THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 202217. April 25, 2018.]

PABLO C. HIDALGO , petitioner, vs. SONIA VELASCO , respondent.

DECISION

MARTIRES , J : p

THE CASE

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 assailing the Decision 2
dated 6 March 2012 and the Resolution 3 dated 31 May 2012 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 120649. In ne, the CA a rmed the ruling of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 22, Narvacan, Ilocos Sur (RTC), in Civil Case No. 3211-N that the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Narvacan-Nagbukel, Ilocos Sur (MCTC) had no jurisdiction
over petitioner Pablo B. Hidalgo's (petitioner) Complaint for Unlawful Detainer and
Damages, which was filed and docketed in said trial court as Civil Case No. 636-N. cTDaEH

We required 4 the parties to submit their respective comment 5 and reply. 6 They
complied.

THE FACTS

At controversy is the possession of a Three Hundred Fifty-Two (352) square

meters piece of residential land in Brgy. Santa Lucia, Municipality of Narvacan, Province
of Ilocos Sur, denominated as Cadastral Lot No. 77.
Petitioner claims that in year 2000 its previous owner, the late Juana H. Querubin,
executed a Deed of Donation in his favor, conveying three (3) parcels of land unto him,
including Cadastral Lot No. 77; consequently, Tax Declaration No. 92-001-00987 7 was
issued in his name.
Sometime in January 2005, petitioner visited Cadastral Lot No. 77 and saw, to his
surprise, that herein respondent Sonia Velasco (respondent) was in possession of the
property. He sent several letters demanding that she vacate; the last demand letter was
dated 9 January 2006. Respondent replied. In a letter dated 2 February 2006, she
informed petitioner that per the instructions of one Jose na Reintegrado Baron, whom
she claimed was the property's owner and from whom she derived her rights, she was
not to allow petitioner to take its possession. 8
The case before the MCTC

On 8 December 2006, petitioner led before the MCTC, a complaint for Unlawful
Detainer with Damages against respondent, docketed as Civil Case No. 636-N. As the
averments of this ejectment complaint are the focus of the present review, the
Complaint for Unlawful Detainer with Damages is pertinently reproduced below in full,
viz.:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 COMPLAINT
[Petitioner], through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable
Court respectfully alleges that:
1. [Petitioner] is of legal age, married, Filipino citizen and a resident of
No. 504-A Mabini Street, Caloocan City while [respondent] is also of
legal age, married, Filipino Citizen and a resident of Barangay Sta.
Lucia Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, where summons and other processes of
this Honorable Court may be served;
2. On August 3, 2000 Juana H. Querubin executed a Deed of Donation
over three (3) parcels of land in favor of [petitioner] duly
acknowledged by Atty. Roman Mario V. Panem, Notary Public, with
Document No. 189, Page No. 39, Book No. XIV, Series of 2000 which
instrument was registered with the Register of Deeds with Entry No.
1070, Page 68, Volume 73, on December 15, 2000. Copy of the Deed
of Donation is hereto attached and marked as Annex "A" and is
made an integral part of this Complaint.
3. By virtue of the said Deed of Donation, ownership over the three (3)
parcels of land subject of donation have been transferred unto
[petitioner] who has all the legal rights to exercise the attributes of
ownership provided to him under the law;
4. Sometime on January 2005 when [petitioner] had the occasion to
visit one (1) of the three (3) parcels of land which has been donated
unto him, more particularly described as follows:
Cadastral Lot No. 77
"A residential land situated at Sta. Lucia, Narvacan, Ilocos
Sur, bounded on the North by Rizal Street; on the East by
Lot No. 78; on the South by Lot No. 761; And on the West by
Lot No. 76 containing an area of THREE HUNDRED FIFTY
TWO (352) square meters more or less, with Tax
Declaration No. 92-001-00987 in the name of Pablo
Hidalgo."
he was surprised to know that [respondent] had been occupying the
same without his permission to his prejudice. Copy of the Tax
Declaration of said lot is hereto attached and marked as Annex "B;"
5. As the lawful owner of the above described property, [petitioner]
demanded the [respondent] to vacate the same by sending several
demand letters, the most recent of which was on January 9, 2006.
Copies of the demand letters are hereto attached and marked as
Annexes "C" and "C-1;"
6. All of the said demand letters sent by [petitioner] have been received
and acknowledged by the [respondent] as evidenced by her reply,
attached herewith and marked as Annexes "D" and "D-1," where she
categorically stated that she will NOT VACATE the property subject
of this suit thereby unlawfully and illegally withholding possession
of the property of the [petitioner];
7. The refusal and continued refusal of the [respondent] to vacate the
premises of the subject property has deprived [petitioner] to hold
possession and bene cial use of the property for which
[respondent] should be made to pay a monthly rental of Five
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Thousand Pesos (Php5,000) per month from the year 2005 up to
the final determination of this case;
8. Due to the [respondent's] malicious and wanton refusal to vacate
the property in suit, [petitioner] was constrained to hire the services
of a lawyer to protect his rights and interests for a fee of TWENTY
THOUSAND PESOS (Php20,000.00) for which [respondent] should
be made answerable to [petitioner]; cSaATC

