22. Dela Rosa vs. Roldan G.R. No. 13382, Sept.

5, 2006
FACTS:

The spouses Adriano Rivera and Aurora Mercado were the owners of two (2) parcels of land located in
Tarlac, Tarlac, both covered by respective titles. The spouses Rivera executed a deed of sale [2] over the
properties in favor of the spouses Arsenio Dulay and Asuncion dela Rosa. Gideon dela Rosa, one of Asuncions
brothers, was one of the instrumental witnesses in the deed. To pay for the property, the spouses Dulay, who
were members of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), secured a P9,500.00 loan and executed a
real estate mortgage over the two lots as security therefor. On September 16, 1957, the Register of Deeds issued
TCT Nos. 29040 and 29041 in the names of the spouses Dulay. The spouses Dulay forthwith took possession
of the lots, except a 500-square-meter portion which was then occupied by Gideon dela Rosa and his wife Angela
and the portion where the house of Corazon Medina stood
The spouses Dulay made demands on Gideon, Angela and Corazon to vacate the premises, as their
three daughters would be constructing their respective houses thereon. Gideon, Angela and Corazon refused to
do so, prompting the spouses to file a complaint for recovery of possession (accion publiciana) against them with
the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Tarlac. The trial court rendered judgment in Civil Case No. 6261 in favor
of the spouses Dulay and ordered the spouses Dela Rosa and Corazon Medina to vacate the property and turn
over possession to plaintiffs. The spouses Dela Rosa and Corazon Medina appealed to the CA. The case was
docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 15455. On June 29, 1990, the appellate court rendered judgment granting the
appeal and reversed the trial courts ruling. According to the appellate court, the complaint was premature on
account of plaintiffs failure to allege, in their complaint, that there had been earnest efforts to have the case
amicably settled. The spouses Dulay filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review
on Certiorari with this Court which was granted. However, the spouses Dulay failed to file their petition. Thus, the
Court resolved to declare final and executory the decision of the CA.
In the meantime, Gideon died. His wife Angela and Corazon Medina continued residing in the property
without paying any rentals therefor. Asuncion Dulay passed away on June 26, 1995, survived by her husband
Arsenio and their children. Arsenio and his children, through counsel, made demands on Corazon and Angela to
vacate the property within 30 days from receipt thereof, with a warning that failure to do so would impel them to
file the necessary legal action.[14] Nevertheless, they suggested a conference to discuss the amicable settlement
of the matter. Corazon and Angela ignored the letter. This prompted Arsenio and his children to file a complaint
for eviction against Angela and Corazon in the Office of the Barangay Captain. The parties did not arrive at a
settlement.
Arsenio and his children, as plaintiffs, filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Corazon and Angela,
as defendants, in the MTC of Tarlac, Tarlac. Angela filed a complaint against Arsenio and his children in the MTC
of Tarlac, Tarlac for recovery of ownership, reconveyance, cancellation of title, and damages. The MTC rendered
judgment in Civil Case No. 6089 in favor of Corazon and Angela and ordered the dismissal of the complaint on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction.[20] The court held that the issue between the parties was one of ownership and
not merely possession de facto.

Arsenio and his children appealed to the RTC, it reversed the decision of the MTC and ordered the eviction of
defendants, holding that the issue was the entitlement to the physical possession de facto of the property, an
issue within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MTC. Corazon and Angela moved to reconsider the decision, which
the RTC denied in an Order[24]. They filed a petition for review in the CA. The CA rendered judgment in CA-
G.R. SP No. 45560 affirming the decision of the RTC and dismissing the petition. Angela and Corazon filed a
motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied.
ISSUE:

WON THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, WITH DUE RESPECT, ERRED IN CONSIDERING
THAT THE CASE AT BAR IS ONE OF UNLAWFUL DETAINER, WHEN IT IS ONE OF
RECOVERY OF OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION.
HELD:

On the first issue, we agree with the decision of the CA that the action of respondents against petitioners was
one for unlawful detainer, and that the MTC had jurisdiction over the same. Indeed, petitioners claimed ownership
over one-half of the property in their answer to the complaint and alleged that respondents were merely trustees
thereof for their benefit as trustors; and, during the pre-trial, respondents admitted having filed their complaint for
recovery of possession of real property (accion publiciana) against petitioners before the CFI of Tarlac, docketed
as Civil Case No. 6261. However, these did not divest the MTC of its inceptial jurisdiction over the complaint for
unlawful detainer of respondents.

