. Elizabeth Getaruela, Eulogio Ababon, Leonida Ligan, Marietto Ababon, Gloria Panal, Leonora Ocariza, Sotero Ababon, Jr., and Joseph Ababon, Respondents.
FACTS
Lot Nos. 3635-CC and 3635-Y in Inayawan, Cebu City were originally in the name of Arcadio Jaca. His heirs executed a “Kasabutan nga Hinigala” in 1951 stipulating that all inherited properties, including Lot No. 3635, would go to Peregrina Jaca Cabrera. However, a court-approved Repartition Project in 1956 awarded the lots to Urbana Jaca Ababon, the respondents’ predecessor. Upon Urbana’s death in 1997, respondents inherited the lots. Petitioners (Valentin Cabrera, Manuel Cabrera, and Rebecca Leslie Cabras, Peregrina’s adopted daughter) occupied the lots with respondents’ knowledge and consent, under an agreement that they would vacate and demolish their houses at their own expense when respondents needed the property. In 2001, respondents demanded that petitioners vacate. Petitioners refused, leading respondents to file an ejectment case (Civil Case No. R-45280). Petitioners challenged the Repartition Project, asserting the validity of the “Kasabutan nga Hinigala” and claiming ownership or rights through Peregrina. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) ruled for respondents, ordering petitioners to vacate. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially reversed the MTCC but, upon reconsideration, modified its decision, dismissing the complaint regarding Lot No. 3635-Y but ordering petitioners to vacate Lot No. 3635-CC. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s orders.
ISSUE
1. Whether the MTCC had jurisdiction over the ejectment case absent a formal lease contract between the parties.
2. Whether tolerance by the owner is a valid ground for ejectment in this case.
3. Whether the court-approved Repartition Project superseded the “Kasabutan nga Hinigala.”
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution.
1. On Jurisdiction: The MTCC had jurisdiction. A complaint for unlawful detainer is sufficient if it alleges: (a) initial possession by defendant was by contract with or tolerance of the plaintiff; (b) such possession became illegal upon plaintiff’s notice to terminate; (c) defendant remained in possession, depriving plaintiff of enjoyment; and (d) the action was filed within one year from the last demand to vacate. Respondents’ complaint met these requirements, alleging petitioners’ possession was by tolerance and they refused to vacate after demand. The nature of the action and relief sought determine jurisdiction, not the defenses raised.
2. On Tolerance as a Ground: Yes. The allegations and evidence established that petitioners’ possession was by mere tolerance of respondents. Upon termination of that tolerance by demand, petitioners’ continued possession became unlawful, justifying the ejectment action.
3. On the Superseding Document: The court-approved Repartition Project superseded the “Kasabutan nga Hinigala.” The MTCC, RTC, and Court of Appeals uniformly held this factual finding, which the Supreme Court sustains. However, the Court reiterated that in an ejectment case, the issue of possession is paramount, and any adjudication on ownership is merely provisional for the sole purpose of resolving the possession issue. Such provisional ruling does not bar a separate action to settle the question of title definitively.