RepublicofthePhilippines

MUNICIPALTRIALCOURT
CagayandeOroCity
Branch1

JUANDELACRUZ
Plaintiff,

versus CIVILCASENO.98211
FOR:UnlawfulDetainer

JAKEZYRUS
Defendant.
xx

DECISION

Before this court is a complaint for unlawful detainer filed by Juan de la Cruz, thus
demandingforthecollectionofunpaidrentalsbytherespondent,andfurtherfortheeviction
ofthelatterfromthehouseoftheplaintiffbeingleasedbytherespondent.

Thefactsofthecaseareasfollows.

HereinplaintiffJuandelaCruz,Filipinocitizen,istheownerofthehouseleasedbythe
respondent.ThelatterstartedtooccupythepropertyonMay2015.RespondentZyrushas
been paying said rentals until December 2015 when he started defaulting on payments.
Petitionersentdemandlettersandevenvisitedrespondentonthesaidhouse,butthelatter
refusedtopay.

Inhisdefense,respondentallegesthatthesaidcontractheenteredintowasbelievedtobeof
saleandnotoflease,andtherefore,petitionerhasnorighttoousthimfromthesaidproperty.
Further, the reason he couldnt pay was due to financial difficulties caused by serious
ailments.

In the hearing, both parties have presented their respective witnesses and documents
pertainingtotheleaseandsale.Thiscourthasbeenchallengedtolookintotheauthenticity
ofthetwodocumentspresentedbytheparties,oneforlease,andtheotherforsale.But
corroboratingtestimonieswiththeunfoldingoftheeventsandothercircumstances,thecourt
willnowdecideonthecontendingparties.

Theissuescalledforbythiscasewerethatwhetherornotthedefendantcanbeejectedfor
unlawfuldetainer, andsecond,whether ornotthecontract wasofleaseorofsale,thus
whetherornotthiscourthasjurisdiction.

TheCourtsRuling

Wefindforthepetitioner.

Page 1
OntheIssueofUnlawfulDetainer

Thekeyissueinthiscaseiswhetheranactionforunlawfuldetaineristheproperremedy.

InValdez,Jr.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.132424,thecourtruledthatunlawfuldetaineris
asummaryactionfortherecoveryofpossessionofrealproperty.Thisactionmaybefiledby
alessor,vendor,vendee,orotherpersonagainstwhomthepossessionofanylandorbuilding
isunlawfullywithheldaftertheexpirationorterminationoftherighttoholdpossessionby
virtueofanycontract,expressorimplied|||

Thecourtfurtherruledthatinunlawfuldetainercases,thepossessionofthedefendantwas
originallylegal,ashispossessionwaspermittedbytheplaintiffonaccountofanexpressor
impliedcontractbetweenthem.However,defendant'spossessionbecameillegalwhenthe
plaintiff demanded that defendant vacate the subject property due to the expiration or
terminationoftherighttopossessundertheircontract,anddefendantrefusedtoheedsuch
demand. A case for unlawful detainer must be instituted one year from the unlawful
withholdingofpossession.

Theallegationsinthecomplaintdetermineboththenatureoftheactionandthejurisdiction
ofthecourt.Thecomplaintmustspecificallyallegethefactsconstitutingunlawfuldetainer.
Intheabsenceoftheseallegationsoffacts,anactionforunlawfuldetainerisnottheproper
remedyandthemunicipaltrialcourtortheMeTCdoesnothavejurisdictionoverthecase.

Inhisamendedcomplaint,thepetitionerpresentsthefollowingallegationsinsupportofhis
unlawfuldetainercomplaint:

OnAprilMay2016,respondentleasedfromlessorthehouseownedandregisteredinthe
lessorsname,coveringtheareaoccupiedbythedefendants.
xxxx

Lessor had acquired the subject property as early as 1991 through sale, thereafter the
aforesaidTransferCertificateofTitlewassubsequentlyregisteredunderhisname.

