SPOUSES RAY ANTONIO SASING AND BEMA M. SASING, PETITIONERS, VS. ANNABELLE N. AMORES AND NELSON CALANDRIA, RESPONDENTS.

Sasing versus Amores

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by spouses Ray Antonio Sasing and Bema Sasing against Annabelle Amores and Nelson Calandria, the buyers of a house and lot in Kauswagan, Cagayan de Oro City. The respondents sued the spouses for ejectment before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, and the spouses now insist that the complaint was neither for forcible entry nor for unlawful detainer, so that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction. The case matters because it gathers in one place the jurisdictional elements of unlawful detainer, the rule that an oral demand suffices, and the principle that the right of ownership carries with it the right of possession.

Procedural History

The respondents filed a complaint for ejectment in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Cagayan de Oro City. In October 2010, that court ruled for the respondents, ordering the spouses to vacate, to pay monthly rentals of 3,000 pesos from October 2007 until they vacate, plus attorney's fees of 20,000 pesos, filing fees of 3,230 pesos, and litigation expenses of 10,000 pesos, while denying moral damages for lack of substantiation. The spouses appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Branch 20, but failed to file the supersedeas bond required under Section 19 of Rule 70, so the respondents moved for immediate execution and the trial court granted it. In April 2012, the Regional Trial Court affirmed the trial court's decision in full, holding that the complaint sufficiently alleged the jurisdictional facts of unlawful detainer and that the spouses showed no right to possess. The spouses moved for reconsideration, which was denied in September 2012. They then filed this petition for review under Rule 42, assigning a single error: that the Regional Trial Court erred in affirming the trial court and in denying reconsideration.

Facts

The house and lot in Kauswagan, Cagayan de Oro City, was originally owned by the Nagac family. Enriqueta Nagac allowed the spouses Sasing to occupy the property under a contract of lease. In July 1994, the Nagac family sold the property to Gregorio Rom through an extrajudicial settlement with sale.

After Gregorio Rom died, his heirs, in May 2009, executed an extrajudicial partition with deed of sale and sold the property to the respondents, Annabelle Amores and Nelson Calandria. Also in May 2009, the heirs of Gregorio Rom asked the spouses to vacate, since the property had already been sold. The spouses refused, and the heirs even filed a complaint before the Office of Barangay Kauswagan, but the supposed settlement did not push through because the heirs went back to Manila weeks later.

The respondents themselves then lodged a complaint before the same barangay office praying that the spouses vacate. The spouses insulted and challenged them to file a case in court. It was also alleged that the spouses had failed to pay rent since the death of Enriqueta Nagac in October 2007. The spouses answered that the trial court had no jurisdiction, that the case was neither unlawful detainer nor forcible entry, that no demand letter was ever sent to them, and that the complaint did not allege prior physical possession by the respondents or deprivation by any of the means in the Rules of Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action for unlawful detainer so as to confer jurisdiction on the Municipal Trial Court in Cities.
• Whether or not a written demand to vacate and to pay rentals was indispensable, such that its absence warranted dismissal.
• Whether or not the spouses showed any right entitling them to continue possessing the property.

Applicable Provisions

Section 19 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, on the supersedeas bond in ejectment appeals, provides:

Section 19. Immediate execution of judgment; how to stay the same. If judgment is rendered against the defendant, execution shall issue immediately, unless an appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay execution files a sufficient supersedeas bond, approved and filed with the appellate court and payable to the plaintiff, to pay the rents, damages, and costs accruing down to the time of the judgment appealed from, and unless, during the pendency of the appeal, he deposits with the appellate court the amount of rent due from time to time under the contract, if any, as found by the judgment of the municipal trial court to exist.

This is the provision the spouses failed to comply with, which is why the trial court allowed immediate execution of the judgment against them.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the complaint was one for unlawful detainer and that it alleged the jurisdictional elements. The Court listed those elements: the plaintiff is a vendor, vendee, or other person from whom possession is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession by virtue of a contract, express or implied; the defendant is the person unlawfully withholding the same; the plaintiff issued a demand to comply with the contract or vacate; and the action is commenced within one year from the demand. The complaint alleged that the respondents bought the property, that the previous owner notified the spouses to vacate in May 2009, that conciliation meetings were held at the barangay, and that the spouses remained, leading to the filing of the complaint in June 2009. The Court stressed that the complaint need not employ the exact terminology of the law, for an allegation that the defendant is illegally withholding possession is sufficient.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Rules do not exclusively require a written demand, and that an oral demand will suffice. What matters is that notice was given to the spouses that their right of possession had already been terminated.

On the third issue, the Court held that, apart from the jurisdictional objection, the spouses adduced not a scintilla of evidence showing entitlement to continue possessing the property, while the respondents clearly traced how the property passed to them. The spouses never refuted the respondents' ownership. As a rule, the right of ownership carries with it the right of possession. Finally, the Court held that findings of fact of the lower courts are entitled to great weight and respect on appeal and will not be disturbed except for strong and cogent reasons.

Doctrine

An unlawful detainer complaint confers jurisdiction on the municipal trial court when it alleges the four elements: a plaintiff from whom possession is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of a contractual right to hold possession; a defendant unlawfully withholding it; a demand to comply or vacate; and commencement of the action within one year from the demand. The complaint need not use the exact words of the law; an allegation of illegal withholding of possession suffices. The demand may be oral; what matters is that notice was given that the right of possession has been terminated. And the right of ownership carries with it the right of possession, so a defendant who never refutes the plaintiff's ownership and shows no right of his own cannot resist ejectment.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the April 2012 judgment of the Regional Trial Court affirming the trial court's decision in full was affirmed, in favor of the respondents.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the right of ownership carries with it the right of possession, and that an oral demand suffices in unlawful detainer. Examiners use this case to test the jurisdictional elements of unlawful detainer and the sufficiency of allegations in an ejectment complaint.