|
ALMARIO
BEJAR (Deceased), as substituted by his heirs - CARMELITA BEJAR, ALFREDO
BEJAR, GREGORIA B. DANCEL, BRENDA B. MIANO, LOURDES B. BENDIJO, and SUSANA B.
CAMILO, Petitioners, -
versus - MARICEL CALUAG, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 171277 Present: PUNO,
c.j., Chairperson, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: February 15, 2007 |
x --------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: |
|
|
|
|
Before
us is the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals dated
The
factual backdrop of the case is as follows:
On
August 2, 2002, the late Almario Bejar,
substituted by his heirs, herein petitioners, filed with the Metropolitan Trial
Court (MeTC), Branch 12, Manila, a complaint for illegal detainer and damages
against Maricel Caluag, herein
respondent, docketed as Civil Case No. 173262-CV. The allegations therein are partly reproduced
hereunder:
x x x
4.
Plaintiff is the owner of a residential house made of light materials
consisting of wood and galvanized iron roof built on government-owned land
located at
5. On December 21, 1981, plaintiff
sold one-half (1/2) portion of the said residential house with an area of
twenty-two feet in length and fifteen feet in width to Fernando Mijares in the amount of Eleven Thousand (P11,000.00)
Pesos x x x
6. Subsequently, plaintiff became
the owner in fee simple of the government land where his residential house was
built including the one-half portion he sold to Fernando Mijares,
located at 777 Coral Street, Tondo, Manila, evidenced by Transfer Certificate
of Title No. 156220 registered and entered in the Register of Deeds of Manila
on August 30, 1983 x x x
7. On September 2, 1991, Fernando Mijares, sold his residential house to Maricel
Caluag with residence address at 1391 R.A. Reyes St.,
Tondo, Manila to be used as a warehouse for her business x x
x
8. Plaintiff badly needs the
portion of his land occupied by the defendant to build a residential house
for use of his family;
9. On April 9, 2002, plaintiff
through counsel sent a formal demand letter to defendant for the latter to
vacate the portion of the property situated at 777 Coral Street, Tondo, Manila
within ten (10) days from receipt of the demand letter x x
x
10. Despite formal demand from the
plaintiff on
x
x x
On
On
Na
alang alang sa halagang LABING ISANG LIBO PISO (P11,000.00) kuartang Filipino na kasasalukuyang gastahin na aking tinanggap ng buong kasiyahang loob kay FERNANDO MIJARES x x x ay aking
ipinagbili, ibinigay, isinulit at inilipat ng buo kong pagaari
na kalahating harapan
ng bahay ko naipaliwanag sa itaas at ang pagbibili kong
ito ay kasama ang lahat kong
karapatan sa lupa kung may karapatan ako na kinatitirikan
ng bahay.[2]
On
On
appeal, the RTC, Branch 47,
Respondent
seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied.
Respondent
then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review, docketed as CA-G.R.
SP No. 85430.
In
its Decision dated
WHEREFORE,
the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision of the Regional Trial
Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 47, Manila, in Civil Case No.
03-107631 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The order, dated
Let this case be remanded to the
Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 47,
SO ORDERED.
The
appellate court held that the allegations of the complaint do not make out a
case for illegal detainer or forcible entry.
Petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration of the above Decision but in its Resolution dated
Hence, the instant petition.
For
our resolution is the issue of whether the MeTC has jurisdiction over Civil
Case No. 173262-CV for illegal detainer.
There
are four (4) remedies available to one who has been deprived of possession of
real property. These are: (1) an action
for unlawful detainer; (2) a suit for forcible entry; (3) accion
publiciana; and (4) accion
reinvidicatoria.
In
unlawful detainer and forcible entry cases, the only issue to be determined is
who between the contending parties has better possession of the contested
property.[3] Pursuant to Section 33 (2) of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129, as amended by Section 3 of Republic Act No. 7691, it is the Municipal
Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts in Cities, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts that exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over these cases. The proceedings are governed by the Rule on
Summary Procedure, as amended.