Thepetitionerleasedthelottothedefendantforaperiodoftwoyearsatamonthlyrentalat
P10,000

Thecontractofleaseabovereferredtostipulatesthat

TERM:ThistermofleaseisforONE(2)YEARS.fromDecember2,2015toDecember
2,2017inclusive.Uponitsexpiration,thisleasemayberenewedundersuchtermsand
conditionsasmybemutuallyagreeduponbybothparties,writtennoticeofintentionto
renewtheleaseshallbeservedtotheLESSORnotlaterthanseven(7)dayspriortothe
expirydateoftheperiodhereinagreedupon.

DEFAULTPAYMENT:IncaseofdefaultbytheLESSEEinthepaymentoftherent,such
aswhenthechecksaredishonored,theLESSORatitsoptionmayterminatethiscontractand
ejecttheLESSEE.TheLESSORhastherighttopadlockthepremiseswhentheLESSEEis
indefaultofpaymentforOne(1)monthandmayforfeitwhateverrentaldepositoradvances
havebeengivenbytheLESSEE

Duringthetermofthecontract,thedefendantfailedtopaytheagreedamount.The
outstandingbalancereckonsfromJune2,2016,uptopresent.

Page 2
Thedefendant,havingbeenfullyawareoftheirunlawfuloccupancyofthesubjectlot,has
defiantlyrefusedtopaymonthlyrentalsfromDecember2015andthereafter.

Byreasonofdefendantscontinuedunlawfuloccupancyofthesubjectpremises,plaintiff
referredthemattertohislawyerandhadhispersonalassistantimmediatelysendaformal
demanduponhedefendantstovacatethepremises.Copiesofthedemandletterarehereto
attachedasannexes.Despitenotice,however,thedefendantsfailed,refusedandcontinueto
failandrefusetovacatethepremiseswithoutvalidorlegaljustification,whichwouldmake
thedefendantspossessionthereofasillegal.

Clearly,thecaseatbarhasalltherequisitesofanunlawfuldetainer.Ithasbeensufficiently
establishedthatawrittencontractexistedbetweenthepartiesandthatrentwasbeingpaidby
respondenttopetitioneronamonthtomonthbasis.Therespondenthimselfallegedthatshe
hasbeenoccupyingtheleasedpremisesandpayingthemonthlyrentalswithoutfailsince
December2010.Hence,petitioner'sargumentthatthecontractofleasebetweenherand
respondentthatshemaynotbeejectedonthegroundofnonpayment.InMacasaetv.
MacasaetGRNo.,G.R.Nos.15439192,inactionsforunlawfuldetainer,possessionthat
wasoriginallylawfulbecomesunlawfulupontheexpirationorterminationofthedefendant's
righttopossess,arisingfromanexpressorimpliedcontract.Inotherwords,theplaintiff's
causeofactioncomesfromtheexpirationorterminationofthedefendant'srighttocontinue
possession.Thecaseresultingtherefrommustbefiledwithinoneyearfromthedateofthe
lastdemand.|||

Moreover,respondenthasfailedtosufficientlysupporthisclaimthatthereisfraudinthe
allegedcontractofleasebecauseitwasactuallyoneforasale.

Thepetitioners,therefore,haveestablishedarighttoevictprivaterespondentfromthe
subjectpremisesfornonpaymentofrentals.Whenprivaterespondentfailedtopaythe
increasedrental,thepetitionershadacauseofactiontoinstituteanejectmentsuitagainstthe
formerwiththethenCityCourt.

