View full case

TERESITA BUGAYONG-SANTIAGO v. TEOFILO BUGAYONG

FACTS:

Petitioner Teresita Bugayong-Santiago and her husband Edgardo Santiago purchased a commercial land with a building structure in Asingan, Pangasinan through a Deed of Absolute Sale. The land was originally owned by Teresita's parents and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 37637. When Edgardo died in 2007, the children inherited one-half of the land. In 2008, petitioners sent a letter to respondent Teofilo Bugayong, Teresita's brother, demanding him to vacate the property. Petitioners filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), alleging that Teofilo has been occupying a portion of the land and building without paying any lease rental. Teofilo answered that the land was owned by their parents and he had been in possession of the property before the sale between his parents and the petitioners. The MCTC ordered Teofilo to vacate the property. However, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the decision, stating that the action should have been accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria instead of unlawful detainer. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. Petitioners then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the complaint filed by the petitioners for unlawful detainer against the respondent is proper.

  2. Whether the respondent's entry into the property was illegal.

  3. Whether an action for unlawful detainer can prosper when there was forcible entry at the beginning and tolerance thereafter.

  4. Whether the complaint satisfied the jurisdictional requirement of a valid cause for unlawful detainer.

RULING:

  1. The complaint filed by the petitioners for unlawful detainer is proper. The Court stated that the remedies for forcible entry and unlawful detainer are laid down in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. In the present case, the petitioners filed an unlawful detainer case against the respondent before the Municipal Trial Court (MCTC). The Court held that an unlawful detainer case must be filed within one year from the date of the last demand if the entry into the property is legal but the possession thereafter became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess.

  2. The Court did not explicitly rule on whether the respondent's entry into the property was illegal. However, the Court stated that if the entry into the property is illegal, the action that may be filed against the intruder is forcible entry, which must be brought within one year from the illegal entry.

  3. An action for unlawful detainer cannot prosper when there was forcible entry at the beginning and tolerance thereafter. The possession must have been originally lawful, and only turned unlawful upon the expiration of the right to possess.

  4. The complaint did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of a valid cause for unlawful detainer. The complaint lacked details on how entry was effected and when dispossession started. The failure to allege the key jurisdictional facts constitutive of unlawful detainer is fatal.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Ejectment or accion interdictal takes on two forms: forcible entry and unlawful detainer.

  • In forcible entry, one is deprived of physical possession of 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.

  • The cause of action in ejectment cases is determined by the nature of defendant's entry into the land. If the entry is illegal, then forcible entry is the appropriate action. If the entry is legal but the possession thereafter became illegal, the case is one of unlawful detainer.

  • To justify an action for unlawful detainer, it is essential that the plaintiff’s supposed act of tolerance must have been present right from the start of the possession which is later sought to be recovered.

  • Jurisdiction in ejectment cases is determined by the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought. The complaint should embody such statement of facts as to bring the case clearly within the class of cases under the Rules of Court, as these proceedings are summary in nature.

  • Dismissal of an unlawful detainer case does not bar the filing of an action for accion publiciana, where the owner of the property who was dispossessed failed to bring an action for ejectment within one year, or an accion reivindicatoria alleging ownership of the property and seeking recovery of its full possession.