ALMARIO BEJAR (DECEASED), AS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS – CARMELITA BEJAR, ALFREDO BEJAR, GREGORIA B. DANCEL, BRENDA B. MIANO, LOURDES B. BENDIJO, AND SUSANA B. CAMILO, PETITIONER…

Bejar versus Caluag

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the heirs of the late Almario Bejar against Maricel Caluag. Almario Bejar had sued Caluag for illegal detainer and damages before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, but that court dismissed the complaint for want of jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeals reinstated the dismissal. The case matters because it is a clean teaching vehicle on the boundary between the summary ejectment actions, unlawful detainer and forcible entry, on the one hand, and the plenary recovery-of-possession actions on the other — and on the elementary rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought, not by the defenses raised.

Procedural History

Almario Bejar filed a complaint for illegal detainer and damages with the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 12, Manila. Caluag moved to dismiss on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction because the case involved the issue of ownership, and she supplemented the motion by invoking a deed of sale which, she claimed, conveyed the entire lot to her predecessor. The Metropolitan Trial Court dismissed the complaint for want of jurisdiction, holding that the real issue was the enforceability of the subsequent sale to Caluag and that jurisdiction lay with the Regional Trial Court.

On appeal, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 47, Manila, reversed the dismissal, holding that the issue was who had better possession, and directed the Metropolitan Trial Court to hear the case on the merits. Caluag's motion for reconsideration was denied. Caluag then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which reversed the Regional Trial Court and reinstated the Metropolitan Trial Court's order of dismissal, remanding the case to the Regional Trial Court for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals held that the allegations of the complaint did not make out a case for illegal detainer or forcible entry. The Bejar heirs' motion for reconsideration was denied, hence this petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

Almario Bejar owned a residential house of light materials built on government land at 777 Coral Street, Tondo, Manila. On December 21, 1981, he sold one-half portion of that house, twenty-two feet in length and fifteen feet in width, to Fernando Mijares for eleven thousand pesos. Bejar later became the owner in fee simple of the government land on which the house stood, including the portion he had sold, as evidenced by a transfer certificate of title registered in August 1983.

On September 2, 1991, Fernando Mijares sold the residential house to Maricel Caluag, who used it as a warehouse for her business. Bejar later needed the portion of the land occupied by Caluag to build a residential house for his family. On April 9, 2002, through counsel, he sent Caluag a formal demand letter to vacate the portion within ten days from receipt. Despite the demand, Caluag failed and refused to vacate.

On August 2, 2002, Bejar filed a complaint for illegal detainer and damages. Caluag moved to dismiss, and supplemented the motion with a deed of sale, the Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Bahay, whose fourth paragraph stated that for eleven thousand pesos Bejar sold one-half of the front of his house together with all his rights to the land on which it stood, if he had any such rights. The Metropolitan Trial Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the case travelled up to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the Metropolitan Trial Court has jurisdiction over the complaint for illegal detainer, determined by the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought.
• Whether or not the complaint sufficiently alleges the elements of unlawful detainer, namely prior physical possession by the plaintiff and deprivation of possession by the defendant through force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, with the action brought within one year from the last demand.

Applicable Provisions

Section 33, paragraph 2, of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Section 3 of Republic Act No. 7691, provides:

Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer.

This is the provision that fixes jurisdiction over the summary ejectment actions in the first level courts, and it is the basis for holding that the Metropolitan Trial Court, not the Regional Trial Court, had jurisdiction over Bejar's complaint.

Article 434 of the Civil Code, which the Court cites in distinguishing the accion reinvidicatoria, provides:

To maintain an action to recover ownership of real property, it is necessary that the person bringing the action establish the identity of the property and his title thereto.

This shows that an action involving ownership requires proof of identity and title and belongs to the Regional Trial Court, unlike a simple detainer case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Metropolitan Trial Court has jurisdiction. It laid down the elementary principle that what determines the nature of an action, and which court has jurisdiction over it, are the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought. The Court distinguished four remedies available to one deprived of possession of real property: unlawful detainer, forcible entry, accion publiciana, and accion reinvidicatoria. In unlawful detainer and forcible entry, the only issue is who between the parties has better possession, and jurisdiction lies with the first level courts. An accion publiciana is a plenary action to determine the better and legal right to possess, independently of title, and may be filed only with the Regional Trial Court after the one-year period. An accion reinvidicatoria involves ownership and also belongs to the Regional Trial Court.

On the second issue, the Court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged unlawful detainer. The complaint alleged that Bejar sold one-half of his house to Mijares, who sold it to Caluag; that Bejar became owner in fee simple of the entire lot; that he needed the portion occupied by Caluag for his family; and that despite demand, Caluag refused to vacate. The Court stressed that a suit for unlawful detainer prospers if the complaint sufficiently alleges withholding of possession or refusal to vacate, and that the cause of action arises from the expiration or termination of the defendant's right to continue possession upon demand. The complaint was filed within one year from the last demand. The Court thus reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the Regional Trial Court.

Doctrine

First, jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought, not by the defenses or the evidence the defendant may raise. Second, unlawful detainer and forcible entry are summary actions confined to the issue of better possession, cognizable by the first level courts, and must be brought within one year from the date possession is lost or, in unlawful detainer, from the last demand to vacate. Third, an accion publiciana is a plenary action for recovery of possession independently of title, filed with the Regional Trial Court only after the one-year period, while an accion reinvidicatoria involves ownership and requires proof of the identity of the property and the plaintiff's title under Article 434 of the Civil Code. A defendant cannot convert a detainer case into a question of ownership simply by raising the issue of ownership in a motion to dismiss.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals, affirmed the Regional Trial Court decision, and remanded the records to the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 12, Manila, for further proceedings with dispatch.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the nature of the action and the court's jurisdiction are determined by the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought. Examiners use this case to test the four remedies for deprivation of possession and the one-year rule in unlawful detainer.