G.R. No. 182953; October 11, 2010
CORAZON D. SARMIENTA, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. MANALITE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (MAHA), Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Manalite Homeowners Association, Inc. (MAHA), the registered owner of a parcel of land in Antipolo City, filed a complaint for “Forcible Entry/Unlawful Detainer” against petitioners. MAHA alleged that petitioners, through force and stealth, entered the property and constructed houses. After petitioners’ earlier action to annul MAHA’s title was dismissed, MAHA demanded they vacate. Petitioners pleaded for time to relocate, a request MAHA initially tolerated. This tolerance was later extended as petitioners proposed to avail of the Community Mortgage Program by becoming MAHA members, with a deadline set for December 1999. Petitioners failed to comply, prompting MAHA to send a final demand to vacate in August 2000, which petitioners refused.
Petitioners, in their Answer, claimed ownership through possession for over thirty years and acquisition from a certain Julian Tallano. They contested the MTCC’s jurisdiction, arguing the complaint was defective for being captioned as both forcible entry and unlawful detainer, and that MAHA had no legal capacity to sue. The MTCC dismissed the case, ruling MAHA failed to prove prior physical possession for forcible entry and that its benevolence did not constitute legal tolerance for unlawful detainer. The RTC reversed, finding petitioners’ possession was by mere tolerance which became illegal upon demand. The CA affirmed the RTC.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC decision which upheld the ejectment complaint as a valid action for unlawful detainer.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA. The Court clarified that the nature of an ejectment action is determined by the allegations in the complaint, not its caption. While the initial entry was allegedly forcible, the subsequent allegations demonstrated a clear case of unlawful detainer. MAHA’s acceptance of petitioners’ plea for time to relocate and its agreement to petitioners’ proposal to qualify under the Community Mortgage Program constituted tolerance of their occupation. This created an implied promise to vacate upon demand. Petitioners’ failure to comply with the agreed terms and subsequent refusal to vacate after the formal demand in August 2000 rendered their possession illegal. An unlawful detainer suit, which must be filed within one year from the last demand, was therefore the proper remedy, and MAHA’s complaint was timely. The Court also held that the issue of ownership raised by petitioners is irrelevant in an ejectment case, where the sole question is material possession or possession de facto. Such a claim must be resolved in a separate action.