Golez v. Bertuldo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The dispute originated from the sale of Lot 1024 in 1976 by Benito Bertuldo to Asuncion Segovia, acting for her daughter Susie Golez. Following the sale, the Sps. Golez commenced construction of their house on Lot 1025, a neighboring parcel claimed by Domingo Bertuldo, Benito's cousin. Domingo protested the construction, but the Sps. Golez assured him it was on Lot 1024. After Domingo's death, a relocation survey in 1993 revealed the Sps. Golez's house was indeed on Lot 1025. This led to an Amended Deed of Absolute Sale in 1993, attempting to rectify the sale to Lot 1025, followed by the Sps. Golez filing a quieting of title case. Procedural History: The Sps. Golez's quieting of title case was dismissed by the RTC, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals and this Court (SC G.R. No 178990). Meanwhile, the heirs of Domingo Bertuldo filed an application for free patent over Lot 1025, which was contested by Susie Golez. The Sps. Golez continued occupying Lot 1025 despite demands to vacate. Consequently, the heirs of Domingo Bertuldo filed a complaint for unlawful detainer on February 17, 2009. The MCTC ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering the Sps. Golez to vacate, pay rent, and attorney's fees. The RTC affirmed this decision on appeal. The Sps. Golez then appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the free patent application was a supervening event and that the CA should await the DENR resolution. The Petition: The Court of Appeals, in its March 18, 2011 and March 8, 2012 resolutions, dismissed the Sps. Golez's appeal, holding that the Supreme Court's prior ruling on ownership was conclusive and that the free patent application was not a supervening event. The Sps. Golez filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, raising the issue of whether the unlawful detainer case was proper and whether the free patent application constituted a supervening event that should have expunged the decision in the quieting of title case. The Supreme Court granted the petition, finding that the allegations in the complaint failed to establish a cause of action for unlawful detainer, as the possession was unlawful from the beginning, not tolerated.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the unlawful detainer case filed by the respondents against the petitioners was proper. Whether or not the application for free patent filed by the respondents over Lot 1025 is a supervening event that should have expunged the decision in the quieting of title case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals, and dismissed the complaint for unlawful detainer.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the unlawful detainer case: The Court held that an action for unlawful detainer requires that the defendant's possession was originally legal and became illegal due to the termination of the right to possess, coupled with a demand to vacate. The complaint must specifically allege facts constituting unlawful detainer, including the initial legality of possession and subsequent tolerance. In this case, the respondents' own allegations in the complaint, particularly paragraph 6, characterized Sps. Golez's possession of Lot 1025 as unlawful from the start, as Domingo Bertuldo had immediately objected and protested the construction. The RTC also expressly found no tolerance or permission from Domingo. Therefore, the complaint failed to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer, and the MCTC lacked jurisdiction. The Court cited Jose v. Alfuerto, et al. and Sps. Valdez v. Court of Appeals to support the principle that possession must be originally lawful for unlawful detainer to be the proper remedy. The Court further clarified that if the possession was unlawful from the beginning, the proper action should have been forcible entry, which prescribes one year from actual entry. Since Sps. Golez entered the property in 1976, a forcible entry action would have already prescribed. Consequently, the remedy available to the respondents would be accion publiciana, a plenary action to recover possession, which should be filed in the Regional Trial Court when dispossession has lasted for more than one year. On the free patent application as a supervening event: The Court found it unnecessary to pass upon this issue, as the core issue of the propriety of the unlawful detainer case was determinative of the outcome.
Main Doctrine
An action for unlawful detainer requires that the defendant's possession was originally legal and became illegal due to the termination of the right to possess, coupled with a demand to vacate. If the possession was unlawful from the very beginning, the proper remedy is forcible entry, not unlawful detainer. If the unlawful possession has lasted for more than one year, the remedy is an action for accion publiciana.