GR L 31053; (October, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-31053 October 23, 1982
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. HON. PEDRO SAMSON C. ANIMAS, Judge of the Court of First Instance of South Cotabato and ABI OLIPON-DAMBONG, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB) acquired a parcel of unregistered agricultural land at a sheriff’s execution sale in 1954. The one-year redemption period expired on September 11, 1955. PNB obtained a definite deed of sale in 1956. Private respondent Abi Olipon-Dambong, the surviving spouse of the former owner, remained in possession of the property. PNB alleged this possession was initially tolerated due to promises from the respondent to reacquire the land.
After these promises failed, PNB made a written demand on December 12, 1968, for respondent to vacate or deliver a share of the income. Upon refusal, PNB filed a complaint for “Ejectment with Damages” in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of South Cotabato on May 13, 1969. Respondent moved to dismiss, arguing the allegations constituted unlawful detainer, falling under the city court’s exclusive jurisdiction. The CFI agreed and dismissed the complaint, a ruling it later reaffirmed upon PNB’s motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the action was one for unlawful detainer cognizable by the city court.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the CFI’s dismissal. The Court clarified that the nature of an ejectment action is determined by the allegations in the complaint. PNB’s complaint explicitly stated the respondent’s possession was “merely tolerated” and that demands to vacate were made, culminating in a written demand on December 12, 1968. These are the essential allegations for an unlawful detainer case.
The legal logic hinges on the concept of possession by tolerance. The Court held that such possession becomes unlawful only from the moment the owner makes a demand to vacate, not from the expiration of a prior right like a redemption period. Consequently, the one-year period for filing an unlawful detainer suit is counted from that demand. Since PNB’s complaint was filed on May 13, 1969, which was within one year from the December 12, 1968 demand, the action was correctly one for unlawful detainer. The city court, not the CFI, had original and exclusive jurisdiction over such a case. The CFI therefore acted correctly in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.