By
contrast, an accion publiciana,
also known as accion plenaria
de posesion,[4] is
a plenary action for recovery of possession in an ordinary civil proceeding in
order to determine the better and legal right to possess, independently of
title.[5]
There are two distinctions between
the summary ejectment suits (unlawful detainer and forcible entry) and accion publiciana. The first lies in the period within which
each one can be instituted. Actions for
unlawful detainer and forcible entry must be filed within one year from the
date possession is lost, while an accion
publiciana may be filed only after the
expiration of that period but within the period prescribed in the statute
of limitations. The second distinction involves jurisdiction. An accion publiciana
may only be filed with the RTC, while a complaint for unlawful detainer or
forcible entry may only be filed with the first level courts earlier mentioned.
An
accion reinvidicatoria,
unlike the three remedies previously discussed, involves not only possession,
but ownership of the property. The
plaintiff in this action sets up title in him and prays that he be declared the
owner and be given possession thereof.[6] Otherwise put, the plaintiff alleges ownership
of real property and prays for recovery of such ownership. Under Article 434 of the Civil Code, two
things must be alleged and proven in an accion
reinvidicatoria: (1) the identity of the property
and (2) plaintiff’s title to it. Sole
and exclusive jurisdiction over cases for accion
reinvidicatoria is vested in the RTC.
We
are guided by the elementary principle that what determines the nature of an
action as well as which court has jurisdiction over it are the allegations of
the complaint and the character of the relief sought.[7]
To make out a suit for illegal
detainer or forcible entry, the complaint must contain two mandatory allegations:
(1) prior physical possession of the property by the plaintiff; and (2)
deprivation of said possession by another by means of force, intimidation,
threat, strategy or stealth.[8] This latter requirement implies that the
possession of the disputed property by the intruder has been unlawful from the
very start. Then, the action must be
brought within one year from the date of actual entry to the property or, in
cases where stealth was employed, from the date the plaintiff learned about it.[9]
An
examination of the allegations in the complaint in Civil Case No. 173262-CV does not show that Almario Bejar was deprived of his
possession of the property by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth.
Here,
the case is for unlawful detainer. The
complaint clearly alleges that Almario Bejar sold one-half portion of his house to Fernando Mijares; that the latter, in turn, sold the same portion of
the house to respondent; that eventually, Almario Bejar became the owner in fee simple of the entire lot
where his house was built; that he needs the portion of the lot occupied by
respondent for the construction of a house for the use of his family; and that
despite demand, respondent failed and still fails to vacate the premises. From the records, it appears that Almario Bejar filed his complaint
within one year from the date of his last demand upon respondent to vacate the
contested portion of the land.
A suit for unlawful detainer will
prosper if the complaint sufficiently alleges that there is a withholding of
possession or refusal to vacate the property by a defendant.[10] The
cause of action arises from the expiration or termination of the defendant’s
right to continue possession which is upon plaintiff’s demand to vacate the
premises. The complaint for unlawful
detainer must then be instituted within one year from the date of the last
demand.[11] All these incidents are present in the
instant case.
Considering
that the allegations in Almario Bejar’s
complaint in Civil Case No. 173262-CV show that it is one for illegal detainer, hence, it is the MeTC, Branch 12, Manila
which has jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 173262-CV.
WHEREFORE,
we GRANT the petition and REVERSE the assailed Decision of
the Court of Appeals. The RTC Decision
is AFFIRMED. Let the records of
this case be remanded to the MeTC, Branch 12,
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 36-48. Per Associate Justice Perlita J. Tria Tirona (retired) and Associate Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis (retired) and Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr., concurring.
[2] Reproduced from the Decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 85430, id., pp. 36-48.
[3] Rivera v. Rivera, G.R. No.
154203,
[4] Barredo v.
[5] Bishop of
[6] Alo v. Rocamora, 6 Phil. 197, 198
(1906), Ledesma v. Marcos, supra.
[7] Huguete
v. Embudo,
G.R. No. 149554,
[8] Bañes v. Lutheran Church in the Philippines, G.R. No. 142308, November 15, 2005, 475 SCRA 13, 34, citing David v. Cordova, 464 SCRA 385 (2005), Sps. Tirona v. Alejo, 367 SCRA 17 (2001).
[9] Bongato v.
Malvar, G.R. No. 141614,
[10] Varona v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 14148,
[11] Macasaet
v. Macasaet, G.R. Nos. 154391-92,