September 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > September 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 184866 : September 29, 2010] LAND INVESTORS AND DEVELOPERS CORPORATION V. LEONARDO CAYETANO, CESAR ELOPRE,[*] CARMELITO BONGOL ERIC ELOPRE, ERLINDA FORMES, BAYANI GAMBOA, JARSIM PAJES, ROMULO GAMBOA, ANGEL LONGABIA, EFREN LONGABIA, ELEONOR VILLANUEVA, SERAFIN CAMACHO, DANILO CHUA, CESAR ELOPRE, JR., WILLY ELOPRE, SAMMY RICARDE, CLARITA GAMBOA, JUANA GAMBOA, ARACELI GAMBOA, CESAR LONGABIA, DIONISIO NARES, AURORA ROXAS, JERIC BOBADILLA, JENALYN SACDALAN, JOSELITO GAMBOA, ENRICO GAMBOA, RODELIO BENITEZ, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS :
[G.R. No. 184866 : September 29, 2010]
LAND INVESTORS AND DEVELOPERS CORPORATION V. LEONARDO CAYETANO, CESAR ELOPRE,[*] CARMELITO BONGOL ERIC ELOPRE, ERLINDA FORMES, BAYANI GAMBOA, JARSIM PAJES, ROMULO GAMBOA, ANGEL LONGABIA, EFREN LONGABIA, ELEONOR VILLANUEVA, SERAFIN CAMACHO, DANILO CHUA, CESAR ELOPRE, JR., WILLY ELOPRE, SAMMY RICARDE, CLARITA GAMBOA, JUANA GAMBOA, ARACELI GAMBOA, CESAR LONGABIA, DIONISIO NARES, AURORA ROXAS, JERIC BOBADILLA, JENALYN SACDALAN, JOSELITO GAMBOA, ENRICO GAMBOA, RODELIO BENITEZ, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 29 September 2010 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 184866 (Land Investors and Developers Corporation v. Leonardo Cayetano, Cesar Elopre,[*] Carmelito Bongol Eric Elopre, Erlinda Formes, Bayani Gamboa, Jarsim Pajes, Romulo Gamboa, Angel Longabia, Efren Longabia, Eleonor Villanueva, Serafin Camacho, Danilo Chua, Cesar Elopre, Jr., Willy Elopre, Sammy Ricarde, Clarita Gamboa, Juana Gamboa, Araceli Gamboa, Cesar Longabia, Dionisio Nares, Aurora Roxas, Jeric Bobadilla, Jenalyn Sacdalan, Joselito Gamboa, Enrico Gamboa, Rodelio Benitez, and the Court of Appeals).
In early 1975, petitioner Land Investors and Developers Corporation (LIDC) acquired a registered land in Cavite City. Respondents Leonardo Cayetano, Cesar Elopre, Carmelito Bongol, Eric Elopre, Erlinda Formes, Bayani Gamboa, Jarsim Pajes, Romulo Gamboa, Angel Longabia, Efren Longabia, Eleonor Villanueva, Serafin Camacho, Danilo Chua. Cesar Elopre, Jr., Willy Elopre, Sammy Ricarde, Clarita Gamboa, Juana Gamboa, Araceli Gamboa, Cesar Longabia, Dionisio Nares, Aurora Roxas, Jeric Bobadilla, Jenalyn Sacdalan, Joselito Gamboa. Enrico Gamboa, and Rodelio Benitez (Cayetano, et al) had entered the land and occupied it but, for some 30 years, LIDC took no step to eject them.
Later on August 16, 2004 LIDC wrote Cayetano, et al, demanding that they vacate the land. But the latter refused. Consequently, LIDC filed an ejectment suit against them before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Cavite City in Civil Case 7339.
Answering the complaint, Cayetano, et al pointed out that the complaint stated no cause of action since it failed to allege how the defendants entered the land or when and how their possession of it began as to make out a case for unlawful detainer. They pointed out that LIDC's remedy was an action for recovery of possession since it never acquired actual or physical possession of the land, given that the settlers were already occupying it when LIDC bought the-same.
