G.R. No. 178096 ; March 23, 2011
ROSA DELOS REYES, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES FRANCISCO ODONES and ARWENIA ODONES, NOEMI OTALES, and GREGORIO RAMIREZ, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Rosa delos Reyes filed a complaint for Unlawful Detainer against respondents before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Camiling, Tarlac. She alleged she is the registered owner of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 392430. Respondents were staying on the property by her mere tolerance, without any contract, under an implied understanding to vacate upon demand. Petitioner made a verbal demand to vacate, which was refused, followed by a written demand sent by registered mail on June 17, 2005. The complaint was filed on July 12, 2005. Respondents claimed ownership of the lot by virtue of an Extrajudicial Succession of Estate and Sale executed by the heirs of the alleged original owner, Donata Lardizabal. They argued petitioner’s title was based on a forged deed, as the purported vendors were already deceased, and a case for annulment of title was pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The MTC ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering respondents to vacate and pay compensation. On appeal, the RTC set aside the MTC decision and dismissed the complaint, holding it failed to allege facts constitutive of unlawful detainer (such as how entry was effected or when dispossession started) and thus the proper remedy was accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria in the RTC. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision, citing the rule that for unlawful detainer, the owner’s tolerance must be present at the beginning of possession.

ISSUE

Whether the Municipal Trial Court had jurisdiction over the complaint, i.e., whether the allegations in the complaint sufficiently constituted a cause of action for unlawful detainer.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court. The allegations in the complaint clearly made out a case for unlawful detainer, which is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the MTC. A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it recites: (1) initial possession by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter’s right of possession; (3) defendant thereafter remained in possession and deprived plaintiff of enjoyment; and (4) the complaint was instituted within one year from the last demand to vacate. Petitioner’s complaint contained all these elements: she alleged ownership, respondents’ possession by her tolerance, a demand to vacate (June 17, 2005), respondents’ refusal, and the filing of the complaint within one year of that demand (July 12, 2005). The Court of Appeals misapplied the ruling in Go, Jr. v. Court of Appeals. The requirement to allege when and how entry was made applies to determine the timeliness of filing in the context of distinguishing between forcible entry and unlawful detainer, not to challenge whether the MTC has jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer case versus an accion publiciana. In unlawful detainer, the one-year period is counted from the last demand, not from entry. Since the complaint faithfully averred the jurisdictional facts for unlawful detainer, the MTC correctly acquired jurisdiction. The RTC and CA erred in dismissing the complaint on jurisdictional grounds.