G.R. No. 121719 . September 16, 1999.
SPOUSES VICENTE and MA. ROSALIA MANINANG, SPOUSES CECILIO and MA. SOCORRO RUBIO, MA. THELMA P. MALLARI, ORLANDO F. PANDAY, JR., MA. VIVIAN P. GINGA, and H.J. RAMON F. PANDAY, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. GREGORIO E. MANIO, JR., and OSCAR J. MONTON, SR., respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Oscar J. Monton, Sr., the absolute and registered owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 17957 in Naga City, which he bought from Rosario Felipe Panday (mother of some petitioners), filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against petitioners on August 31, 1992. He alleged that in August 1992, when he went to construct a perimeter fence, petitioners prevented him from doing so. Despite demands, petitioners refused to vacate. Petitioners, in their answer, assailed the validity of the deed of sale, claiming Rosario was suffering from schizophrenia and incapacitated at the time of sale, and asserted ownership through succession. They also questioned the MTC’s jurisdiction because a separate case for annulment of sale with damages involving the same parties was pending before the RTC. The MTC ruled in favor of Monton, declaring him the lawful possessor and ordering petitioners to vacate and pay back rentals. The RTC and the Court of Appeals affirmed the MTC decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether an action for unlawful detainer may be maintained when the plaintiff (respondent) has never been in prior physical possession of the land and has never been recognized by the defendants (petitioners) as the true and lawful owner.
2. Whether the MTC may take jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer case and render judgment when the issue of ownership and right of possession over the same land is being litigated in a case earlier filed before the RTC.

RULING

1. YES. Prior physical possession of the plaintiff is not an indispensable requirement in an unlawful detainer case brought by a vendee or other person against whom possession is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of a right to hold possession. Neither is it required that the plaintiff be first recognized as the true and lawful owner by the defendant. An action for unlawful detainer may be filed by one who is not the owner of the property.
2. YES. The only issue for resolution in an unlawful detainer action is possession. The question of ownership is immaterial. It is of no moment if there is another pending action involving the same property and parties concerning ownership, as the rights asserted and reliefs prayed for are different. An action for annulment of sale is not prejudicial to an action for unlawful detainer. The pendency of such an action cannot be successfully pleaded in abatement of the unlawful detainer case.