EJECTMENT CASES

G.R. No. 177995

June 15, 2011

HEIRS OF AGAPITO T. OLARTE AND ANGELA A. OLARTE VS. vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS:
Subject of the instant case is a parcel of land located in Malate, Manila. The property used to be owned by the Philippine National
Railways (PNR), but was later turned over to the National Housing Authority (NHA).
Petitioners claim that their parents started occupying the subject property in 1943 by virtue of a lease contract with the PNR and
constructed thereon a two-storey residential house. On November 3, 1965, the Board of Liquidators under the Office of the
President (OP) awarded a Certificate of Priority to Agapito Olarte. When their parents passed away, petitioner Norma was then
designated as administratrix of the subject property. Thereafter, the two-storey residential house was declared in the name of
Agapito for taxation purposes. Subsequently, petitioners leased out a portion of the residential house to respondents Timbang and
Ocampo.
Ocampo was judicially ejected from the premises by petitioners for nonpayment of rentals. The NHA issued a Resolution stating
therein that Timbang and Ocampo are the only qualified beneficiaries of the subject lot for having been censused as renters therein
while petitioners are all disqualified for not being census residents within the project site.
Issue:
Whether or not the Courts final judgment sustaining Ocampos ejectment from the subject property is conclusive to determine
whether petitioners are entitled to the award under the ZIP.
HELD:
NO. The only issue for resolution in an ejectment case is physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of
any claim of ownership by any of the party litigants. An ejectment case is designed to restore, through summary proceedings, the
physical possession of any land or building to one who has been illegally deprived of such possession, without prejudice to the
settlement of the parties opposing claims of juridical possession in appropriate proceedings. Any ruling on the question of
ownership is only provisional and made for the sole purpose of determining who is entitled to possession de facto. Certainly, a
judgment in an ejectment case could only resolve the question as to who has a better right to possess the subject property but
definitely, it could not conclusively determine whether petitioners are entitled to the award under the ZIP or ascertain if
respondents are disqualified beneficiaries.
G.R. No. 178096

March 23, 2011

ROSA DELOS REYES vs. SPOUSES FRANCISCO ODONES

FACTS:
Petitioner alleges that she is the owner of the lot, as shown by TCT No. 392430, issued by the Registry of Deeds of Tarlac; that
respondents are occupying the lot by virtue of petitioners tolerance; and that petitioner sent a letter to respondents on June 17,
2005, demanding that they vacate the property, but they failed and refused to do so. The complaint was filed on July 12, 2005, or
within one year from the time the last demand to vacate was made.
The MTC ruled in favor of petitioner, and ordered respondents to vacate the property. Upon appeal, the CA affirmed the judgment
of the RTC and held that the complaint failed to aver acts constitutive of forcible entry or unlawful detainer since it did not state how
entry was effected or how and when the dispossession started. Hence, the remedy should either be accion publiciana or accion
reivindicatoria in the proper RTC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the MTC has jurisdiction over the case.

HELD:
Yes. Well-settled is the rule that what determines the nature of the action, as well as the court which has jurisdiction over the case,
are the allegations in the complaint. In ejectment cases, the complaint should embody such statement of facts as to bring the party
clearly within the class of cases for which the statutes provide a remedy, as these proceedings are summary in nature. Contrary to
the findings of the RTC and CA, petitioners allegations in the complaint clearly makes out a case for unlawful detainer, essential to
confer jurisdiction over the subject matter on the MTC.
Unlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real property from one who illegally withholds possession after the
expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied. The possession by the defendant in
unlawful detainer is originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess. Based on the
`foregoing, the MTC validly acquired jurisdiction over the complaint.
G.R. No. 178159

March 2, 2011

SPS. VICENTE DIONISIO AND ANITA DIONISIO vs. WILFREDO LINSANGAN

FACTS:
Dionisios bought the land from Cruz on September 30, 1989; that Romualdo used to be the lands tenant; that when he died, the
Dionisios allowed his widow, Emiliana, to stay under a promise that she would leave the land upon demand; that in April 2002 the
Dionisios discovered on visit to the land that Emiliana had left it and that Wilfredo now occupied it under a claim that he bought the
right to stay from Emiliana under a "Kasunduan ng Bilihan ng Karapatan;" that the Dionisios did not know of and gave no consent to
this sale which had not been annotated on their title; that the Dionisios verbally told Wilfredo to leave the property by April 31,
2002; that their lawyer reiterated such demand in writing on April 22, 2002; that Wilfredo did not heed the demand; that the
Dionisios wanted to get possession so they could till the land and demolish Wilfredos house on it; that Wilfredo did not give the
Dionisios just share in the harvest; and that the Dionisios were compelled to get the services of counsel for P100,000.00.
On May 3, 2004 the MTC rendered judgment, ordering Wilfredo to vacate the land and remove his house from it. Upon appeal, the
CA held that, by amending their complaint, the Dionisios effectively changed their cause of action from unlawful detainer to
recovery of possession which fell outside the jurisdiction of the MTC.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the Dionisios amendment of their complaint effectively changed their cause of action from one of
ejectment to one of recovery of possession.
HELD:
Yes. To determine if an amendment introduces a different cause of action, the test is whether such amendment now requires the
defendant to answer for a liability or obligation which is completely different from that stated in the original complaint. Here, both
the original and the amended complaint required Wilfredo to defend his possession based on the allegation that he had stayed on
the land after Emiliana left out of the owners mere tolerance and that the latter had demanded that he leave. Indeed, Wilfredo did
not find the need to file a new answer.
An action is for unlawful detainer if the complaint sufficiently alleges the following: (1) initially, the defendant has possession of
property by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) eventually, however, such possession became illegal upon plaintiffs
notice to defendant, terminating the latters right of possession; (3) still, the defendant remains in possession, depriving the plaintiff
of the enjoyment of his property; and (4) within a year from plaintiffs last demand that defendant vacate the property, the plaintiff
12
files a complaint for defendants ejectment. If the defendant had possession of the land upon mere tolerance of the owner, such
tolerance must be present at the beginning of defendants possession.

