GR 132424; (May, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 132424 ; May 2, 2006
SPOUSES BONIFACIO R. VALDEZ, JR. and VENIDA M. VALDEZ, Petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES GABRIEL FABELLA and FRANCISCA FABELLA, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, the registered owners of a residential lot in Antipolo, Rizal, filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against respondents before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). They alleged that respondents, without any color of title, occupied the lot by building a house thereon, thereby depriving petitioners of rightful possession. Despite oral and written demands, including a barangay referral, respondents refused to vacate. The MTC ruled in favor of petitioners, ordering respondents to vacate and pay rent and attorney’s fees. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed this decision in toto.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC’s decision and dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court held that the complaint failed to allege key jurisdictional facts constitutive of either forcible entry or unlawful detainer. Specifically, it found no allegation that petitioners had prior physical possession (for forcible entry) or that they had permitted or tolerated respondents’ occupation, which later became unlawful (for unlawful detainer).
ISSUE
Whether the allegations in the complaint sufficiently established a case for unlawful detainer to confer jurisdiction upon the MTC.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal. The Court explained that jurisdiction in ejectment cases is determined solely by the allegations in the complaint. For unlawful detainer, the plaintiff must allege that the possession was initially lawful, commencing by virtue of the owner’s tolerance or permission, and that such possession later became unlawful upon the owner’s demand to vacate which the occupant refused. The complaint’s bare allegation that respondents occupied the lot “without any color of title” and built a house, thereby depriving petitioners of possession, was insufficient. It lacked any averment of how respondents entered the property or that petitioners initially permitted or tolerated the occupation. The absence of these essential jurisdictional facts meant the MTC never acquired jurisdiction over the case. Consequently, the proper remedy for petitioners, as owners claiming a better right of possession, was not an ejectment suit but an accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria in the proper RTC.