It is settled jurisprudence that what determines the nature of an action as well as which court or body
has jurisdiction over it are the allegations of
the complaint and the character of the relief sought, whether or not plaintiff is entitled to any and all of the reliefs
prayed for.[27] The jurisdiction of the court or tribunal over the nature of the action cannot be made to depend
upon the defenses set up in the court or upon a motion to dismiss, for otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would
depend almost entirely on defendant. Once jurisdiction is vested, the same is retained up to the end of the
litigation.[28]

Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties; it cannot be acquired
through or waived, enlarged or diminished by their act or omission. Neither is it conferred by the acquiescence
of the court. It is neither for the court nor the parties to violate or disregard the rule, this matter being legislative
in character. Thus, the jurisdiction over the nature of an action and the subject matter thereof is not affected by
the theories set up by defendant in an answer or motion to dismiss.[29]
It bears stressing that in unlawful detainer cases, the only issue for resolution, independent of any claim of
ownership by any party litigant, is: who is entitled to the physical and material possession of the property
involved? The mere fact that defendant raises the defense of ownership of the property in the pleadings does
not deprive the MTC of its jurisdiction to take cognizance of and decide the case. In cases where defendant
raises the question of ownership in the pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without
deciding the issue of ownership, the court may proceed and resolve the issue of ownership but only for the
purpose of determining the issue of possession. However, the disposition of the issue of ownership is not final,
as it may be the subject of separate proceeding specifically brought to settle the issue. Hence, the bare fact that
petitioners, in their answer to the complaint, raised the issue of whether they owned the property as trustors of a
constructive trust (with the spouses Dulay as the trustees), did not divest the MTC of its jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the case and decide the same on its merits.[30]

We agree with petitioners that the complaint of the spouses Dulay filed in 1982 docketed as Civil Case No. 6261
was one for recovery of possession of the property (accion publiciana) and that they likewise later filed a
complaint with the MTC, on January 29, 1996, for unlawful detainer in Civil Case No. 6089 instead of an accion
publiciana. However, respondents were not proscribed from filing a complaint for unlawful detainer five (5) or six
(6) years from the dismissal of their complaint for recovery of possession of real property. The dismissal of
respondents complaint in Civil Case No. 6261 by the CA was not based on the merits of the case, but solely
because it was premature on account of the failure to allege that earnest efforts were made for the amicable
settlement of the cases as required by Article 222 of the New Civil Code. The dismissal of the complaint was
thus without prejudice.[34]

We agree with the contention of petitioners that for an action for unlawful detainer based on possession by mere
tolerance to prosper, the possession of the property by defendant must be legal from the very beginning. [35] In
this case, petitioners possession of the property was tolerated by the former owners, the spouses Rivera, and by
the spouses Dulay after they purchased the property. After all, Angela was the granddaughter of Consolacion
Rivera, the sister of Adriano Rivera, and Gideon was the brother of Asuncion. However, when the spouses Dulay
needed the property for their childrens use and requested petitioners to vacate the property, the latter
refused. From then on, petitioners possession of the property became deforciant. A person who occupies the
land of another on the latters tolerance, without any contract between them, is necessarily barred by an implied
provision that he will vacate the same upon demand.[36] Respondents thus had the option to file a complaint for
unlawful detainer within one year therefrom, or an accion publiciana beyond the one-year period from the
demand of respondents as plaintiffs for petitioners to vacate the property.

We agree with the ruling of the CA. IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. Costs
against the petitioners