OntheIssueofJurisdiction

Aspreviouslydiscussed,thesettledruleisjurisdictionisbasedontheallegations inthe
initiatorypleadingandthedefensesintheansweraredeemedirrelevantandimmaterialinits
determination.However,werelaxtheruleandconsiderthecomplaintatbarasanexception
in view of the special and unique circumstances present.First, as inIgnacio v. CFI of
Bulacan,thedefenseoflackofjurisdictionwasraisedintheanswerwhereintherewasan
admissionthatpetitionerDelaCruzwasalesseeoftheformerownersofthelot,theReyeses,
prior to the sale to respondent Tan Te.The fact that petitioner was a tenant of the
predecessorsininterest of respondent Tan Te is material to the determination of
jurisdiction.Since this is a judicial admission against the interest of petitioner, such
admissioncanbeconsideredindeterminingjurisdiction.Second,theejectmentsuitwasfiled
withtheManilaMeTConSeptember8,1997ormorethannine(9)yearsago.Todismissthe
complaintwouldbeaseriousblowtotheeffectivedispensationofjusticeasthepartieswill
startanewandincuradditionallegalexpensesafterhavinglitigatedforalongtime.Equitable
justicedictatesthatallegationsintheanswershouldbeconsideredtoaidinarrivingatthe
realnatureoftheaction.Lastly,Section6,Rule1oftheRulesofCourtclearlyempowersthe
CourttoconstrueRule70andotherpertinentproceduralissuancesinaliberalmannerto
promotejust,speedy,andinexpensivedispositionofeveryactionandproceeding.

Page 3

Basedonthecomplaintandtheanswer,itisapparentthattheTanTeejectmentcomplaintis
afterallacomplaintforunlawfuldetainer.ItwasadmittedthatpetitionerDelaCruzwasa
lesseeoftheReyesesforaroundfour(4)decades.Thus,initiallypetitioneraslesseeisthe
legalpossessorofthesubjectlotbyvirtueofacontractoflease.Whenfiredestroyedher
house,theReyesesconsideredtheleaseterminated;butpetitionerDelaCruzpersistedin
returning to the lot and occupied it by strategy and stealth without the consent of the
owners.The Reyeses howevertoleratedthe continued occupancy of the lot by
petitioner.Thus,whenthelotwassoldtorespondentTanTe,therightsoftheReyeses,with
respecttothelot,weretransferredtotheirsubrogee,respondentTanTe,whoforatime
alsotoleratedthestayofpetitioneruntilshedecidedtoejectthelatterbysendingseveral
demands,thelastbeingtheJanuary14,1997letterofdemand.Sincetheactionwasfiled
withtheMeTConSeptember8,1997,theactionwasinstitutedwellwithintheone(1)year
period reckoned fromJanuary 14, 1997.Hence, the nature of the complaint is one of
unlawfuldetainerandtheManilaMeTChadjurisdictionoverthecomplaint.

Thus,anejectmentcomplaintbasedonpossessionbytoleranceoftheowner,liketheTanTe
complaint,isaspecieofunlawfuldetainercases.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered for the plaintiff and
againstdefendant,orderingthelatterandallpersonsclaimingrightsunderher:

1.TovacatethepremiseslocatedatB1L52,SantaBarbara,Kauswagan,CagayandeOro
City,anddeliverthepeacefulpossessionthereoftotheplaintiff[;]

2.TopayplaintiffthesumofP10,000ascompensationfortheuseandoccupancyofthe
premisesfrom B1L52,SantaBarbara,Kauswagan,CagayandeOroCity,anddeliverthe
peacefulpossessionthereoftotheplaintiff[;]plusP10,000amonthstartingJune2016until
defendantandallperson[s]claimingrightsunderhertofinallyvacatethepremises[;]

3.TopayplaintiffthesumofP5,000.00forandasattorneysfees;and

4.Topaythecostofsuit.

SOORDERED.

CagayandeOroCity,September29,2017

NURELIASYUSOPH

PresidingJudge

Copyfurnished:

1. Atty.HanimaiMacumbal

Page 4
2. Atty.AinaSirad
3. Atty.AlyzaBurdeos
4. Atty.KrystelHypaMagallanes
5. OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral

Page 5