View full case

PENTA PACIFIC REALTY CORPORATION v. LEY CONSTRUCTION

FACTS:

The petitioner, Century Properties, owns the 25th floor of the Pacific Star Building in Makati City. The respondent, Ley Construction and Development Corporation, leased a portion of the premises. They later entered into a contract to sell, with the respondent expressing intention to purchase the entire premises. However, the respondent stopped paying the monthly amortizations, leading to exchange of letters between the parties. The petitioner demanded payment and notified the respondent of the cancellation of the reservation agreement. When the respondent failed to comply, the petitioner filed a complaint for ejectment in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). The respondent argued that the lease contract was simulated or repealed and that the petitioner violated the rule on non-forum shopping. The MeTC ruled in favor of the petitioner, the respondent appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which nullified the MeTC's decision for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, stating that the complaint was not for unlawful detainer but for another kind of action for the recovery of possession. The petitioner filed a petition with the Supreme Court, arguing that the MeTC had jurisdiction over the case. The issue before the Supreme Court is whether the complaint was for unlawful detainer, accion publiciana, or accion reivindicatoria.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the action is properly classified as unlawful detainer.

  2. Whether the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) has jurisdiction over the case.

  3. Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged all the requisites for unlawful detainer.

  4. Whether the summary proceedings in unlawful detainer are proper to resolve issues on ownership.

  5. Whether or not the MeTC has jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case.

  6. Whether or not the alleged departure from the facts stated in the complaint divests the MeTC of jurisdiction.

RULING:

  1. The action is not properly classified as unlawful detainer. The defendant's dispossession did not occur through any of the means provided by Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. Therefore, the action should be classified as either accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria, depending on whether the action is brought within one year from the deprivation of possession.

  2. The MTC has jurisdiction over the case. Prior to April 15, 1994, the MTC had exclusive original jurisdiction only over possessory actions. However, by virtue of Republic Act No. 7691, the jurisdiction of the MTC was expanded to include actions for recovery of ownership or possession of real property where the assessed value does not exceed P20,000.00, or P50,000.00 in Metro Manila.

  3. The complaint sufficiently alleged all the requisites for unlawful detainer, namely: (a) the defendant originally had lawful possession of the property, either by virtue of a contract or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (b) the defendant's possession of the property eventually became illegal or unlawful upon notice by the plaintiff to the defendant of the expiration or the termination of the defendant's right of possession; (c) the defendant thereafter remained in possession of the property and thereby deprived the plaintiff the enjoyment thereof; and (d) the plaintiff instituted the action within one year from the unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession.

  4. The summary proceedings in unlawful detainer are not proper to resolve issues on ownership. The main issue in an action for unlawful detainer is possession de facto, independently of any claim of ownership or possession de jure. Ownership is merely ancillary to the principal issue of possession. Any issue on ownership arising in unlawful detainer is resolved only provisionally for the purpose of determining possession.

  5. Yes, the MeTC has jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case. The allegations in the complaint established a case of unlawful detainer, giving the MeTC exclusive original jurisdiction over the case. The cause of action of the petitioner was to recover possession of the subject property from the respondent after the latter failed to comply with the demand to vacate. The possession of the respondent, although lawful at the beginning, became unlawful upon its failure to comply with the demand.

  6. No, the alleged departure from the facts stated in the complaint does not divest the MeTC of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the MeTC is determined from the allegations in the complaint, which clearly set forth a cause of action for unlawful detainer. Even if the actual facts of how the respondent entered or when the dispossession started differ from what was stated in the complaint, it does not oust the MeTC of its jurisdiction.

PRINCIPLES:

  • There are three kinds of possessory actions: accion reivindicatoria, accion publiciana, and accion interdictal.

  • A suit for unlawful detainer can only be filed if the dispossession occurred through means provided by Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, and must be brought within one year from the deprivation of possession.

  • The MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over possessory actions, and its jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the property involved.

  • In unlawful detainer, the plaintiff must prove that it was in prior physical possession of the premises until it was deprived thereof by the defendant. The principal issue must be possession de facto, and ownership is ancillary to such issue.

  • The summary character of unlawful detainer proceedings is designed to quicken the determination of possession de facto in the interest of preserving the peace of the community, but it may not be proper to resolve ownership of the property.

  • Regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property, if the plaintiff has priority in time of possession, it has the security that entitles it to remain on the property until lawfully ejected through an action for accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria by another having a better right.

  • A complaint for unlawful detainer must allege the cause of action according to the manner set forth in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, and must comply with the jurisdictional requirement of demand as prescribed by Section 2, Rule 70.

  • The jurisdiction of the court is determined by the allegations in the complaint. (jurisdiction is determined from the allegations of the complaint)

  • The possession in an unlawful detainer case is initially lawful but becomes unlawful upon the expiration or termination of the right to possess. (cause of action of unlawful detainer)

  • A claim of possession de jure or ownership does not transform an ejectment suit into an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria. An ejectment suit remains an accion interdictal, a summary proceeding independent of any claim of ownership. (nature of ejectment suit)