G.R. No. 223399 . APRIL 23, 2018. FATIMA O. DE GUZMAN-FUERTE, married to MAURICE GEORGE FUERTE, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES SILVINO S. ESTOMO and CONCEPCION C. ESTOMO, Respondents.
FACTS

Petitioner Fatima O. De Guzman-Fuerte filed an unlawful detainer complaint against respondents Spouses Estomo. Fuerte acquired the subject property in Antipolo City after foreclosing a mortgage executed by Manuela Co. Upon obtaining title, she discovered the Spouses Estomo in possession. She sent a demand letter dated December 1, 2008, for them to vacate, which they refused. The Spouses Estomo claimed they were the rightful owners, having purchased the property in 1999, and that Co, a broker they engaged for a loan, fraudulently obtained and mortgaged their title. They had previously filed an annulment case against Co and Fuerte.
The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) dismissed the complaint without prejudice, finding that Fuerte failed to attach the demand letter and prove its receipt. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTCC, ruling that service of the demand via registered mail substantially complied with the rules and ordering the spouses to vacate. The Court of Appeals (CA) then reversed the RTC, dismissing the unlawful detainer case. The CA held that the complaint was insufficient as it failed to allege that the respondents’ possession was initially legal or tolerated, a requisite for unlawful detainer.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the complaint for unlawful detainer on the ground of insufficiency of allegations.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s dismissal of the unlawful detainer case. The Court emphasized that the allegations in the complaint are paramount in determining the nature of an ejectment suit. For an unlawful detainer action under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, the plaintiff must allege that the defendant’s possession was initially lawful, either by contract or tolerance, but became illegal upon the plaintiff’s demand to vacate after the right to possess had expired or terminated.
The Court scrutinized Fuerte’s complaint and found it fatally defective. It merely alleged that the Spouses Estomo “illegally occupied” the property and that their possession was “unlawful from the very beginning.” These allegations describe a possession that was illegal ab initio, which is the characteristic of forcible entry, not unlawful detainer. Since the complaint did not aver facts constitutive of unlawful detainer—such as prior lawful possession by the defendants that later became unlawful—it failed to state a cause of action for that specific summary remedy. The Court reiterated that jurisdiction in ejectment cases is conferred by the allegations in the complaint. As the complaint’s allegations did not bring the case within the purview of unlawful detainer, the MTCC correctly dismissed it, and the CA properly sustained the dismissal. The pendency of an annulment case involving ownership does not divest the inferior court of its jurisdiction over the possessory action, but a valid cause of action for ejectment must first be sufficiently pleaded.