LOLITA R. AYSON, PETITIONER, VS. MARINA ENRIQUEZ VDA. DE CARPIO, RESPONDENT.

Ayson versus Vda. de Carpio

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Lolita Ayson against Marina Enriquez Vda. de Carpio, arising from an ejectment complaint that the respondent filed against the petitioner before the Municipal Trial Court. The petitioner had owned three parcels of land in Porac, Pampanga, mortgaged them to the Philippine National Bank, lost them at foreclosure, and remained in possession after the bank sold one lot to the respondent. When the respondent demanded that she vacate, the petitioner refused, and the respondent sued for unlawful detainer. The petitioner insists that the complaint did not sufficiently allege unlawful detainer and that the Municipal Trial Court therefore had no jurisdiction. The case matters because it teaches how a vague complaint is cured by the evidence the parties present at trial, and how jurisdiction is measured by what is actually tried and proved, not merely by the words of the pleading.

Procedural History

The respondent filed a complaint for ejectment with damages before the Municipal Trial Court. That court rendered judgment in favor of the respondent and ordered the petitioner to vacate the property. The petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court, which affirmed the decision with modification. The petitioner then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, assigning a single error: that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the action. The Court of Appeals denied the petition and dismissed it, and it likewise denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The petitioner then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review under Rule 45.

Facts

The petitioner owned three parcels of land in Manibang, Porac, Pampanga, covered by separate transfer certificates of title, and she was in possession as owner. On August 29, 1980, she mortgaged the properties to the Philippine National Bank, Angeles City Branch. The bank subsequently foreclosed the mortgage. The petitioner failed to redeem within the prescribed period, so her titles were cancelled and new ones were issued in the name of the bank in May 1985.

On April 14, 1999, the bank sold the property covered by one of those titles to the respondent, and a new title was issued in the respondent's name. In October 1999, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City for annulment of the respondent's title and of the deed of sale, as well as for reconveyance and damages. While that case was pending, the respondent sent demand letters dated December 29, 1999, requiring the petitioner to vacate the premises. When the petitioner refused, the respondent filed a complaint for ejectment with damages before the Municipal Trial Court in March 2000.

The Municipal Trial Court decided in favor of the respondent and ordered the petitioner to vacate. The Regional Trial Court affirmed with modification. The Court of Appeals held that the petitioner's continued possession had merely been tolerated by the respondent, that possession became unlawful when the petitioner was divested of ownership, and that ejectment was the proper remedy, without prejudice to the parties litigating ownership in a separate action.

Issues

• Whether or not the Municipal Trial Court had jurisdiction over the ejectment complaint, considering the petitioner's claim that the complaint failed to allege facts constitutive of unlawful detainer and was in truth an action anchored on ownership.
• Whether or not the petitioner is estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the trial court after she voluntarily participated in the trial on the merits and lost.
• Whether or not the petitioner may raise for the first time on appeal the question of whether she actually received the demand letters.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of Rule 10 of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 5. – Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence.– When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if the presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of substantial justice will be subserved thereby. The court may grant a continuance to enable the amendment to be made.

This rule is the basis for the Court's holding that the defects in the respondent's complaint were cured when the parties went to trial and presented evidence on the true cause of action without objection.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Municipal Trial Court had jurisdiction. The complaint may have been vague and lacking in detail about how the dispossession occurred, but these defects were not fatal. The Court applied Section 5 of Rule 10, reasoning that when the plaintiff, without objection, introduces evidence to prove a cause of action not clearly alleged, and the defendant voluntarily produces evidence to meet it, the issue is joined as fully and effectively as if it had been pleaded. The Court quoted its own settled formulation:

It is settled that even if the complaint be defective, but the parties go to trial thereon, and the plaintiff, without objection, introduces sufficient evidence to constitute the particular cause of action which it intended to allege in the original complaint, and the defendant voluntarily produces witnesses to meet the cause of action thus established, an issue is joined as fully and as effectively as if it had been previously joined by the most perfect pleadings.

The evidence showed that after foreclosure the petitioner failed to redeem and was divested of ownership and of her right to retain possession, while the respondent acquired a better right to possess through the sale from the bank. The petitioner's continued occupation was merely tolerated, and she was bound by an implied promise to vacate upon demand. Her failure to do so justified the ejectment action.

On the second issue, the Court noted that trial on the merits proceeded without objection from the petitioner, who never challenged the statement of issues and instead presented her own issues on the propriety of the ejectment case. Having voluntarily participated and lost, she could not now question the trial court's jurisdiction.

On the third issue, the Court held that the petitioner raised the matter of receipt of the demand letters only at this late stage, not before the Municipal Trial Court or the Regional Trial Court. Matters not taken up below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; questions raised on appeal must be within the issues framed by the parties.

Doctrine

Defects in a complaint are deemed waived when the parties go to trial without challenging them. When the plaintiff, without objection, introduces evidence to prove a cause of action not alleged in the original complaint, and the defendant voluntarily produces witnesses and other evidence to meet that cause of action, the issue is joined as fully and effectively as if it had been previously pleaded. This is the rule now embodied in Section 5 of Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, which treats issues tried with the express or implied consent of the parties as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Jurisdiction over an ejectment action is therefore not defeated by a vague allegation of dispossession where the evidence at trial establishes unlawful detainer, namely, possession initially lawful or tolerated that became unlawful upon demand and refusal to vacate. Finally, a party who voluntarily participates in the trial on the merits and loses is estopped from assailing the trial court's jurisdiction, and issues not raised before the lower courts cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

Disposition

The petition was denied and the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a defective complaint is cured when the parties go to trial without objection and present evidence on the true cause of action, joining the issue as fully as if pleaded. Examiners use this case to test jurisdiction over ejectment, the curing of vague pleadings through evidence under Section 5 of Rule 10, and the bar against raising new issues for the first time on appeal.