G.R. No. 150187 , March 17, 2005
Carmelita Guanga, Petitioner, vs. Artemio dela Cruz substituted by Lydia, Artemio Jr., Marilou, Juliet, Romeo, Ryan, and Ariel, all surnamed dela Cruz, and the Court of Appeals, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Carmelita Guanga and respondent Artemio dela Cruz are siblings. In 1998, Artemio filed an unlawful detainer suit against Carmelita before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), alleging he owned a house in Olongapo City. He claimed he merely allowed Carmelita to use the second floor for her husband’s wake in December 1996, but she refused to leave thereafter. Carmelita countered that she and her family had long resided in the house, denying Artemio’s ownership. She presented tax declarations in her and their mother’s names and argued the MTCC lacked jurisdiction due to non-compliance with conciliation and because ownership was in dispute.
The MTCC ruled for Artemio, prioritizing his prior physical possession evidenced by deeds of real estate mortgage he executed over the property in the 1970s. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed, finding Carmelita’s possession was not merely by tolerance, as her long-term residence created a genuine issue of ownership beyond the summary scope of ejectment. The Court of Appeals then reinstated the MTCC decision, leading to this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the MTCC’s judgment for unlawful detainer, given the conflicting claims of possession and ownership between the parties.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The core legal principle in ejectment cases is the determination of who has a better right to physical possession (possession de facto), independent of claims to ownership (possession de jure). The Court found that Artemio successfully established prior physical possession and that Carmelita’s entry was by mere tolerance.
Artemio’s evidence, particularly the real estate mortgages from 1973 and 1974 where he mortgaged the property, concretely demonstrated his exercise of acts of possession long before the 1996 wake. This prior possession is the central issue in unlawful detainer. Carmelita’s evidence of tax declarations and long-term residence, while relevant to ownership, does not negate the fact that her specific occupancy of the disputed portion originated from Artemio’s permission for the wake. Her failure to vacate upon demand converted her stay into unlawful detention. The existence of conflicting ownership claims does not oust the MTCC’s jurisdiction, as it can proceed to determine the issue of possession based on the evidence presented. The summary nature of ejectment is precisely designed to restore possession swiftly, leaving the vexed question of title to be resolved in an appropriate separate action.