G.R. No. 176413

November 25, 2009

SPOUSES DANILO T. SAMONTE and ROSALINDA N. SAMONTE vs. CENTURY SAVINGS BANK, Respondent.
FACTS:
Petitioners were the previous owners of the subject property. However, they lost their right over the property in an extrajudicial
foreclosure of mortgage wherein respondent emerged as the highest bidder. Petitioners, however, remained in possession thereof
as lessees in a contract of lease executed after the expiration of the redemption period. For failure to pay the stipulated rents,
respondent commenced an action for ejectment. Petitioners, in turn, instituted a case for the nullification of the foreclosure
proceedings involving the same property. When the ejectment case reached the CA, petitioners sought the suspension of the
proceedings solely by reason of the pendency of the nullification case.
ISSUE: The only issue for determination is whether the instant ejectment case should be suspended pending the resolution of the
action for nullity of foreclosure.
HELD:
NO. As a general rule, an ejectment suit cannot be abated or suspended by the mere filing of another action raising ownership of
the property as an issue. Only in rare instances is suspension allowed to await the outcome of a pending civil action. In Vda. de
Legaspi v. Avendao, and Amagan v. Marayag, which ordered the suspension of the ejectment proceedings on considerations of
equity. Verily, petitioners failed to show "strong reasons of equity" to sustain the suspension or dismissal of the ejectment case. The
Court adheres to settled jurisprudence that suits involving ownership may not be successfully pleaded in abatement of an action for
ejectment. This rule is not without good reason. If the rule were otherwise, ejectment cases could easily be frustrated through the
simple expedient of filing an action contesting the ownership over the property subject of the controversy. This would render
nugatory the underlying philosophy of the summary remedy of ejectment which is to prevent criminal disorder and breaches of the
peace and to discourage those who, believing themselves entitled to the possession of the property, resort to force rather than to
some appropriate action in court to assert their claims.
G.R. No. 182716

June 20, 2012

HEIRS OF JOSE MALIGASO, SR. vs. SPOUSES SIMON D. ENCINAS and ESPERANZA E. ENCINAS
FACTS:
The subject matter of this controversy is a portion of Lot No. 3517 which petitioners continue to occupy despite having received two
(2) notices to vacate from the respondents. The petitioners refused to leave, claiming that the subject area was the share of their
father, Jose Maligaso, Sr. (Jose, Sr.), in their grandparents estate. Thus, the respondents filed a complaint for unlawful detainer
against them with the MTC, alleging that the petitioners occupation is by mere tolerance and had become illegal following their
refusal to vacate the property despite being demanded to do so twice. The CA ruled in favor of the respondents.
ISSUE:
Whether the respondents have the right to evict the petitioners from the subject property and this should be resolved in the
respondents favor.
HELD;
YES. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases are summary proceedings designed to provide for an expeditious means of
protecting actual possession or the right to the possession of the property involved. The avowed objective of actions for forcible
entry and unlawful detainer, which have purposely been made summary in nature, is to provide a peaceful, speedy and expeditious
means of preventing an alleged illegal possessor of property from unjustly continuing his possession for a long time, thereby
ensuring the maintenance of peace and order in the community. However, its being summary poses a limitation on the nature of
issues that can be determined and fully ventilated. It is for this reason that the proceedings are concentrated on the issue on
possession. Thus, whether the petitioners have a better right to the contested area and whether fraud attended the issuance of

Marias title over Lot No. 3517 are issues that are outside the jurisdiction and competence of a trial court in actions for unlawful
detainer and forcible entry. This is in addition to the long-standing rule that a Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked, to which
an ejectment proceeding, is not an exception.
G.R. No. 136274

September 3, 2003

SUNFLOWER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION vs. COURT OF APPEAL

FACTS:
Private respondent Elisa Maglaqui-Caparas, in her capacity as executrix of the testate estate of Macaria Maglaqui, filed a complaint
4
for unlawful detainer against Alfredo Mogar and 46 other persons who were occupying several parcels of land (Lots 1-A, B, C, E, F
and G) in Yellow Ville, United Paraaque Subdivision IV, Metro Manila. These parcels of land are covered by individual transfer
5
certificates of title registered in the name of Macaria Maglaqui, private respondents mother. The MetC eventually decided in favor
of private respondent. The writ, however, was not immediately implemented because the case was transferred to another Branch
of the same court.
Meanwhile, another group of persons occupying portions of the parcels of land (Lots I-F and I-G) subject of the unlawful detainer
case, organized themselves into the Sunflower Neighborhood Association (Sunflower), the petitioner herein. Sunflower argued that
its members should be excluded from the demolition order as they were not parties to the original unlawful detainer case. To
include their houses in the demolition would be to deprive them of due process.
ISSUE: Whether petitioners members, who were not parties to the unlawful detainer case, may be ejected from the land subject of
this case.
HELD: It is well-settled that, although an ejectment suit is an action in personam wherein the judgment is binding only upon the
parties properly impleaded and given an opportunity to be heard, the judgment becomes binding on anyone who has not been
impleaded if he or she is: (a) a trespasser, squatter or agent of the defendant fraudulently occupying the property to frustrate the
judgment; (b) a guest or occupant of the premises with the permission of the defendant; (c) a transferee pendente lite; (d) a
sublessee; (e) a co-lessee or (f) a member of the family, relative or privy of the defendant.