G.R. No. 132197 . August 16, 2005.
ROSS RICA SALES CENTER, INC. and JUANITO KING & SONS, INC., Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES GERRY ONG and ELIZABETH ONG, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, as registered owners, filed an ejectment complaint for unlawful detainer against respondents before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Mandaue City. They alleged acquiring the lots from Mandaue Prime Estate Realty, which had earlier purchased them from respondent Elizabeth Ong. A demand letter was sent to respondents to vacate, but they refused. Notably, respondents had previously filed a separate action before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) seeking the annulment of the deed of sale conveying the properties to Mandaue Prime Estate Realty, a case still pending. The MTC ruled for petitioners, ordering respondents to vacate. The RTC affirmed this decision on appeal.
Respondents received the RTC decision on April 28, 1997. On May 8, they filed a Notice of Appeal, and on May 9, they filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The RTC, in an Order dated June 23, 1997, gave due course to the Notice of Appeal, denied the Motion for Reconsideration, and granted execution pending appeal. Respondents then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Review. The CA reversed, holding the MTC had no jurisdiction over the ejectment case as no contractual relationship existed between the parties to sustain unlawful detainer. Petitioners sought review before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The principal issues were: (1) whether the RTC decision had become final and executory, rendering the appeal tardy; and (2) whether the allegations in the complaint constituted a proper case for unlawful detainer within the MTC’s jurisdiction.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. On procedural timeliness, the Court ruled the appeal was filed on time. The filing of the Notice of Appeal on May 8 was a wrong mode of appeal, as a Petition for Review under Rule 42 was the correct remedy from the RTC decision. This erroneous filing did not produce any legal effect. The subsequent filing of the Motion for Reconsideration on May 9 was therefore valid and timely, which tolled the running of the appeal period. The fifteen-day period to appeal commenced anew from respondents’ receipt of the order denying reconsideration on July 9, making their Petition for Review filed on July 30 timely.
On the substantive issue, the Court held the MTC lacked jurisdiction. For unlawful detainer, the plaintiff’s cause of action is the unlawful withholding of possession after the expiration or termination of the right to hold under a contract, express or implied. The complaint failed to allege any contractual link—such as lease, loan, or tolerance—between petitioners and respondents that had been violated. Petitioners’ claim was based purely on their status as registered owners, which involves a question of title. The pending annulment case further highlighted the dispute’s core: the validity of petitioners’ ownership. Consequently, the case was not a simple issue of possession de facto but one intertwined with ownership, placing it outside the limited jurisdiction of an ejectment court. Possession cannot be wrested via forcible entry or unlawful detainer where the dispossession occurred more than one year prior and the issue of title is directly involved.