9. Herein [petitioner] has suffered anxiety, sleepless nights and

wounded feelings for having been unlawfully deprived of
possession over the subject property for which [respondent] is liable
to [petitioner] moral damages in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND
PESOS (PhP50,000.00).
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, WITH ALL THE FOREGOING , it is respectfully prayed
unto this Honorable Court that judgment be rendered:
1. Ordering the [respondent] to vacate the subject property;
2. Ordering the [respondent] to pay the [petitioner] the amount of Five
Thousand Pesos (Php5,000.00) as reasonable compensation for
the use of the subject property from January 2005, until the subject
property is vacated and restored to the [petitioner];
3. Ordering the [respondent] to pay [petitioner] the amount of Twenty
Thousand Pesos for and as attorney's fees;
4. Ordering the [respondent] to pay [petitioner the amount of] Fifty
Thousand Pesos by way of moral damages.
5. Ordering [respondent] to pay the cost of the suit.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise
prayed for. 9
xxx xxx xxx
In her Answer, respondent contended, in the main, that the MCTC had no
jurisdiction over the Complaint for Unlawful Detainer with Damages, and raised the
additional defenses, to wit: first, that Jose na Reintegrado Baron had not been
impleaded as party defendant; second, that the ejectment complaint was not compliant
with the one-year ling period for unlawful detainer cases; and, third, that petitioner was
guilty of laches. 1 0
After a preliminary hearing held for the purpose of dealing with the jurisdictional
issue, on 30 July 2008 the MCTC issued an order 1 1 upholding its jurisdiction over the
ejectment complaint. Trial ensued, during which, incidentally, the parties presented
evidence on their respective ownership claims. Petitioner's documentary evidence in
this regard includes the Deed of Donation allegedly executed by Juana H. Querubin, Tax
Declaration No. 92-001-00987, tax receipts, and a certi cation issued by the Municipal
Assessor on petitioner's payment of the realty taxes on Cadastral Lot No. 77 from
1994 to 2009. 1 2 Respondent's documentary submissions include, among others, tax
declarations in her name, an a davit by a certain Atty. Roman Mario Panem alleging
that there was a mistake in the Deed of Donation executed by Juana H. Querubin, and a
Deed of Quitclaim executed for Josefina Reintegrado Baron.
On 21 June 2010, and after the ling of position papers, 1 3 the MCTC issued a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 ruling. It resolved the ejectment suit in petitioner's favor. 1 4 The MCTC disclosed that it
had conducted a preliminary inquiry into the ownership of Cadastral Lot No. 77 and
found that it was petitioner's evidence, not respondent's, that was preponderant. 1 5 The
court took pains to emphasize that its ruling in this regard was merely provisional, and
that the matter of the ownership of Cadastral Lot No. 77 should best be ventilated and
resolved in a separate action, where ownership was speci cally placed at issue. 1 6 The
MCTC further ruled that Jose na Reintegrado Baron was not an indispensable party in
the present case as the issue to be resolved therein, being an ejectment case, was who
between the parties had the better right to possess Cadastral Lot No. 77. 1 7 The court
then stated that the running of the one-year period for the ling of an unlawful detainer
suit was to be reckoned from the date of the last demand. 1 8 Finally, the MCTC held
that petitioner could not be held guilty of laches as there was no reason to presume
that he had decided to abandon his ownership rights over Cadastral Lot No. 77. 1 9 The
dispositive of the MCTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE , premises considered, the [respondent], including any
person claiming rights under her, is ordered to:
(1) Vacate the subject premises;
(2) Pay the [petitioner] at the rate of Php2,000.000 per month from
January 9, 2006 up to the time she actually vacates from the
subject premises or the amount of Php108,000.00 from January 9,
2006 to June 9, 2010 plus such amount as may be determined
thereafter based on the above-stated rate;
(3) Attorney's Fees of Ten Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00); and
(4) Cost of suit. 2 0

