GR 124292; (December, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 124292 December 10, 1996
GREGORIO C. JAVELOSA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES CORAZON J. DE LEON & MELVIN DE LEON, SPOUSES KRISTINE SOLINAP & ALFONSO SOLINAP, MARLINA J. BALLEZA, MYRNA J. SERVANDO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Gregorio Javelosa mortgaged his land to Jesus Jalbuena. Upon default, Jalbuena foreclosed, purchased the property at auction, and, after the redemption period lapsed, consolidated title. Javelosa filed an RTC case to annul the mortgage and foreclosure. Jalbuena later subdivided and transferred the land to his daughters, the private respondents, who obtained a new title. After Jalbuena’s death, his heirs were substituted in the pending annulment case. In 1993, the respondents demanded Javelosa vacate the premises. Upon his refusal, they filed an unlawful detainer case with the MTC.
The MTC ruled for the respondents, ordering ejectment. The RTC reversed, dismissing the case as filed beyond the one-year prescriptive period from the issuance of the respondents’ title. The Court of Appeals reinstated the MTC decision, ruling the one-year period runs from the last demand to vacate, not from title issuance, and that prior physical possession is not required in unlawful detainer.
ISSUE
Whether the MTC had jurisdiction over the complaint filed by the respondents, specifically, if the action was one for unlawful detainer or for accion publiciana.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding the MTC properly exercised jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint. The respondents’ complaint sufficiently alleged an unlawful detainer case: they are the registered owners; their possession was unlawfully withheld by Javelosa after his right to possess terminated following the foreclosure and their demand to vacate; and the action was filed within one year from that demand. The absence of allegations on how Javelosa’s initial entry was effected is irrelevant, as unlawful detainer is based on the unlawful withholding of possession after the expiration of a right, not on the manner of initial entry (which is material only in forcible entry). The pending RTC case for annulment involving ownership does not bar the ejectment suit, which solely determines possession de facto. The Torrens title of the respondents entitles them to possession, and the ejectment judgment does not constitute res judicata on the issue of ownership still pending before the RTC.