The case started from a complaint for unlawful detainer filed by the Villas against the Fabroses in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) containing the following allegations: that they are the registered owners of a piece of residential lot sold to them by a realty company and covered by Torrens Certificate of Title; that the Fabroses occupied the said lot by building their house thereon without any color of title whatsoever; that for several times, they orally asked the Fabroses to peacefully surrender the premises to them but the latter stubbornly refused to vacate the lot they unlawfully occupied; that despite their referral of the matter to the Barangay, the Fabros spouse still refused to heed their plea or settle the case amicably forcing the Barangay Captain to issue the necessary certificate to file action.
In their answer the spouses Fabros contended that the complaint failed to state the key jurisdictional allegations that support an action for ejectment particularly for unlawful detainer. They claimed that the Villas should have alleged in their complaint that at the beginning, they were given the right to occupy the premise which right has been extinguished; or that the Villas had merely tolerated their stay thereon. Were they correct?
Yes. To justify an action for unlawful detainer like the one filed by the Villa spouses, the complaint must allege that they have granted the Fabroses the right to possess the lot or tolerated their stay therein from the very start but the possession of the latter became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess. It is distinguished from forcible entry where the possession of the defendant is illegal from the beginning because it was acquired by means of force, intimidation, strategy, threats or stealth. Both actions must be filed within one year from the date of last demand to vacate in case of unlawful detainer or from the date of actual entry on the land in case of forcible entry. The issue in either case is the right to physical possession.
The jurisdictional facts must appear on the face of the complaint. When the complaint fails to aver facts constitutive of unlawful detainer or forcible entry as when it does not state how entry was effected or how and when dispossession started, the remedy should either be an accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria in the proper regional trial court
Accion publiciana is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of the title when dispossession has lasted for more than one year. Accion reivindicatoria on the other hand is an action to recover ownership (not only physical possession) also brought before the proper regional trial court in an ordinary civil proceeding.
In this case, the allegations of the complaint do not contain averments of fact that would substantiate the Villas claim that they permitted or tolerated the occupation of the property by the spouses Fabros. The complaint only contains allegations that the Fabroses without any color of title whatsoever occupied the land in question by building their house in the said land thereby depriving them the possession thereof. Nothing has been said on how the Fabroses entered the lot or how and when dispossession started. Admittedly, no express contract existed between the parties. This failure of the Villa spouses to allege key jurisdictional facts constitutive of unlawful detainer is fatal. Since the complaint did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of a valid cause for unlawful detainer, the MTC had no jurisdiction over the case. If at all, it may be said that the entry of the Fabros spouses was effected clandestinely, without the knowledge of the owners, consequently it is categorized as possession by stealth which is forcible entry, not unlawful detainer. Or if the Villas have title to the lot, they should have filed instead an accion reivindicatoria to recover ownership aside from possession (Spouses Valdez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. 132424, May 4, 2006)
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net