GR 137013; (May, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 137013 ; May 6, 2005
RUBEN SANTOS, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES TONY AYON and MERCY AYON, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Ruben Santos, the registered owner of three lots, filed an action for illegal detainer against respondent spouses Tony and Mercy Ayon in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC). Santos alleged that a building owned by the Ayons, who are owners of an adjacent lot, encroached upon a portion of his property. He claimed that since purchasing his lots in 1985, he had tolerated the Ayons’ use of the encroaching structure. In 1996, needing the land, he demanded they vacate and remove the structure. Upon their refusal, he initiated the ejectment case.
The MTCC ruled in favor of Santos, ordering the Ayons to vacate and pay compensation. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed this decision on appeal. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court held that the Ayons’ possession preceded Santos’ ownership, and since the complaint did not allege tolerance by Santos’ predecessor-in-interest, the nature of possession from its inception was not by mere tolerance. Thus, the proper action was an accion publiciana within the jurisdiction of the RTC, not an unlawful detainer case in the MTCC.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the MTCC had no jurisdiction over the complaint for unlawful detainer.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the RTC decision affirming the MTCC judgment. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint. The complaint expressly alleged that the respondents’ possession was by virtue of the petitioner’s tolerance, which became unlawful upon their refusal to vacate after demand. An action for unlawful detainer is proper when possession by tolerance is withdrawn by the owner and the possessor refuses to comply with the demand to leave.
The Court clarified that it is not necessary for the plaintiff to have had prior physical possession. What is essential is that the possession was initially lawful, as when it is by the owner’s permission or tolerance, but later becomes unlawful upon the owner’s demand to vacate. The one-year period for filing an unlawful detainer case is reckoned from the date of the final demand to vacate. Here, Santos filed his complaint within one year from his demand in 1996. Therefore, the MTCC correctly exercised jurisdiction over the summary action for ejectment.