The case before the RTC

Respondent led an appeal with the RTC, which was docketed as Civil Case No.
3211-N.
Incidentally, petitioner led Motion for Immediate Execution of Judgment
Pending Appeal before the same court, 2 1 bemoaning that he had led a similar motion
before the MCTC and that respondent had failed to post a supersedeas bond to stay
the same. He demanded the immediate execution of the MCTC's judgment in his favor,
following Section 19 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. 2 2
On 15 April 2011, the RTC rendered a decision 2 3 in respondent's favor. It
observed that petitioner had failed to aver in the Complaint for Unlawful Detainer with
Damages certain jurisdictional elements as to qualify the complaint as an unlawful
detainer suit. For instance, he failed to aver that respondent had held possession of
Cadastral Lot No. 77 by virtue of an express or implied contract that later expired or
terminated. 2 4 On this basis, the RTC dismissed the complaint for its failure to state a
cause of action for unlawful detainer. Incidentally, it also ruled that it could not entertain
the same complaint as a suit for forcible entry. 2 5
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. 2 6 The motion was denied. 2 7
The Ruling of the CA

Aggrieved, petitioner led a Petition for Review before the CA, which was
docketed as C.A.-G.R. SP No. 120649.
As already noted, the appellate court a rmed the dismissal of the subject
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Complaint for Unlawful Detainer with Damages. In ne, the CA agreed with the RTC that
the MCTC had no jurisdiction over the complaint. We quote the appellate court's
discussion and dispositive portion in this regard, in order that the ruling under our
review may speak for itself:
[T]he allegations in the complaint failed to make out a case for unlawful
detainer. It clearly did not contain any averment of fact that would substantiate
petitioner's claim that he permitted or tolerated the occupation of the
property by the respondent . The complaint made out by the petitioner is for
forcible entry which the MCTC cannot duly take cognizance of because there is
no statement in the complaint as to when the respondent entered into the
premises of the land.
Furthermore, and as the record of the case would bear out, it is worthy to
note that no express contract admittedly existed between the parties.
Neither could we appropriately conclude that an implied one exists as
petitioner failed to support his claim as to the presence of tolerance.
This failure of petitioner to allege the key jurisdictional facts constitutive
of unlawful detainer is fatal. Since the complaint did not satisfy the
jurisdictional requirement of a valid cause for unlawful detainer, the municipal
trial court had no jurisdiction over the case.cHDAIS

It is in this light that this Court nds that the Regional Trial Court
correctly found that the Municipal Circuit Trial Court had no jurisdiction over the
complaint.
WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby
rendered by us DENYING the instant petition. The Decision dated April 15, 2011
rendered by Branch 22 of the Regional Trial Court in Narvacan, Ilocos Sur in Civil
Case No. 3211-N is hereby AFFIRMED . 2 8
Hence, the present Petition for Review.
The Petition for Review on Certiorari

Before this Court, petitioner insists that the subject complaint su ciently
amounted to a case for unlawful detainer. 2 9 This insistence pivots on the following
pleaded points. First, that since respondent "is the one physically in possession of the
property, hence, it is she who should be ejected from the property subject matter of the
suit. To eject her from the property is clearly in order." 3 0 Second, that since the "Deed
of Quitclaim" on which Jose na Reintegrado Baron anchored her claim of ownership to
the property was not registered, it could not bind third persons and thus should be
deemed as weak evidentiary weight. 3 1 Third, the RTC's denial of petitioner's motion for
execution pending appeal was erroneous, as "[p]etitioner was entitled to such relief
simply based on the rules." 3 2

THE COURT'S RULING

We affirm the dismissal of the subject ejectment complaint.

DISCUSSION

It is immediately observable that the petition ill persuades. While the petition
rhapsodizes on the supposed merits of the subject Complaint for Unlawful Detainer
with Damages as an action for unlawful detainer viz., "We believe that the elements of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 unlawful detainer have been su ciently, if not substantially, established by Petitioner in
the case below," 3 3 it does not refer to any speci c averment in said complaint to
support this critical point.
Such failure is fatal. What is at issue before this Court is the jurisdiction of the
MCTC over the complaint at bar. The basic rule is that what determines the nature of an
action, as well as the court which has jurisdiction over it, are the allegations in the
complaint. 3 4 In ejectment complaints, such allegations must correspond to the
classes of actions de ned and provided for in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of
Court, namely forcible entry and unlawful detainer. 3 5
The complaint at bar identi es itself as an unlawful detainer suit. In Cabrera v.
Getaruela, 3 6 the Court held that a complaint su ciently alleges a cause of action for
unlawful detainer if it recites the following:
1. That initially, the possession of the property by the defendant was by
contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
2. That eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to
defendant of the termination of the latter's right of possession;
3. That thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and
deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and
4. That within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the
property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment. 3 7
These averments are jurisdictional and must appear on the face of the complaint.
38 As demonstrable on its face, the subject complaint fails to aver, at the very least, the
rst and the second recitals. We thus agree with both the RTC and the CA that it fails to
satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of an action for unlawful detainer, following
which, the MCTC could not exercise jurisdiction over it.
Incidentally, we agree with the appellate court that the recitals in the complaint
are more in tune with those in a complaint for forcible entry. In Zacarias v. Anacay, 3 9 we
gave this observation on the supposed "unlawful detainer" complaint subject of that
case:
The bare allegation of petitioner that "sometime in May, 2007" she
discovered that the defendants have entered the subject property and occupied
the same," as correctly found by the MCTC and CA, would show that
respondents entered the land and built their houses thereon clandestinely and
without petitioner's consent, which facts are constitutive of forcible entry, not
unlawful detainer. 4 0
We likewise agree with the conclusion that the MCTC would still not be able to
validly exercise jurisdiction over the subject complaint even if it were to be treated as
an action for forcible entry. That said, we cannot agree with how CA reached this
conclusion. To recall, according to the appellate court, the subject complaint could not
be deemed a viable action for forcible entry because it did not aver a date as to when
respondent had entered the premises of Cadastral Lot No. 77. Such rationale is not
consistent with our above quoted observation in Zacarias v. Anacay . To this Court's
mind, then, the proper basis lies in the subject ejectment complaint's failure to be led
on time. In Nuñez v. Slteas Phoenix Solutions, Inc., 4 1 we held:
The one-year period within which to bring an action for forcible entry is
generally counted from the date of actual entry on the land, except that when
the entry is through stealth, the one-year period is counted from the time
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 plaintiff learned thereof. 4 2
In the present case, petitioner discovered respondent's entry "Sometime on
January 2005." 4 3 Hence, he had until January 2006 within which to le the necessary
ejectment suit. He filed the present complaint over a year later, on 8 December 2006.
Given the foregoing, the rest of the arguments in the petition warrant little
consideration. Su ce it to say that the petition also raises a question of fact that the
Court cannot entertain under Rule 45.
A note in passing. We are aware that with the dismissal of the present petition,
the controversy between the parties may or may not still subsist. In similar vein, we
have previously observed that when the complaint fails to aver the facts constitutive of
forcible or unlawful detainer, as where it does not state how entry was effected or how
and when dispossession started, the remedy should either be accion publiciana or an
accion reinvindicatoria 4 4 led before the proper RTC. Should any controversy still
subsist between the parties, they may review their options and decide on their proper
recourses. For now, the recourse of the petitioner to ejectment must be dismissed. 4 5
WHEREFORE , the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated 6
March 2012 and the Resolution dated 31 May 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 120649 are hereby AFFIRMED . ISHCcT

SO ORDERED .
Velasco, Jr., Bersamin, Leonen and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-25; Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2. Id. at 26-38; penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican, and concurred in by Associate
Justices Aurora C. Lantion and Ramon A. Cruz.
3. Id. at 39-40.
4. Id. at 161-162; Resolution dated 16 July 2012; Id. at 25; Resolution dated 25 February 2013.

5. Id. at 163-165; Comment.

6. Id. at 186-189; Reply.
7. Id. at 79.
8. Id. at 27-28.
9. Id. at 41-45.

10. Id. at 6-7.

11. Id. at 51-53.
12. Id. at 79.
13. Id. at 54-76.

14. Id. at 78-87.

15. Id. at 81-83.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 16. Id. at 83.
17. Id. at 85.

18. Id. at 79.

19. Id. at 86.
20. Id. at 87.
21. Id. at 88-91.
22. Id. at 89-90.

23. Id. at 98-103.

24. Id. at 100.
25. Id. at 103.
26. Id. at 104-109.

27. Id. at 111; Order dated 11 July 2011.

28. Id. at 36-37.
29. Id. at 14.
30. Id. at 19.
31. Id.

32. Id. at 21.

33. Rollo, p. 14.
34. Cf. Zacarias v. Anacay , 744 Phil. 201, 207 (2014).
35. Id. at 207-208.
36. 604 Phil. 59 (2009).

37. Id. at 66.

38. Cf. Zacarias vs. Anacay , supra note 34 at 211.
39. Supra note 34.
40. Id. at 213.

41. 632 Phil. 143 (2010).

42. Id. at 153.
43. Rollo, p. 42.
44. Serdoncillo v. Benolirao, 358 Phil. 83, 95 (1998) citing Sarmiento v. CA, 320 Phil. 146, 156
(1995).
45. Cf. Quijano v. Amante, 745 Phil. 40, 53 (2014).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com