Lawyerly

GR No. 156995

2015-01-12

BERSAMIN, J.

Thirdly, the MTC dismissed the action because it did not have jurisdiction over the case. The dismissal was correct. It is fundamental that the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought by the complaint determine the nature of the action and the court that has jurisdiction over the action.[28] To be clear, unlawful detainer is an action filed by a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession by virtue of any contract, express or implied.[29] To vest in the MTC the jurisdiction to effect the ejectment from the land of the respondents as the occupants in unlawful detainer, therefore, the complaint should embody such a statement of facts clearly showing the attributes of unlawful detainer.[30] However, the allegations of the petitioners' complaint did not show that they had permitted or tolerated the occupation of the portion of their property by the respondents; or how the respondents' entry had been effected, or how and when the dispossession by the respondents had started. All that the petitioners alleged was the respondents' "illegal use and occupation" of the property. As such, the action was not unlawful detainer.

GR No. 164277

2014-10-08

FE U. QUIJANO v. ATTY. DARYLL A. AMANTE

BERSAMIN, J.

Considering that the allegation of the petitioner's tolerance of the respondent's possession of the disputed property was not established, the possession could very well be deemed illegal from the beginning. In that case, her action for unlawful detainer has to fail.[34] Even so, the Court would not be justified to treat this ejectment suit as one for forcible entry because the complaint contained no allegation that his entry in the property had been by force, intimidation, threats, strategy or stealth.

GR No. 177847

2009-07-31

LAURENCE M. SISON v. EUSEBIA CARIAGA

CARPIO MORALES, J.

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.[10] 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.[11]

GR No. 167195

2009-05-08

ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST v. T.J. ENTERPRISES

TINGA, J.

However, the execution of a public instrument only gives rise to a prima facie presumption of delivery. Such presumption is destroyed when the delivery is not effected because of a legal impediment.[13] It is necessary that the vendor shall have control over the thing sold that, at the moment of sale, its material delivery could have been made.[14] Thus, a person who does not have actual possession of the thing sold cannot transfer constructive possession by the execution and delivery of a public instrument.[15]

GR NO. 151322

2006-10-11

MARIO L. COPUYOC v. ERLINDA DE SOLA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

First, while it may be true that the Absolute Deed of Sale of Real Estate between respondent and Christine Quesada was executed on June 7, 1993, prior to the Contract to Sell between petitioner and the Bank of Commerce on September 6, 1995, it should be emphasized that the execution of a deed of sale is merely a prima facie presumption of delivery of possession of a piece of real property, which is destroyed when the delivery is not effected because of a legal impediment. Said constructive or symbolic delivery, being merely presumptive, may be negated by the failure of the vendee to take actual possession of the land sold,[29] as in respondent's case. Records show that respondent never occupied the property from the time it was allegedly sold to her on June 7, 1993 or at any time thereafter.

GR NO. 132424

2006-05-04

SPS. BONIFACIO R. VALDEZ v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

To justify an action for unlawful detainer, it is essential that the plaintiff's supposed acts of tolerance must have been present right from the start of the possession which is later sought to be recovered.[15] Otherwise, if the possession was unlawful from the start, an action for unlawful detainer would be an improper remedy.[16] As explained in Sarona v. Villegas[17]:But even where possession preceding the suit is by tolerance of the owner, still, distinction should be made.

GR NO. 145878

2006-04-25

MARCIANO BLANCO v. FELIMON RIVERA

CORONA, J.

When immovable property is sold to two different buyers at different times, ownership is determined in accordance with Article 1544 of the Civil Code[15] which provides:ART. 1544. xxx

GR NO. 157033

2005-03-28

GERARDO O. LANUZA v. MA. VIVIAN YUCHENGCO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Then, too, it is an unbending rule that what determines the nature of an action as well as the court which has jurisdiction over it are the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought.[21] The complaint filed by petitioner prayed, inter alia, that after trial on the merits, a judgment be rendered adjudging defendants jointly and severally liable to plaintiff for attorney's fees in the amount of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P250,000.00) and for expenses of litigation.[22]

GR NO. 158166

2005-01-21

MINERVA UMPOC v. MILDRED MERCADO AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF ESTATE OF LATE DR. JESUSA BARRIOS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It is apodictic that what determines the nature of an action as well as which court has jurisdiction over it are the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought.[31] In an unlawful detainer case, the defendant's possession was originally lawful but ceased to be so by the expiration of his right to possess. Hence, the phrase "unlawful withholding" has been held to imply possession on the part of defendant, which was legal in the beginning, having no other source than a contract, express or implied, and which later expired as a right and is being withheld by defendant.[32]

GR No. 152776

2003-10-08

HENRY S. OAMINAL v. PABLITO M. CASTILLO

PANGANIBAN, J.

