G.R. No. L-53788 October 17, 1980
PHARMA INDUSTRIES, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. MELITON PAJARILLAGA, SERGIA A. DEL ROSARIO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Pharma Industries, Inc. filed an ejectment complaint in the City Court of Cabanatuan against respondent Sergia A. del Rosario. The complaint alleged that del Rosario executed a Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase over a parcel of land in favor of Pharma on November 12, 1977. Upon del Rosario’s failure to repurchase the property within the stipulated period, which expired on November 12, 1978, Pharma obtained a court decision consolidating its ownership and a new title was issued in its name. Pharma subsequently demanded that del Rosario vacate the premises, but she refused, prompting the ejectment suit.
Respondent Judge Meliton Pajarillaga dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. He ruled that the action was not a summary ejectment case (forcible entry or unlawful detainer) under Rule 70, but an accion publiciana for recovery of the right to possess, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. The judge reasoned that since the complaint alleged the defendant was in possession and not the plaintiff, it sought recovery of the right to possess, not merely restitution of prior physical possession.

ISSUE

Whether the City Court has jurisdiction over the ejectment case filed by Pharma Industries, Inc.

RULING

Yes, the City Court has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari, ruling that the proper remedy is an ejectment action under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, not an accion publiciana. Section 1 of Rule 70 allows a vendor, vendee, or other person against whom possession of any land is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, to bring an action for restitution within one year. Pharma’s case falls under unlawful detainer, as possession was unlawfully withheld after the termination of del Rosario’s right to possess under the deed of sale with pacto de retro.
The Court clarified that possession in ejectment cases can be acquired not only by actual physical occupation but also by “proper acts and legal formalities” established by law, such as the execution of a deed of sale with right to repurchase. Pharma acquired juridical possession upon the execution of the deed and the subsequent consolidation of ownership after the redemption period lapsed. The fact that del Rosario remained in physical possession did not convert the action into one for recovery of the right to possess. The one-year period for filing an unlawful detainer action commenced from the date of the final demand to vacate. The respondent judge was ordered to take cognizance of the case and resolve Pharma’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.