Case Digest: CRISPINA UNIDA et al. v. HEIRS OF AMBROSIO URBAN

CRISPINA UNIDA et al. v. HEIRS OF AMBROSIO URBAN

460 SCRA 68 (2005), THIRD DIVISION

Respondent Heirs of Ambrosio Urban filed with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) a complaint for unlawful detainer against Crispina Unida, et al. The heirs claim ownership over the property. They contend that since the property was previously infested by NPA insurgents, the owners of the property did nothing but to tolerate the stay of Unida, et al. Unida et al. likewise claim ownership over the said property, stating that the title of the property was fraudulently obtained by the said heirs. The MTC rendered a decision against Unida et. al.

The Regional Trial Court reversed the MTC decision, holding that since the complaint itself asserted that Unida et al.‘s entry into the property was unlawful from the very beginning, the allegation of heirs regarding the tolerance cannot be considered as tolerance in contemplation of law in unlawful detainer case. Moreover, there is no forcible entry or violence attending the case; hence, the action for unlawful detainer was improper. The RTC suggested that the proper remedy was to file an accion reivindicatoria. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the trial court decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not an action for unlawful detainer is an improper remedy

HELD:

Unida et al.‟s entry into the property was, by the heirs‘ own information, unlawful from the very beginning. The heirs, nonetheless, claimed that it merely tolerated Unida et al.‘s presence in the property. Clearly, an unlawful detainer action does not lie.

For to justify an action for unlawful detainer, the permission or tolerance must have been present at the beginning of the possession. Otherwise, if the possession was unlawful from the start, an action for unlawful detainer would be an improper remedy.

As correctly held then by the RTC, the case cannot be considered as an unlawful detainer case, the “tolerance” claimed by heirs not being that contemplated by law in unlawful detainer cases; neither can the case be considered as one for forcible entry because the entry of Unida et al. was not alleged to have been by means of force, intimidation, threats, stealth or strategy.

Since the complaint did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of a valid cause for unlawful detainer or forcible entry, the MTC had no jurisdiction over the case. It is in this light that the Court finds that the RTC correctly found that the MTC had no jurisdiction over the complaint.