G.R. No. 213187 , August 24, 2016.
HAIDE BULALACAO-SORIANO, Petitioner vs. ERNESTO PAPINA, represented by ROSEMARY PAPINA-ZABALA, Respondent.

FACTS

The case involves a 201-sq.m. parcel of residential land in Daet, Camarines Norte, originally owned by Tomas de Jesus. The heirs of de Jesus sold the property to respondent Ernesto Papina and his brother Manuel Papina, who became co-owners. Petitioner Haide Bulalacao-Soriano was initially allowed to stay and build a house on the lot by respondent’s father, with the condition to surrender possession when needed. In 1993, the Papina brothers mortgaged the property to petitioner to secure a loan, evidenced by a “Sanglaan ng Lupa.” In 1998, Ernesto gave Manuel money to pay the mortgage, but Manuel appropriated it, leaving the loan unpaid. Petitioner did not foreclose and remained in possession. On August 22, 2000, without Ernesto’s knowledge, Manuel sold his undivided share in the property to petitioner for P100,000 payable in installments, as per a “Kasunduan sa Bilihan ng Lupa.” Petitioner paid a total of P91,500, leaving a balance of P8,500. She claimed Manuel instructed her to apply payments for unpaid real property taxes (totaling P20,780) to the balance. In 2005, the Papina brothers entered into a Subdivision Agreement to partition the property into two lots: Lot 1 (80 sq.m.) for Ernesto and Lot 2 (121 sq.m.) for Manuel. Petitioner’s house was on Lot 1. After a demand to vacate was unheeded, respondent filed a Complaint for Ejectment (unlawful detainer) before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). The MTC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, stating title was in issue and suggesting an accion publiciana or reivindicatoria. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed, ordering petitioner to vacate Lot 1. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent has a case for unlawful detainer against petitioner.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the MTC Decision dismissing the unlawful detainer complaint. The Court held that the action was not one for unlawful detainer but essentially involved a boundary dispute and a question of ownership, which are beyond the jurisdiction of an ejectment court. Unlawful detainer requires prior possession by the plaintiff, which respondent lacked as he never physically or materially possessed Lot 1. Petitioner’s possession originated from the father’s tolerance and was later based on the mortgage and the sale of Manuel’s undivided share, making her a co-owner. Her possession was not by mere tolerance of respondent after the subdivision agreement. The demand to vacate was based on the assertion of ownership after subdivision, not on termination of a contract or right of possession. Thus, the MTC correctly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, and the proper remedy is an accion publiciana or reivindicatoria.