FACTS:

This case involves a dispute over a parcel of land registered in the name of Rodolfo Chua Sing located in Barangay San Dionisio, Parañaque City. In 1999, Chua Sing leased the property to Fiorello R. Jose, the petitioner in this case. The lease contract was not notarized or registered with the Parañaque City Registry of Deeds. The respondents, however, were already occupying the property before the lease contract was executed. The petitioner demanded in writing for the respondents to vacate the property and pay rent, but they refused. The petitioner filed an ejectment case against the respondents, claiming that as the lessee, he had the right to eject them. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ruled in favor of the petitioner, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision, stating that the respondents' possession of the land was not by the petitioner's or his lessor's tolerance. The Court of Appeals concluded that the case was not for unlawful detainer and dismissed the petitioner's complaint for ejectment. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the Court of Appeals. The petitioner now raises several issues before the Supreme Court in this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUES:

1. Whether an action for unlawful detainer is the proper remedy.

2. Whether the allegations in the complaint constitute unlawful detainer.

3. Whether contradictory statements in a complaint for unlawful detainer can be a basis for dismissal.

4. Whether a complaint for unlawful detainer should include allegations and proof of the plaintiff's tolerance or permission.

5. Whether lack of knowledge of the defendant's entry of the land is inconsistent with the allegation of tolerance.

6. Whether possession de facto must be proved in an unlawful detainer case.

7. Whether a case for unlawful detainer can be filed beyond the one-year prescription period from the time of forcible entry.

8. Whether or not the respondents can raise the issue of tolerance on appeal.

9. Whether or not the petitioner properly alleged and proved the essential requirements of an unlawful detainer case.

10. Whether or not the Court of Appeals deprived the petitioner of due process or treated him unfairly when it resolved the case based on the issue of tolerance.

11. Whether or not the case should have been filed as an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria.

12. Whether an ejectment case can be treated as an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria.

13. Whether the MeTC can make a ruling on the issue of ownership.

RULING:

1. Unlawful detainer is not the proper remedy for the present case.

2. The allegations in the complaint do not constitute unlawful detainer.

3. Contradictory statements in a complaint for unlawful detainer can be a basis for dismissal.

4. A complaint for unlawful detainer should include allegations and proof of the plaintiff's tolerance or permission.

5. Lack of knowledge of the defendant's entry of the land is inconsistent with the allegation of tolerance.

6. Possession de facto must be proved in an unlawful detainer case.

7. A case for unlawful detainer cannot be filed beyond the one-year prescription period from the time of forcible entry.

8. The Court held that the respondents can raise the issue of tolerance on appeal. It is a settled rule that a party cannot change his theory of the case or his cause of action on appeal. However, in this case, the Court of Appeals dismissed the action due to the petitioner's failure to allege and prove the essential requirements of an unlawful detainer case. The issue of tolerance was raised by the respondents before the RTC, and the petitioner failed to address it in his pleadings before the RTC, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not deprive the petitioner of due process or treat him unfairly when it resolved the case based on the issue of tolerance.

9. The petitioner failed to properly allege and prove the essential requirements of an unlawful detainer case. The Court held that regardless of the defenses raised by the respondents, the petitioner was required to allege and prove when the respondents entered the property and that it was the petitioner or his predecessors who granted them permission to enter and occupy the property. The petitioner's contradictory statements in his amended complaint and other pleadings also proved fatal to his case.

10. The Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not deprive the petitioner of due process or treat him unfairly when it resolved the case based on the issue of tolerance. The petitioner failed to address the issue of tolerance in his pleadings before the RTC, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court. The respondents had raised the issue of tolerance before the RTC, and the petitioner belatedly stated in his Memorandum before the Supreme Court that his lessor had tolerated the respondents' occupancy of the property, without providing any factual basis or addressing the respondents' allegation that they had occupied the property before the petitioner's lessor became the owner.

11. The Court held that it cannot treat an ejectment case as an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatory. The petitioner argued that if the case should have been filed as an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatory, the Court should still resolve the case as requiring him to properly refile the case serves no other ends than to comply with technicalities. However, the Court ruled that an ejectment case cannot be treated as an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatory.

12. The Court ruled in the negative. An ejectment case cannot be treated as an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria because these cases have different characteristics and purposes. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, which fall under ejectment cases, are summary actions that only resolve the issue of possession de facto, while accion publiciana and accion reivindicatoria are plenary actions that determine the better right to possession or ownership. Forcible entry should be filed within one year from the unlawful dispossession of the property, while accion publiciana is filed a year after the dispossession.

13. The MeTC can only make rulings on the issue of possession and not on ownership. Any ruling by the MeTC on the issue of ownership is inconclusive and is made only to resolve the issue of possession de facto. Ejectment actions are summary in nature and are designed to provide a peaceful and speedy means of preventing an alleged illegal possessor from unjustly taking and continuing possession while the issue of possession de jure or ownership is properly resolved.

PRINCIPLES:

• Unlawful detainer is a summary action for the recovery of possession of real property, filed when possession is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession.

• The possession of the defendant in unlawful detainer must have been originally legal, permitted by the plaintiff through an express or implied contract.

• Unlawful detainer must be filed within one year from the unlawful withholding of possession.

• The allegations in the complaint determine the nature of the action and the jurisdiction of the court.

• The complaint must specifically allege the facts constituting unlawful detainer.

• Tolerance or permission must have been present at the beginning of possession for an action for unlawful detainer to be the proper remedy.

• In an unlawful detainer case, contradictory statements in the complaint can lead to its dismissal.

• A complaint for unlawful detainer must contain allegations and proof of the plaintiff's tolerance or permission.

• Lack of knowledge of the defendant's entry of the land is inconsistent with the allegation of tolerance in an unlawful detainer case.

• Possession de facto must be proved in an unlawful detainer case.

• A case for unlawful detainer cannot be filed beyond the one-year prescription period from the time of forcible entry.

• A party cannot change his theory of the case or his cause of action on appeal.

• Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court will not be considered by the reviewing court.

• Defenses not pleaded in the answer cannot change fundamentally the nature of the issue in the case, as it would be unfair to the adverse party, who had no opportunity to present evidence in connection with the new theory, and would violate due process and fair play.

• In an unlawful detainer case, the complaint must sufficiently show the jurisdictional facts on the face of the complaint, including how entry was effected and how and when dispossession started.

• Regardless of the defenses raised, the plaintiff in an unlawful detainer case must properly allege and prove when the defendants entered the property and that it was the plaintiff or his predecessors who granted permission to enter and occupy the property.

• Ejectment cases cannot be treated as accion publiciana or accion reivindicatory.

• Ejectment cases are summary actions that only resolve the issue of possession de facto, while accion publiciana and accion reivindicatoria are plenary actions that determine the better right to possession or ownership.

• Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases should be filed within one year from the unlawful dispossession of the property.

• Any ruling by the MeTC on the issue of ownership is inconclusive and is made only to resolve the issue of possession de facto.

• Ejectment actions are designed to provide a peaceful and speedy means of preventing an alleged illegal possessor from unjustly taking and continuing possession while the issue of possession de jure or ownership is properly resolved.