Be that as it may, a petition for certiorari may be treated as a petition for review under Rule 45. Such move is in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice, especially (1) if the petition was filed within the reglementary period for filing a petition for review;[24] (2) errors of judgment are averred;[25] and (3) there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules.[26] Besides, it is axiomatic that the nature of an action is determined by the allegations of the complaint or petition and the character of the relief sought.[27] The Court explained:"x x x. It cannot x x x be claimed that this petition is being used as a substitute for appeal after that remedy has been lost through the fault of petitioner. Moreover, stripped of allegations of `grave abuse of discretion,' the petition actually avers errors of judgment rather than of jurisdiction, which are the subject of a petition for review."[28]

	GR No. 156995 2015-01-12	RUBEN MANALANG v. BIENVENIDO BERSAMIN, J.
Thirdly, the MTC dismissed the action because it did not have jurisdiction over the case. The dismissal was correct. It is fundamental that the allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought by the complaint determine the nature of the action and the court that has jurisdiction over the action.[28] To be clear, unlawful detainer is an action filed by a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession by virtue of any contract, express or implied.[29] To vest in the MTC the jurisdiction to effect the ejectment from the land of the respondents as the occupants in unlawful detainer, therefore, the complaint should embody such a statement of facts clearly showing the attributes of unlawful detainer.[30] However, the allegations of the petitioners' complaint did not show that they had permitted or tolerated the occupation of the portion of their property by the respondents; or how the respondents' entry had been effected, or how and when the dispossession by the respondents had started. All that the petitioners alleged was the respondents' "illegal use and occupation" of the property. As such, the action was not unlawful detainer.
	GR No. 164277 2014-10-08	FE U. QUIJANO v. ATTY. DARYLL A. AMANTE BERSAMIN, J.
Considering that the allegation of the petitioner's tolerance of the respondent's possession of the disputed property was not established, the possession could very well be deemed illegal from the beginning. In that case, her action for unlawful detainer has to fail.[34] Even so, the Court would not be justified to treat this ejectment suit as one for forcible entry because the complaint contained no allegation that his entry in the property had been by force, intimidation, threats, strategy or stealth.
	GR No. 177847 2009-07-31	LAURENCE M. SISON v. EUSEBIA CARIAGA CARPIO MORALES, J.
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.[10] 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.[11]
	GR No. 167195 2009-05-08	ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST v. T.J. ENTERPRISES TINGA, J.
However, the execution of a public instrument only gives rise to a prima facie presumption of delivery. Such presumption is destroyed when the delivery is not effected because of a legal impediment.[13] It is necessary that the vendor shall have control over the thing sold that, at the moment of sale, its material delivery could have been made.[14] Thus, a person who does not have actual possession of the thing sold cannot transfer constructive possession by the execution and delivery of a public instrument.[15]
	GR NO. 151322 2006-10-11	MARIO L. COPUYOC v. ERLINDA DE SOLA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
First, while it may be true that the Absolute Deed of Sale of Real Estate between respondent and Christine Quesada was executed on June 7, 1993, prior to the Contract to Sell between petitioner and the Bank of Commerce on September 6, 1995, it should be emphasized that the execution of a deed of sale is merely a prima facie presumption of delivery of possession of a piece of real property, which is destroyed when the delivery is not effected because of a legal impediment. Said constructive or symbolic delivery, being merely presumptive, may be negated by the failure of the vendee to take actual possession of the land sold,[29] as in respondent's case. Records show that respondent never occupied the property from the time it was allegedly sold to her on June 7, 1993 or at any time thereafter.
	GR NO. 132424 2006-05-04	SPS. BONIFACIO R. VALDEZ v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
To justify an action for unlawful detainer, it is essential that the plaintiff's supposed acts of tolerance must have been present right from the start of the possession which is later sought to be recovered.[15] Otherwise, if the possession was unlawful from the start, an action for unlawful detainer would be an improper remedy.[16] As explained in Sarona v. Villegas[17]:But even where possession preceding the suit is by tolerance of the owner, still, distinction should be made.
	GR NO. 145878 2006-04-25	MARCIANO BLANCO v. FELIMON RIVERA CORONA, J.
When immovable property is sold to two different buyers at different times, ownership is determined in accordance with Article 1544 of the Civil Code[15] which provides:ART. 1544. xxx
	GR NO. 157033 2005-03-28	GERARDO O. LANUZA v. MA. VIVIAN YUCHENGCO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Then, too, it is an unbending rule that what determines the nature of an action as well as the court which has jurisdiction over it are the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought.[21] The complaint filed by petitioner prayed, inter alia, that after trial on the merits, a judgment be rendered adjudging defendants jointly and severally liable to plaintiff for attorney's fees in the amount of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P250,000.00) and for expenses of litigation.[22]
	GR NO. 158166 2005-01-21	MINERVA UMPOC v. MILDRED MERCADO AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF ESTATE OF LATE DR. JESUSA BARRIOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is apodictic that what determines the nature of an action as well as which court has jurisdiction over it are the allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought.[31] In an unlawful detainer case, the defendant's possession was originally lawful but ceased to be so by the expiration of his right to possess. Hence, the phrase "unlawful withholding" has been held to imply possession on the part of defendant, which was legal in the beginning, having no other source than a contract, express or implied, and which later expired as a right and is being withheld by defendant.[32]
	GR No. 152776 2003-10-08	HENRY S. OAMINAL v. PABLITO M. CASTILLO PANGANIBAN, J.
Be that as it may, a petition for certiorari may be treated as a petition for review under Rule 45. Such move is in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice, especially (1) if the petition was filed within the reglementary period for filing a petition for review;[24] (2) errors of judgment are averred;[25] and (3) there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules.[26] Besides, it is axiomatic that the nature of an action is determined by the allegations of the complaint or petition and the character of the relief sought.[27] The Court explained:"x x x. It cannot x x x be claimed that this petition is being used as a substitute for appeal after that remedy has been lost through the fault of petitioner. Moreover, stripped of allegations of `grave abuse of discretion,' the petition actually avers errors of judgment rather than of jurisdiction, which are the subject of a petition for review."[28]

TEN FORTY REALTY v. MARINA CRUZ