No unlawful withholding

Unlawful detainer is a summary action for the recovery of possession of real property. This action may be filed by a lessor, vendor, vendee, or any person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession by virtue of any contract, express or implied. It may be filed in the proper Municipal Trial Court (MTC) within one year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession. To vest the MTC with jurisdiction to effect the ejectment of the occupant of the land in an action for unlawful detainer, the complaint should embody such allegations clearly showing facts constitutive of unlawful detainer as this proceeding is summary in nature. When the complaint fails to aver such facts, an action for unlawful detainer is not a proper remedy and thus the MTC has no jurisdiction over the case. This case is an example of such complaint where the MTC did not acquire jurisdiction.

The case was filed by Marisa who was the owner of a 214 square meter parcel of land covered by TCT No. 54672 against Cito and Precy who occupied certain portions of said property as driveway to gain access to their residence. Marisa filed the complaint for ejectment before the MTC on March 10, 1998.

In her complaint, Marisa alleged that: when she bought the said property, she caused a relocation survey thereof and discovered that Cito and Precy had occupied portions thereof by reason of which she called their attention with a request that they vacate their respective areas as soon as she would have need of the same or when she decides to sell it; that only recently, she wanted to sell her property to an interested buyer but that upon knowing of the encroachments by Cito and Precy, the buyer decided not to proceed with the sale until after the property shall have first been vacated; that she asked Cito and Precy to vacate the property but they refused to do so; that after making more demands which were all ignored, she was forced to consult a lawyer who immediately wrote them a final formal demand to vacate but to no avail; that she also brought her problem to the attention of the Barangay Captain on January 21, 1998 but no settlement was reached for which reason the Barangay already issued a certification to file action on February 8, 1998.

In their answer Cito and Precy alleged that the MTC has no jurisdiction over the case because it was neither an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer. It did not allege that Marisa was deprived of possession of the disputed portion by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. It also did not state that they withheld possession of the disputed portions from Marisa after expiration or termination of the right to hold possession of the same by virtue of an express or implied contract. Were they correct?

Yes. Noticeably, the complaint does not allege facts showing compliance with the prescribed period of one year to file an action for unlawful detainer. It does not state the material dates that would have established that it was filed within one year from the date of Marisa’s last demand upon Cito and Precy to vacate the disputed portions of land. Such allegations are jurisdictional and crucial because if complaint was filed beyond the one year period from last demand to vacate, then it cannot properly qualify as an action for unlawful detainer over which the MTC can exercise jurisdiction. It may already be an accion publiciana or accion reinvindicatoria.

Further, it appears from the allegations of the complaint that Cito and Precy were already in possession of the disputed portion at the time Marisa bought the subject property, and it was only after the conduct of a relocation survey when Marisa began asserting her claim of ownership over the said portion because the survey showed that they were encroaching on the subject property. Clearly the possession of Cito and Precy over the disputed portion was not pursuant to any express or implied contract with Marisa. Resultantly, their right of possession over the disputed portion is not subject to expiration or termination. At no point can it be said that Cito and Precy’s possession of the disputed portion ceased to be legal and became unlawful withholding of the property from Marisa (Estate of Manantan etc. vs. Somera, G.R. 145867, April 7, 2009). 

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]