LAURENCE M. SISON vs. EUSEBIA CARIAGA (G.R. No. 177847 - July 31, 2009) CASE DIGEST

FACTS:

Teofilo Sison and his son Nelson purchased from the Land Bank of the Philippines a parcel of land situated in Barangay Cabuaan, Bautista, Pangasinan.

On December 14, 1999, Teofilo and Nelson donated, via a Deed of Donation, the 11 lots into which Lot 23-B was subdivided in favor of Laurence Sison (petitioner) and his therein named siblings.

After a relocation/verification survey of the subject lot, it was found out that the house of Eusebia Cariaga (respondent) was erected thereon, hence, petitioner, as co-owner, repeatedly demanded the vacation thereof by respondent, the last of which was by a September 15, 2003 letter informing her that her occupation of the subject lot was illegal and merely tolerated.  The demands were, however, unheeded.

Petitioner as co-owner of the subject lot thus filed on January 19, 2004 a complaint for unlawful detainer against respondent before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Alcala, Pangasinan.By Decision of September 7, 2004, the MCTC rendered judgment in favor of petitioner ruling that given respondent’s virtual admission of occupancy of the subject lot and of her failure to substantiate her claim of ownership, the nature of her possession is possession without title, while petitioner has the title but without possession.

On appeal by respondent, the RTC reversed the MCTC decision.The RTC held that petitioner failed to substantiate his allegation that respondent’s occupation of the subject lot was merely tolerated, hence, the complaint did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement to constitute a valid cause of action for unlawful detainer.Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.

The appellate court affirmed the RTC decision, holding that the tolerance which petitioner claimed was not present from the inception of respondent’s possession of the subject lot, for prior to petitioner and his co-owner’s acquisition thereof via donation in 1999, respondent, who constructed her house in “1972,” was already in peaceful and prior possession thereof.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration having been denied by the appellate court by Resolution of May 8, 2007, he filed the present petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUES:

Whether or not unlawful detainer was the proper remedy in the case at bar.

RULING:

The nature of an action and which court has jurisdiction over it are determined by the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought. They cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the Answer or pleadings filed by the defendant, and neither can they be made to depend on the exclusive characterization of the case by one of the parties.

X X X

Clearly, petitioner’s complaint established the basic elements of a complaint for unlawful detainer to vest jurisdiction over it in the MCTC.

That respondent has, in her Answer, claimed that her father owned the lot on which her house stands did not render the complaint for unlawful detainer dismissible, for the issue of ownership may, in an ejectment case, be resolved only to determine the issue of possession.

On the merits, by respondent and her siblings’ filing before the DARAB of a petition for annulment of the sale of Lot 23-B by the Land Bank to petitioner’s predecessors-in-interest Teofilo and Nelson Sison and for them (respondent and her siblings) to purchase said lot, respondent effectively admitted the ownership of petitioner and his co-owners of the subject lot which forms part of Lot 23-B, and that her house indeed stands on the subject lot.   On that score, the Court finds for petitioner.

Decision of Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside.