Case Digest: LAURENCE M. SISON v. EUSEBIA CARIAGA

LAURENCE M. SISON v. EUSEBIA CARIAGA

594 SCRA 661 (2009), SECOND DIVISION

Laurence Sison (Laurence) and his siblings were the donee of a parcel of land donated by Teofilo and Nelson Sison. They later found out that the house of Eusebia Cariaga (Cariaga) was built in a portion of the land donated to Laurence and his siblings. Laurence repeatedly demanded Cariaga to vacate the property but the same was kept unheeded.

Laurence thereafter filed a complaint to the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) for unlawful detainer against Cariaga. Cariaga claimed that the land where her and her siblings‘ house stands is covered by Torrens Title in the name of her deceased father Juan Cariaga who possesses the land since 1940. The MCTC ruled in favor of Laurence. The Regional Trial Court, however, reversed the decision of the MCTC and ruled that the Laurence failed to substantiate his allegation that Cariaga‘s occupation was merely tolerated.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the RTC. It ruled that unlawful detainer is not the proper remedy because what is involved is possession de jure since both parties claim ownership on the subject lot. It further held that what was involved was a boundary dispute and not a simple case of who has the better right of possession.

ISSUE:

Whether or not unlawful detainer is the proper remedy to be sought

HELD:

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. 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.

Laurence‘s complaint established the basic elements of a complaint for unlawful detainer to vest jurisdiction over it in the MCTC. That Cariaga has, in her Answer, claimed that her father owned the lot on which her house stands did not render the complaint for unlawful detainer dismissible, for the issue of ownership may, in an ejectment case, be resolved only to determine the issue of possession.