On September 12, 2006 the MTCC rendered a decision for LIDC, ordering Cayetano, et al to vacate the property.[1] Upon the latter's appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTCC decision.[2] They yet appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) and on July 24, 2008 the latter court reversed the RTC decision and ordered LIDC's complaint dismissed on the ground that it failed to allege the key jurisdictional facts of an unlawful detainer action.[3]
The sole issue presented in this case is whether or not LIDCs allegation that it had allowed Cayetano, et al to settle on the property by mere tolerance is sufficient for it to make a case for unlawful detainer upon demand.
If the defendant's entry was lawful but his possession later became unlawful, the action against him should be one for unlawful detainer.[4] On the other hand, if the defendant's entry was unlawful from the beginning, then the action against him should be one for forcible entry. The complaint should aver facts that constitute either forcible entry or unlawful detainer, otherwise the plaintiffs remedy should either be an accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria in the proper regional trial court.[5]
The action should be one for unlawful detainer if the defendant's possession was merely by plaintiffs acts of tolerance. It is essential, however, that such acts were present from the start of the possession sought to be recovered.[6]
The rule is that the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought determine, the nature of an action and the court's jurisdiction over its subject matter.[7] The complaint for unlawful detainer need not, however, use the terminology of the law. It need only allege: (1) that the defendant's possession of the property was initially by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) that the plaintiff served notice on the defendant, terminating the latter's right of possession and rendering the same unlawful; (3) that the defendant remained in possession of the property, depriving plaintiff of the enjoyment of the same; and (4) that plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property.[8]
Here, the complaint did not sufficiently present a case for unlawful detainer since it failed to aver how Cayetano, et al entered the land or how-arid when the dispossession of plaintiff LIDC began.[9] It also failed to allege that Cayetano, et al's possession was initially legal, by virtue of an express or implied contract, and that it became illegal after their right to keep possession expired. Further it failed to allege any overt act on LIDCs part showing that it had permitted respondents to occupy the property.[10]
On the contrary, in its August 16, 2004 demand letter, LIDC itself recognized respondents' presence on the property even before 1975, the year it bought the land. Cayetano, et al built through their predecessors-in-interest their residential houses on the property even before LIDC acquired ownership of it. And the complaint makes no allegation that when LIDC finally acquired the property in 1975, it tolerated Cayetano, et al's presence until it demanded that they vacate it in 2004.
Since LIDC failed to properly allege a valid cause for unlawful detainer, the Court of Appeals did not commit any error when it reversed the decision of the lower courts.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition. The assailed Decision dated July 24, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 99138 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 184866 (Land Investors and Developers Corporation v. Leonardo Cayetano, Cesar Elopre,[*] Carmelito Bongol Eric Elopre, Erlinda Formes, Bayani Gamboa, Jarsim Pajes, Romulo Gamboa, Angel Longabia, Efren Longabia, Eleonor Villanueva, Serafin Camacho, Danilo Chua, Cesar Elopre, Jr., Willy Elopre, Sammy Ricarde, Clarita Gamboa, Juana Gamboa, Araceli Gamboa, Cesar Longabia, Dionisio Nares, Aurora Roxas, Jeric Bobadilla, Jenalyn Sacdalan, Joselito Gamboa, Enrico Gamboa, Rodelio Benitez, and the Court of Appeals).
In early 1975, petitioner Land Investors and Developers Corporation (LIDC) acquired a registered land in Cavite City. Respondents Leonardo Cayetano, Cesar Elopre, Carmelito Bongol, Eric Elopre, Erlinda Formes, Bayani Gamboa, Jarsim Pajes, Romulo Gamboa, Angel Longabia, Efren Longabia, Eleonor Villanueva, Serafin Camacho, Danilo Chua. Cesar Elopre, Jr., Willy Elopre, Sammy Ricarde, Clarita Gamboa, Juana Gamboa, Araceli Gamboa, Cesar Longabia, Dionisio Nares, Aurora Roxas, Jeric Bobadilla, Jenalyn Sacdalan, Joselito Gamboa. Enrico Gamboa, and Rodelio Benitez (Cayetano, et al) had entered the land and occupied it but, for some 30 years, LIDC took no step to eject them.
