G.R. No. L-74289; July 31, 1987
Golden Gate Realty Corporation, petitioner, vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, Hon. Antonio Descallar, as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Iloilo Branch XXIV; Spouses Emilio Young and Alberta Young, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Golden Gate Realty Corporation filed an ejectment complaint against respondent spouses Emilio and Alberta Young before the City Court of Iloilo. The complaint alleged that the respondents failed to pay rentals amounting to P18,000.00 and that a letter was sent demanding payment within five days, with a warning that failure to pay would result in the filing of an ejectment case. The complaint did not contain an explicit allegation of a demand to vacate the premises. The respondents moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction due to this omission. The City Court denied the motion, ruling that the demand to pay or face an ejectment suit substantially implied a demand to vacate, and subsequently rendered a judgment in favor of the petitioner.
The respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to nullify the City Court’s proceedings. The RTC granted the petition, declaring the City Court’s decision void for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that a demand to vacate must be “couched in definite and not conditional words.” The RTC permanently enjoined the execution of the City Court’s decision. The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the RTC’s order. The petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the City Court acquired jurisdiction over the ejectment case despite the complaint’s failure to explicitly allege a demand upon the respondents to vacate the premises.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the appellate and regional trial courts’ decisions. The Court held that the City Court validly acquired jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in an ejectment case is conferred by the allegations in the complaint regarding the facts constitutive of unlawful detainer. A prior demand to vacate is a jurisdictional requirement, but such a demand need not employ the specific word “vacate.”
The Court ruled that the demand letter, which required payment of arrears within five days “or a case of ejectment would be filed,” constituted a sufficient and valid demand to vacate. The warning of an ejectment suit if payment was not made placed the respondents on clear notice that they must either pay or face removal from the property. The alternatives presented were unequivocal: pay the overdue rentals or be sued for ejectment, which necessarily entails vacating the premises. Therefore, the allegation in the complaint substantially complied with the jurisdictional requirement. Consequently, the City Court’s decision was valid and final, and the principle of res judicata applied to bar the subsequent action to nullify it. The decision of the City Court was reinstated and declared immediately executory.