Unlawful withholding

In ejectment cases, the court is called upon to decide who has the better right of possession. Does this mean that a person must have been deprived of prior physical possession before he can file the ejectment suit? This is the question answered in this case of Melinda.

The property subject of this case was a parcel of land with a five door apartment covered by TCT No.257427-R in the name of Tina which she mortgaged in favor of Melinda as security for the loan of P 36,000.Upon Tina’s failure to pay when the debt became due, Melinda foreclosed on the property and the same was sold at public auction to her as highest bidder. The property was not redeemed within one year, so on May 27,1993,TCT No.257427-R was cancelled and a new one, TCT No.353973-R was issued in the name of Melinda. Occupying the five-door apartment at that time were Tina on the first door, her sisters Doris and Sally on the second and third doors while Randy and Andy occupied the fourth and fifth doors at the tolerance of Tina.

Being the new owner of the property, Melinda asked Tina, Doris, Sally, Randy and Andy to vacate the subject premises within fifteen days from notice and to pay the amount of P450 a month as rental from April 1, 1993 and every month thereafter until they finally vacate the premises. But Tina et. al. refused and continued to refuse to vacate the premises despite repeated demands by Melinda’s lawyer . So Melinda was constrained to file a complaint for ejectment against them before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) alleging the antecedent ultimate facts.

In their answer, the occupants except Tina averred that Doris was the owner of the property having acquired it way back in 1975 by virtue of a notarized Deed of Sale made by its original owners. They said that a corresponding transfer in the tax declaration was already effected in the name of Doris but the Sale was not registered and a new title was not issued to her because she left for abroad. The title was allegedly left in the custody of their mother. But when their mother died, Tina was able to get the title and later on conspired with her couple friends who posed as the prior owners and signed a fake deed of sale. By virtue of this falsified sale, Tina was able to obtain the TCT No 257427-R which was the one foreclosed and sold to Melinda. They further averred that upon Doris’ return she immediately filed a criminal suit against Tina and the couple who falsified the document of sale, as well as a civil suit for annulment of the deed and reconveyance of the property to Doris.

On April 5,1994, the MCTC rendered a decision in favor of Melinda ordering the five occupants to vacate the apartment and pay P450 a month for the premises occupied by each. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MCTC decision and dismissed Melinda’s complaint. The RTC inferred from the complaint of Melinda that Tina, her predecessor-in-interest never surrendered possession of the property though the same had already been sold to her; hence there can be no case for unlawful detainer because there was no prior possession by Melinda.

Upon appeal by Melinda to the Court of Appeals(CA), the latter affirmed the dismissal of her complaint by the RTC. But the basis of the CA for such dismissal was different from the RTC. The CA held that since there exists a genuine issue of ownership which is inextricably linked to the issue of possession, the case should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Were the RTC and the CA correct?

No.

Melinda’s complaint sufficiently make out a case of unlawful detainer. In an unlawful detainer case, the defendant’s possession was originally lawful but ceased to be so by expiration of his right to possess. Although the phrase "unlawfully withholding" was not actually used by Melinda in her complaint, the allegations therein nonetheless amount to an unlawful withholding of the subject property by Tina et. al. because they continuously refuse to vacate the premises even after Melinda’s counsel had already sent them notices to that effect.

An ejectment case may either be for forcible entry or unlawful detainer. A complaint for unlawful detainer should be distinguised from that of forcible entry. In forcible entry a person has prior possession of the property and he is deprived thereof by another person through force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. In an unlawful detainer, the person unlawfully withholds possession of the property after expiration or termination of his right thereto under any contract, express or implied; hence prior physical possession is not required. The ruling of the RTC that there can be no case of unlawful detainer because there was no prior possession by Melinda, is therefore erroneous.

The CA ruling is likewise erroneous. The Municipal Trial Courts (MTC) and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts(MCTC) or the inferior courts have jurisdiction over ejectment cases even if the question of possession can not be resolved without passing upon the issue of ownership. Even if the defendants raise the question of ownership in their answer like in this case, and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the inferior courts, nonetheless, have the undoubted competence to provisionally resolve the issue of ownership for the sole purpose of determining the issue of possession. Neither will Doris’ action for reconveyance of title of the same property or for annulment of the deed of sale in favor of Melinda divest the inferior courts of its jurisdiction to try the ejectment case. Ejectment suit is summary in nature and the same cannot be circumvented by the simple expedient of asserting ownership over the property (Barba vs. Court of Appeals et. al.G.R.126638, February 6,2002).

* * *

E-mail us at: [email protected]