G.R. No. 156375 ; May 30, 2011
DOLORES ADORA MACASLANG, Petitioner, vs. RENATO AND MELBA ZAMORA, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents Renato and Melba Zamora filed a complaint for unlawful detainer in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Danao City against petitioner Dolores Adora Macaslang. They alleged that petitioner sold them a residential land and requested to be allowed to live in the house with a promise to vacate once she found a new residence. Despite demand, petitioner failed to vacate. Petitioner did not file an answer, was declared in default, and the MTCC rendered judgment against her, ordering her to vacate, pay attorney’s fees, and monthly rentals. Petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), assigning as errors extrinsic fraud and a meritorious defense regarding the nullity of the deed of sale due to fraud, praying for remand to the MTCC for further proceedings. The RTC, however, dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, a ground not raised in the appeal. Respondents then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC, reinstating the MTCC decision, ruling that the RTC could not resolve issues not assigned on appeal. Petitioner filed the present petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CA correctly found that the RTC committed reversible error in ruling on issues not raised by the petitioner in her appeal.
2. Whether the CA correctly found that the complaint stated a valid cause of action.
3. Whether the CA erred in finding that there was a valid demand to vacate.
4. Whether the petitioner’s defense of ownership was meritorious.

RULING

1. On the RTC’s review of unassigned errors: The Supreme Court ruled that the CA erred. The appeal from the MTCC to the RTC was governed by Section 18, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, which provides that the RTC shall decide “on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings.” This is distinct from appeals governed by Rule 51. Therefore, the RTC, as an appellate court in ejectment cases, is not limited to the errors assigned in the appeal memorandum and may consider the entire record.
2. On the sufficiency of the cause of action: The Court found the complaint sufficient. It alleged a sale of the property to respondents, petitioner’s request to stay with a promise to vacate, her failure to vacate upon demand, and a prayer for ejectment and rentals. These allegations constituted a valid cause of action for unlawful detainer.
3. On the validity of the demand to vacate: The Court held that a prior demand to vacate was not a jurisdictional requirement in this case. The respondents’ cause of action was based on the petitioner’s failure to comply with her promise to vacate after the sale, making the action one for unlawful detainer based on the termination of her right to occupy by virtue of the sale, not on the expiration of a lease. Thus, a demand was not necessary.
4. On the defense of ownership: The Court ruled the defense was not meritorious. The action was for unlawful detainer, where the issue is possession, not ownership. Petitioner’s claim of nullity of the deed of sale did not divest the MTCC of its jurisdiction over the ejectment case. Furthermore, her failure to file an answer and avail of the remedies under the Rules on Summary Procedure precluded her from raising such a defense for the first time on appeal.
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED the CA decision, and REINSTATED the RTC decision dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, with the qualification that the complaint may be refiled.