SPOUSES MANUEL AND FLORENTINA DEL ROSARIO, PETITIONERS, VS. GERRY ROXAS FOUNDATION, INC., RESPONDENT.

Spouses Del Rosario versus Gerry Roxas Foundation

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the spouses Manuel and Florentina Del Rosario against the Gerry Roxas Foundation, Incorporated. The spouses sued the Foundation for unlawful detainer before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Roxas City, claiming that the Foundation had occupied their registered land without their consent and without any contractual or legal basis. The case matters because it teaches the bar candidate how the allegations of the complaint, and not the label counsel attaches to the suit, fix the nature of the action and the court that may take cognizance of it. It is a study in the boundary between forcible entry and unlawful detainer, and in the conclusive effect of a party's own judicial admissions.

Procedural History

The spouses filed their complaint for unlawful detainer before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Roxas City. The Foundation answered, setting up lack of cause of action and forum shopping, and later moved to resolve those defenses. The trial court issued an order dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action, holding that the Foundation was a lessee of the City of Roxas and had not unlawfully withheld possession from the spouses. The spouses appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Branch 17, which affirmed the dismissal. The spouses then went up to the Court of Appeals on a petition for review, but the appellate court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Regional Trial Court. The spouses moved for reconsideration, which was denied. Undaunted, the spouses came to the Supreme Court on a petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Manuel Del Rosario appears as the registered owner of a parcel of land in Roxas City, covered by a transfer certificate of title in the names of the spouses. Sometime in 1991, the Gerry Roxas Foundation took possession and occupancy of that land by virtue of a memorandum of agreement between the Foundation and the City of Roxas, holding the property as lessee of the City.

In February and March 2003, the spouses served notices on the Foundation to vacate, but the Foundation refused, insisting it had the legal right to continue in possession. On July 7, 2003, the spouses filed their complaint for unlawful detainer. They alleged that in 1991, without their consent and authority, the Foundation took full control and possession of the property, developed it, and used it for commercial purposes, and that they had allowed the Foundation to use the land for several years without any contractual or legal basis, so that its possession was only by tolerance.

The Foundation answered that it held the property as lessee of the City of Roxas, which had bought the land from the spouses by a deed of absolute sale executed in February 1981, long before the Foundation occupied it. The trial court agreed that the spouses had no cause of action, and the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court, however, characterized the Foundation's entry as one by stealth.

Issues

• Whether or not, in determining if there is a case for unlawful detainer, a court should limit itself to interpreting a single phrase or allegation in the complaint.
• Whether or not there exists an unlawful detainer in this case.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 4. Judicial admissions. An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof.

This provision binds the spouses to their own allegations that the Foundation entered without their consent and without any contractual or legal basis.

Section 1 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, as discussed in the decision, provides:

Forcible entry and unlawful detainer are two distinct causes of action defined in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. In forcible entry, one is deprived of physical possession of any land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. In unlawful detainer, one unlawfully withholds possession thereof after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied.

This distinction is the heart of the case, because the spouses' own allegations place the suit on the forcible entry side of the line, not the unlawful detainer side.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition is without merit. The allegations in the complaint are judicial admissions, and facts alleged in a complaint are deemed admissions of the plaintiff and binding upon him. The spouses themselves admitted that the Foundation took control and possession of the property without their consent and authority, and that its use of the land was without any contractual or legal basis. The nature of the action is determined by these allegations and by the relief sought, not by the caption counsel chooses.

On the second issue, the Court held that there is no unlawful detainer. Unlawful detainer presupposes that possession was originally lawful and became unlawful only upon the expiration or termination of the right to possess. Here, the spouses alleged that the Foundation's possession was illegal from the very beginning. The Court quoted its own definition:

In forcible entry, one is deprived of physical possession of any land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.

The Court explained that the act of going on the property and excluding the lawful possessor necessarily implies the exertion of force over the property, and this is all that is necessary. The Foundation's taking of full control and possession without the spouses' consent and authority thus implied force. The Court rejected the Court of Appeals' finding of stealth, because stealth requires a clandestine character, and the entry appeared to have been made with the knowledge of the spouses. The Court instead found strategy, since the spouses alleged that their nephew, then the vice mayor and later the mayor of Roxas City, transacted with the Foundation, and that the spouses did not interfere with its activities. Taken in its entirety, the complaint stated a cause of action for forcible entry, not unlawful detainer.

The Court added that the proper remedy was a complaint for forcible entry, which must be filed within one year from the time of dispossession. Since the spouses alleged that the Foundation took possession in 1991 and filed their complaint only in 2003, the action for forcible entry had already prescribed, and the complaint failed to state a valid cause of action.

Doctrine

First, the nature of an action and the court's jurisdiction over it are determined by the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought, not by the label given by the pleader. Second, allegations in a complaint are judicial admissions, conclusive against the pleader and requiring no proof. Third, forcible entry and unlawful detainer are distinct: in forcible entry, possession is illegal from the beginning, while in unlawful detainer, possession was originally lawful but became unlawful upon the expiration or termination of the right to possess. Fourth, where the defendant's possession is illegal from the start, the remedy is forcible entry, which must be brought within one year from dispossession; if that period lapses, the complaint states no valid cause of action.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals were affirmed; the spouses lost, and the dismissal of their complaint for unlawful detainer stood.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: the allegations of the complaint, not its title, determine the nature of the action, and a party is bound by its own judicial admissions. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between forcible entry and unlawful detainer, and the one-year prescriptive period for forcible entry.