G.R. No. 125473. June 29, 1999.
CONSTANCIO ESPIRITU, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. AMADO CALDERON, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, RTC-Br. 8, Malolos, Bulacan, GIDEON NATIVIDAD and JOSE CAYSIP, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Constancio Espiritu filed a complaint for unlawful detainer with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Baliuag, Bulacan, against respondents Gideon Natividad and Jose Caysip. Espiritu, claiming to be an heir, alleged that respondents were illegally squatting on a parcel of land by constructing a chapel without a permit. He asserted that he had made demands for the chapel’s removal, which respondents refused. In their answer, respondents contended that the property was donated to their congregation, the Church of Christ, and that the MTC lacked jurisdiction. They argued the complaint failed to allege prior physical possession by the petitioner or deprivation through force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, as required for ejectment cases.
The MTC ruled in favor of Espiritu, holding it had jurisdiction based on the complaint’s allegations and that respondents’ possession was by mere tolerance. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint without prejudice, ruling that the action was inappropriate since respondents had been in possession since 1954, far exceeding the one-year period for filing ejectment suits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s dismissal, declaring the MTC decision null and void for lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition and declaring the MTC and RTC decisions void for lack of jurisdiction over the complaint.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that while the nature of an action and a court’s jurisdiction are determined by the allegations in the complaint, a scrutiny of Espiritu’s complaint revealed it constituted neither forcible entry nor unlawful detainer. For forcible entry, the complaint must allege deprivation of prior physical possession through force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. For unlawful detainer, it must allege that possession was originally lawful by virtue of a contract, express or implied, but became unlawful upon its termination or expiration, and that the action was filed within one year from the last demand to vacate.
The complaint merely alleged illegal squatting and demands for removal. It did not assert that petitioner was in prior physical possession or that respondents’ possession originated from any lawful contract with him. The mere demand to vacate did not convert respondents into tenants or establish a landlord-tenant relationship essential for unlawful detainer. Consequently, the complaint failed to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements for an ejectment case. Since the MTC never acquired jurisdiction, its decision and the RTC’s appellate decision were correctly declared void. The proper remedy for the petitioner is a different action for recovery of possession, not an ejectment suit.