MARITES SILVA AND LOURDES MALATE, PETITIONERS, V. SPOUSES OSCAR JOSEPH B. RAMOS, JR. AND MA. THERESA RAMOS, RESPONDENTS.

Silva versus Ramos

The Case

This is a lecture on Silva versus Ramos, a petition brought by Marites Silva and Lourdes Malate against the spouses Oscar Joseph Ramos, Junior and Ma. Theresa Ramos. The spouses sued for unlawful detainer over a parcel of land and the house built on it in Parañaque City. The petitioners resisted on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action and that the deed of sale on which the spouses anchor their title is a forgery. The case matters because it gathers in one place the settled rules on jurisdiction in ejectment, the elements of unlawful detainer, the irrelevance of prior physical possession on the plaintiff's side, and the provisional character of any ruling on ownership in a summary proceeding.

Procedural History

The spouses filed their complaint for unlawful detainer before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Parañaque, Branch 78. The trial court ruled in favor of the spouses, ordering the petitioners to vacate the property and to turn over its possession, to pay fifteen thousand pesos in attorney's fees, and to pay the costs of suit. The petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque, Branch 195, which affirmed the trial court's decision in full and dismissed the appeal. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, and the Regional Trial Court denied the motion. The petitioners then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review on appeal.

Facts

The spouses are the registered owners of a parcel of land at Block 1, Lot 30, Versailles Street, Don Bosco, Parañaque City, covered by a transfer certificate of title, as well as the residential house built on it. On the second of September 2010, they filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against the petitioners. Being the new owners, they sought to recover possession and requested Lourdes Malate, who was the tenant of Marites Silva, to vacate the premises. Despite verbal and written demands, the petitioners refused to vacate.

The petitioners answered, denying the material allegations. Marites Silva asserted that she is the registered owner of the property under her own transfer certificate of title, that she never sold it to the spouses, and that the signature in the deed of absolute sale dated the sixteenth of March 2010 is a forgery. She also claimed that no demand to vacate was made on her or on Lourdes Malate. As an affirmative defense, the petitioners argued that the complaint fails to state a cause of action because it does not aver how entry was effected and how and when dispossession started.

While the appeal was pending, Marites Silva filed a separate complaint for annulment of title against the spouses, again asserting that the deed of sale is a forgery. The trial court and the Regional Trial Court both found for the spouses, and the petitioners came to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer, so that the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter.
• Whether or not the petitioners' possession was initially by the tolerance of the spouses, and became illegal upon their refusal to vacate despite demand.
• Whether or not the spouses' lack of prior physical possession defeats their cause of action for unlawful detainer.
• Whether or not the pending action for annulment of the deed of sale and certificate of title bars the resolution of the ejectment case.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statutory text; it applies the settled elements of unlawful detainer as laid down in jurisprudence. The Court states the rule in these words:

A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it states the following elements: (1) Initially, the possession of the property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) Eventually, the possession became illegal upon the plaintiff’s notice to the defendant of the termination of the latter’s right of possession; (3) Thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the latter’s enjoyment; and (4) Within one year from the making of the last demand on the defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the Complaint for ejectment.

These elements supply the test for the sufficiency of the complaint and thus for the trial court's jurisdiction.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that jurisdiction in ejectment is determined by the allegations of the complaint, and the test of sufficiency is whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer. The complaint substantially alleged all four elements, so the trial court was within its jurisdiction. The Court conceded that much is to be desired from the manner in which the complaint was constructed, but the allegations still sufficed.

On the second issue, the Court held that as new owners, the spouses merely tolerated the petitioners' possession. Marites Silva was the previous owner and Lourdes Malate her tenant; the extension of permission for them to remain after the sale is an apparent consequence of that sale. It was only their refusal to vacate despite demands that rendered the possession illegal.

On the third issue, the Court held that the spouses' lack of prior physical possession does not defeat the action. Unlike forcible entry, the plaintiff in unlawful detainer need not have been in prior physical possession. A Torrens title is evidence of an indefeasible title in favor of the person named, that person is entitled to possession, and the title cannot be collaterally attacked, an ejectment proceeding being no exception.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the pendency of the criminal and civil cases seeking annulment of the sale is beyond the purview of an ejectment case and does not bar its resolution. The sole issue in unlawful detainer is physical or material possession, independent of any claim of ownership. Where ownership is raised, the court may pass upon it only to determine who has the right to possess, and that adjudication is merely provisional and does not bar a later action on title.

Doctrine

First, the jurisdiction of the court in ejectment is determined by the allegations of the complaint, and the test is whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer. Second, a complaint states a cause of action for unlawful detainer when it alleges the four elements quoted above. Third, the plaintiff in unlawful detainer need not have been in prior physical possession, unlike in forcible entry. Fourth, a Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked, and an ejectment proceeding is no exception. Fifth, the only issue in unlawful detainer is physical or material possession, and any ruling on ownership is merely provisional and does not bar a separate action on title.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed in full the decision and order of the Regional Trial Court, with no costs; the spouses won.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the only issue in unlawful detainer is physical or material possession, and any ruling on ownership is merely provisional. Examiners use this case to test the elements of unlawful detainer, the rule that jurisdiction is fixed by the allegations of the complaint, and the rule that a Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked in a summary ejectment proceeding.