Padre v. Malabanan
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The petitioners, Priscila V. Padre and Edgardo V. Padre, initiated an ejectment suit against the respondent, Elias Malabanan, and two others, concerning a 600-square meter lot in Quezon City. They claimed co-ownership of the property, asserting that the respondent and others were allowed to occupy it based on their mere tolerance, with the understanding that they would vacate upon demand. The petitioners alleged repeated demands to vacate since 1983, with the last demand made around July 1998. The respondent, however, denied the petitioners' ownership, claiming their title was spurious and that his possession was not by tolerance but as a transferee/beneficiary of the World War II Veterans Legionaries of the Philippines, Inc., asserting ownership since 1946. 2. Procedural History: The ejectment suit was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City, Branch 32, on August 31, 1999. The MeTC rendered judgment in favor of the petitioners, ordering the defendants to vacate the property and pay damages. Upon appeal by the respondent, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 82, affirmed the MeTC's decision in its entirety. The respondent then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which, in a decision dated March 30, 2004, reversed and set aside the RTC and MeTC decisions, dismissing the petitioners' ejectment complaint. The CA's resolution of October 5, 2004, denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, Priscila V. Padre and Edgardo V. Padre, filed this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul the CA's decision. They argue that the CA erred in ruling that the ejectment suit was improper due to insufficient allegations of forcible entry or unlawful detainer, and in concluding that their proper remedy should have been an accion publiciana. They also contend that the CA erred in counting the one-year period for unlawful detainer from the accrual of the cause of action and in finding no convincing proof of a final demand to vacate in July 1998, while also faulting their inaction for 16 years and ignoring the respondent's alleged inaction for 50 years.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the ejectment suit should be dismissed for failure of the complaint to aver facts constitutive of either forcible entry or unlawful detainer, and whether the proper remedy of the petitioners was not an ejectment suit but an accion publiciana. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the one-year period to bring an action for unlawful detainer is counted from accrual of the cause of action. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that there was no convincing proof that a final demand to vacate was made in July 1998, and in faulting the petitioners' inaction to eject for 16 years from the first demand to vacate. Whether the Court found it necessary to address the issue of the respondent's alleged inaction to file a case for cancellation of title or reconveyance for almost 50 years. Whether the Court highlighted the fatal error committed by the MeTC and perpetuated by the RTC in mistaking allegations for proofs.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The assailed Court of Appeals Decision dated March 30, 2004, and Resolution dated October 5, 2004, are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the failure to aver facts constitutive of unlawful detainer and the proper remedy: The Court held that the petitioners' amended complaint did not sufficiently allege facts constitutive of unlawful detainer, as it failed to state how entry was effected or when dispossession started. The allegations of tolerance were also unsubstantiated, with the respondent denying any such tolerance and claiming prior possession. The Court reiterated the well-entrenched rule that when a complaint fails to aver facts constitutive of forcible entry or unlawful detainer, the action should be an accion publiciana or accion reinvindicatoria cognizable by the Regional Trial Court. The Metropolitan Trial Court erred in treating the complaint as an ejectment case solely based on the allegation of tolerance, especially when such tolerance was vehemently denied and not proven. On the one-year period to file an ejectment suit: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that an action for unlawful detainer must be filed within one year after the unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession occurs. The petitioners themselves alleged in their amended complaint that repeated demands to vacate were made starting in 1983. Counting from this initial demand, the filing of the unlawful detainer suit on August 31, 1999, was approximately 16 years later, far exceeding the one-year prescriptive period. Therefore, the MeTC lacked jurisdiction over the case, which should have been filed in the RTC as an accion publiciana. On the demand to vacate and the petitioners' inaction: The Court found no convincing proof that a final demand to vacate was made in July 1998. Even if it were assumed that the one-year period should be counted from the last demand, the initial demand in 1983 already established that the action was filed out of time. The Court also noted that the petitioners' claim of prior physical possession was based solely on their TCT, which was disputed by the respondent, who claimed to have been on the property even before the petitioners obtained their title. The Court emphasized that allegations are not proofs, especially when denied by the opposing party. On the respondent's alleged inaction: The Court found it unnecessary to address the issue of the respondent's alleged inaction to file a case for cancellation of title or reconveyance for almost 50 years. The primary issue was the jurisdiction of the MeTC over the ejectment case filed by the petitioners. Since the petitioners failed to establish a valid cause of action for unlawful detainer within the one-year prescriptive period, the dismissal of their complaint by the CA was deemed correct and in accordance with law and jurisprudence. On the nature of the allegations versus proof: The Court highlighted the fatal error committed by the MeTC and perpetuated by the RTC in mistaking allegations for proofs. Despite the respondent's vehement denial of the petitioners' claims of ownership, prior possession, and tolerance, the lower courts rendered judgment based on the allegations in the amended complaint. The CA correctly observed that evidence was wanting as to when and under what circumstances the alleged tolerance came about, and that the respondent was already on the property even before the petitioners obtained their TCT.
Main Doctrine
An ejectment suit for unlawful detainer requires the filing of the complaint within one year from the accrual of the cause of action, which is typically the date of the first demand to vacate. Failure to meet this one-year period necessitates the filing of an accion publiciana or accion reinvindicatoria before the Regional Trial Court.