Later on August 16, 2004 LIDC wrote Cayetano, et al, demanding that they vacate the land. But the latter refused. Consequently, LIDC filed an ejectment suit against them before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Cavite City in Civil Case 7339.
Answering the complaint, Cayetano, et al pointed out that the complaint stated no cause of action since it failed to allege how the defendants entered the land or when and how their possession of it began as to make out a case for unlawful detainer. They pointed out that LIDC's remedy was an action for recovery of possession since it never acquired actual or physical possession of the land, given that the settlers were already occupying it when LIDC bought the-same.
On September 12, 2006 the MTCC rendered a decision for LIDC, ordering Cayetano, et al to vacate the property.[1] Upon the latter's appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTCC decision.[2] They yet appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) and on July 24, 2008 the latter court reversed the RTC decision and ordered LIDC's complaint dismissed on the ground that it failed to allege the key jurisdictional facts of an unlawful detainer action.[3]
The sole issue presented in this case is whether or not LIDCs allegation that it had allowed Cayetano, et al to settle on the property by mere tolerance is sufficient for it to make a case for unlawful detainer upon demand.
If the defendant's entry was lawful but his possession later became unlawful, the action against him should be one for unlawful detainer.[4] On the other hand, if the defendant's entry was unlawful from the beginning, then the action against him should be one for forcible entry. The complaint should aver facts that constitute either forcible entry or unlawful detainer, otherwise the plaintiffs remedy should either be an accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria in the proper regional trial court.[5]
The action should be one for unlawful detainer if the defendant's possession was merely by plaintiffs acts of tolerance. It is essential, however, that such acts were present from the start of the possession sought to be recovered.[6]
The rule is that the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought determine, the nature of an action and the court's jurisdiction over its subject matter.[7] The complaint for unlawful detainer need not, however, use the terminology of the law. It need only allege: (1) that the defendant's possession of the property was initially by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) that the plaintiff served notice on the defendant, terminating the latter's right of possession and rendering the same unlawful; (3) that the defendant remained in possession of the property, depriving plaintiff of the enjoyment of the same; and (4) that plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property.[8]
Here, the complaint did not sufficiently present a case for unlawful detainer since it failed to aver how Cayetano, et al entered the land or how-arid when the dispossession of plaintiff LIDC began.[9] It also failed to allege that Cayetano, et al's possession was initially legal, by virtue of an express or implied contract, and that it became illegal after their right to keep possession expired. Further it failed to allege any overt act on LIDCs part showing that it had permitted respondents to occupy the property.[10]
On the contrary, in its August 16, 2004 demand letter, LIDC itself recognized respondents' presence on the property even before 1975, the year it bought the land. Cayetano, et al built through their predecessors-in-interest their residential houses on the property even before LIDC acquired ownership of it. And the complaint makes no allegation that when LIDC finally acquired the property in 1975, it tolerated Cayetano, et al's presence until it demanded that they vacate it in 2004.
Since LIDC failed to properly allege a valid cause for unlawful detainer, the Court of Appeals did not commit any error when it reversed the decision of the lower courts.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition. The assailed Decision dated July 24, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 99138 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[*] Also referred to as Elorpe.
[1] Rollo, pp. 203-209.
[2] Id. at 231-239.
[3] Id. at 47-61. Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, with Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Ricardo R. Rosario, concurring.
[4] Valdez, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132424, May 4, 2006. 489 SCRA 369, 378.
[5] Id. at 379.
[6] Id. at 377.
[7] Ten Forty; Realty and Development Corp. v. Cruz, 457 Phil. 603, 613 (2003).
[8] Cabrera v. Getaruela, G.R. No. 164213, April 21, 2009, 586 SCRA 129, 136-137.
[9] Heirs of Melchor v. Melchor, 46! Phil. 437, 445 (2003).
[10] Id.
