G.R. No. 166975; September 15, 2006
HEIRS OF BASILISA HERNANDEZ, represented by ROSA H. FENIQUITO, petitioners, vs. BERNARDO VERGARA, JR., respondent.

FACTS

The petitioners, heirs of the late Basilisa Hernandez, filed an ejectment suit against respondent Bernardo Vergara, Jr. before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). They alleged that Basilisa, the owner of the property, allowed Vergara and his family to occupy it without rent, by mere tolerance, conditioned on its return upon demand. After Basilisa’s death, the petitioners, as her heirs, demanded that Vergara vacate. Upon his refusal, they initiated the ejectment case.
In his Answer, Vergara claimed ownership, asserting that Basilisa had executed a deed of donation inter vivos in his favor when he was a child. The MeTC ruled for the petitioners, ordering Vergara’s ejectment and payment of attorney’s fees, a decision affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed, dismissing the complaint. It held that the issue of possession was inseparable from the claim of ownership, making the summary ejectment proceeding inadequate and requiring an accion reivindicatoria.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the ejectment complaint on the ground that the issue of possession was intertwined with the issue of ownership.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the CA and reinstated the MeTC and RTC decisions. The Court clarified that an ejectment suit, such as unlawful detainer, is fundamentally designed to resolve the issue of physical or material possession (possession de facto) independently of claims to ownership. Jurisprudence consistently holds that inferior courts can resolve questions of ownership raised incidentally, but only when necessary to settle the issue of possession completely. The critical test is whether the complaint’s allegations and the reliefs prayed for primarily seek the restoration of possession.
In this case, the petitioners’ complaint solely sought to recover possession based on tolerance that was terminated by demand. There was no allegation or prayer in the complaint seeking to recover ownership from Vergara. The issue of ownership was introduced solely by Vergara in his defense. Therefore, the action remained a proper ejectment case. The CA’s reliance on precedents was misplaced, as those cases involved complaints where the claim for possession was inherently an attribute of a claim for ownership. Here, the petitioners’ cause of action was clearly confined to recovering possession de facto, making the summary proceeding appropriate. The MeTC and RTC correctly exercised jurisdiction.