Rosario v. Alba
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case originated from a complaint for ejectment filed by respondent Rizalito F. Alba against petitioners Rogelio Rosario, Rudy Rosario, Mary Ann Gutierrez, Sylvia Castillo, Lourdes Jose, Lorena Estepa, Virginia Estepa, and Remedios Sabado. The subject properties were part of the estate of Urbano Rosario and Vicenta Zarate. A compromise agreement among the heirs led to a decision adjudging the subject properties as shares of Luzviminda Romero and Luz Florendo-Alba (Luz). Respondent is the son and sole heir of Luz. Petitioners are co-heirs. Petitioners introduced residential dwellings and improvements on the properties before Luz's death. After Luz's death, respondent sent notices to vacate, the last on November 9, 2007, which were received by petitioners on November 12 and 14, 2007. Petitioners refused to vacate, prompting respondent to file the ejectment suit on June 10, 2008. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of the respondent, finding petitioners' possession to be merely tolerated and became unlawful upon demand to vacate. The MTC also found that the properties in the deeds of sale presented by petitioners were different from the inherited properties. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTC decision, dismissing the complaint. The RTC held that the complaint did not constitute an unlawful detainer action as there was no contract and the possession was not merely tolerated. It also found that the complaint did not allege forcible entry, and since petitioners had been in possession for more than one year, ejectment was not the proper remedy. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC and reinstated the MTC decision. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners assail the CA decision, arguing that the CA erred in failing to consider deeds of sale, project of partition, and deed of waiver of rights supporting their claim of ownership and possession. They also contend that the CA erred in reinstating the MTC's finding of possession by mere tolerance, which they claim was not based on facts and law, and in reinstating the MTC's finding of no identity between the properties they claimed and those inherited by the respondent.
Issue(s)
Whether the allegations in the respondent's complaint sufficiently establish a cause of action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer, thereby conferring jurisdiction upon the Municipal Trial Court. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reinstating the Municipal Trial Court's decision despite the alleged lack of basis for finding possession by mere tolerance and the alleged discrepancy in property identification.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 5, 2011 and Resolution dated November 10, 2011 of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The Decision dated June 30, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court of Bauang, La Union, Branch 33, is REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and the nature of the action: The Court ruled that jurisdiction in ejectment cases is determined by the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought. The complaint must clearly fall under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, which covers forcible entry and unlawful detainer. Forcible entry requires deprivation of possession by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, and the action must be filed within one year from the unlawful entry. Unlawful detainer requires that possession was initially lawful (by contract or tolerance) and became unlawful upon termination of the right to possess, with the action filed within one year from the last demand to vacate. In this case, the respondent's complaint alleged that petitioners entered the properties "without the knowledge and consent" of the respondent or his mother, and built houses and stalls thereon even before the properties were adjudicated. This entry, if unlawful, would fall under forcible entry. However, the complaint was filed on June 10, 2008, long after the judgment in Civil Case No. 1151-Bg on August 23, 2001, and the respondent himself admitted that petitioners entered even before the actual partition. Thus, the one-year period for forcible entry had lapsed. The complaint also failed to establish unlawful detainer because it did not allege that the petitioners' possession was initially lawful by contract or tolerance. The bare allegation of "without knowledge and consent" does not establish tolerance. The demand letters sent by the respondent did not cure this defect as they did not show that the possession was initially lawful. The MTC's reliance on Arcal v. CA was misplaced as the facts in Arcal involved possession by tolerance which became unlawful upon demand, unlike the present case where the entry was alleged to be without consent from the outset. On the Court of Appeals' error: The Court found that the CA committed reversible error when it reinstated the MTC decision. The MTC had no jurisdiction over the case because the complaint did not sufficiently allege the jurisdictional facts constitutive of either forcible entry or unlawful detainer. The RTC correctly dismissed the complaint for want of jurisdiction. The CA's reinstatement of the MTC decision, which took cognizance of the case and dealt with its merits as if it were a proper ejectment case, was therefore erroneous. The Court reiterated that the failure to allege the key jurisdictional facts for unlawful detainer is fatal, as stated in Zacarias v. Anacay, where the complaint contained only bare allegations without substantiating how the entry was effected or when dispossession started, similar to the present case. The respondent's assertion in his CA memorandum that petitioners' possession was "tolerated by the [respondent] for a while" after the actual partition only strengthened the argument that the possession was not initially lawful by tolerance in the manner required for unlawful detainer.
Main Doctrine
The allegations in the complaint, not the defenses pleaded by the defendant, determine the nature of the action and the jurisdiction of the court. A complaint for ejectment must clearly allege facts establishing either forcible entry or unlawful detainer, including the initial lawful possession and its subsequent unlawful withholding, or the unlawful deprivation of possession by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, and that the action was filed within one year from the unlawful deprivation or withholding.