CONSTANCIO ESPIRITU, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. AMADO CALDERON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC – BR. 8, MALOLOS, BULACAN, GIDEON NATIVIDAD AND JOSE CAYSIP, …

Espiritu versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Constancio Espiritu against the Court of Appeals, the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, and the private respondents Gideon Natividad and Jose Caysip. Espiritu had sued for unlawful detainer and recovery of rentals over a parcel of land on which the respondents had built a chapel. The case matters because it fixes a rule every bar candidate must know: the nature of an action and the jurisdiction of the court are determined by the allegations of the complaint, and if those allegations do not make out forcible entry or unlawful detainer, the municipal trial court never acquires jurisdiction at all.

Procedural History

Espiritu filed his complaint for unlawful detainer and recovery of reasonable rentals, plus attorney's fees and litigation expenses, before the Municipal Trial Court of Baliuag, Bulacan. The respondents moved to dismiss on the ground that the complaint did not fall within the ejectment rule. The Municipal Trial Court upheld its jurisdiction, ruled in favor of Espiritu, and ordered the respondents ejected, treating their possession as one of mere tolerance.

The respondents appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, which dismissed the complaint without prejudice to its refiling in the proper court. The Regional Trial Court reasoned that the one-year period for ejectment had long lapsed, since the respondents had been in possession since 1954 while the transfer certificate of title was issued only in 1993.

Espiritu went up to the Court of Appeals by petition for review under Rule 42. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that the Municipal Trial Court had no jurisdiction over the complaint, which in turn deprived the Regional Trial Court of appellate jurisdiction. It left the motion for execution pending appeal unresolved. Espiritu's motions for reconsideration were denied, so he came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

The land in dispute is a parcel of about one hundred and one square meters in Concepcion, Baliuag, Bulacan, covered by a transfer certificate of title issued in April 1993 in the name of the heirs of Agustin Espiritu and Apolonia dela Rama. Espiritu claims to be one of those heirs. The respondents, Gideon Natividad and Jose Caysip, had been occupying the land and had built a chapel on it, allegedly without any building permit.

Espiritu sent notices and demands for the removal of the chapel, but the respondents refused to comply. He then filed his complaint, alleging that they were illegally occupying or squatting on his land.

The respondents answered that the property had been donated to their congregation, the Church of Christ, so that it belonged to the church and not to them. They also insisted that the Municipal Trial Court had no jurisdiction, because the complaint alleged neither prior possession by Espiritu nor deprivation of possession through any of the means named in the ejectment rule.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition on the ground that the Municipal Trial Court had no jurisdiction over the complaint.
• Whether or not the allegations of the complaint make out a cause of action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, then Rule 72, defines the two ejectment actions and provides:

A person deprived of possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other 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.

This provision supplies the jurisdictional test: unless the complaint alleges deprivation by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, or the withholding of possession after the expiration or termination of a contractual right, the municipal trial court has no power to act.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err. The rule that the allegations of the complaint determine both the nature of the action and the jurisdiction of the court is correct, but the complaint must still be scrutinized. Here it revealed a cause of action neither for unlawful detainer nor for forcible entry, but some other action for recovery of possession.

On the second issue, the Court distinguished the two remedies. In forcible entry, deprivation of physical possession is effected through force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, and the possession is illegal from the beginning, so the issue is who was in prior possession in fact. In unlawful detainer, possession was originally lawful but became unlawful upon the expiration or termination of the right to possess under a contract, express or implied.

The complaint alleged only that the respondents were illegally occupying or squatting on the land by erecting a chapel, that no building permit had been issued, and that demands to remove the chapel had been refused. Forcible entry was ruled out because there was no allegation that Espiritu was denied possession through any of the means stated in the rule. Unlawful detainer was likewise ruled out because there was no lease agreement between the parties, and the demand to vacate did not make the respondents tenants of Espiritu. He should therefore avail himself of other remedies to recover possession.

Because the complaint did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirements, both the Municipal Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court were without jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. The Court added that the matters of prescription and laches taken up by the Court of Appeals must be disregarded, since they concern ownership, which cannot be raised in an original ejectment complaint before the municipal trial court.

Doctrine

The nature of an action and the jurisdiction of the court are determined by the allegations of the complaint, not by the defenses set up by the defendant. But the allegations must actually constitute forcible entry or unlawful detainer as defined in Section 1, Rule 70. Forcible entry requires deprivation of possession by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, with possession illegal from the beginning. Unlawful detainer requires that possession was originally lawful and became unlawful upon the expiration or termination of a contractual right to hold possession. A bare demand to vacate does not convert a stranger into a tenant, and a complaint that alleges neither mode is not an ejectment case at all. The municipal trial court therefore acquires no jurisdiction, and the Regional Trial Court acquires none on appeal. Questions of ownership, prescription and laches cannot be raised in an original ejectment complaint.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the decision of the Court of Appeals nullifying the decisions of the Municipal Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court for lack of jurisdiction was affirmed, with costs against Espiritu.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the allegations of the complaint determine jurisdiction, but only if they make out forcible entry or unlawful detainer under Section 1, Rule 70. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between forcible entry and unlawful detainer, and the rule that a demand to vacate does not create a tenancy.