G.R. No. 155432 ; June 9, 2005
CRISPINA UNIDA, et al., Petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF AMBROSIO URBAN, represented by LUCIO CABADDU, Respondent.

FACTS

The respondents, Heirs of Ambrocio Urban, filed an unlawful detainer complaint against petitioners Crispina Unida et al. before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Camalaniugan, Cagayan. The complaint alleged that about ten years prior, petitioners entered and cultivated the subject land without the owners’ knowledge or consent. It further stated that the owners initially tolerated this possession due to the area being infested by the New People’s Army. Petitioners, in their answer, challenged Lucio Cabaddu’s authority to represent the heirs and asserted ownership over the land through their and their predecessors-in-interest’s open, continuous possession since time immemorial, alleging the respondents’ title was fraudulently obtained.
The MTC ruled in favor of the respondents, finding implied toleration and upholding their ownership. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTC, dismissing the complaint. The RTC held that Cabaddu lacked the specific authority to institute the suit initially and, on the substantive issue, ruled that the action was not a proper unlawful detainer case. The RTC found that the alleged “toleration” did not constitute the legal tolerance required for unlawful detainer, as the entry was admitted to be unlawful from the start, and forcible entry was also inapplicable. The Court of Appeals subsequently reversed the RTC and reinstated the MTC decision, holding that a subsequently executed Special Power of Attorney cured the procedural defect and that the allegations sufficiently constituted a case for unlawful detainer.

ISSUE

Whether the MTC had jurisdiction over the subject matter, considering the nature of the possession as alleged in the complaint.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the MTC had no jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction in ejectment cases is determined by the allegations in the complaint. For unlawful detainer, the plaintiff must allege that possession was initially lawful, beginning by tolerance of the owner, and that such possession later became unlawful upon the owner’s demand to vacate. The complaint in this case explicitly stated that the petitioners’ entry was “without the knowledge or consent of the owners” and “without any legal right whatsoever.” The subsequent allegation of “toleration” due to NPA presence was deemed a mere passive inaction, not the legal tolerance that presupposes a lawful beginning of possession.
Since the complaint itself established that the possession was unlawful ab initio, the action could not be one for unlawful detainer. Neither did it constitute forcible entry, as no force, stealth, or strategy was alleged. Consequently, the MTC, which has limited jurisdiction over ejectment cases, lacked authority. The proper remedy for the respondents was an accion publiciana or reinvindicatoria in the proper RTC. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals, and ordered the remand of the case records to the RTC for further proceedings in accordance with the rules governing cases tried without jurisdiction.