7/28/2019 Under Batas Pambansa Blg.doc

1/5

G.R. No. 146501. August 28, 2003

Under Batas Pambansa Blg. (BP) 129, 15 as amended by Republic Act No . (RA) 7691, theMTC shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawfuldetainer. 16 The Revised Rule on Summary Procedure (RSP) governs the remedialaspects of such suits. 17

Under Section 50 of RA 6657, 18 however, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) isvested with "primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters andshall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform." 19 In the present appeal, the Court is faced with the question of which of these two laws apply. We hold that it is BP 129, not RA 6657.

Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint. 20 This is basic.Unquestionably, petitioner lodged an action for ejectment before the MTC. 21 Under BP129, the allegations in the complaint conferred initiatory jurisdiction on that first levelcourt.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

An agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to, inter alia , tenancy over landsdevoted to agriculture. 32To determine whether the CA was correct in its reversal of thetrial courts, it is necessary to keep in mind the essential requisites of tenancy, which areas follows:

(1) The parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee;

(2) The subject of the relationship is agricultural land;

(3) There is mutual consent to the tenancy between the parties;

(4) The purpose of the relationship is agricultural production;

(5) There is personal cultivation by the tenant or agricultural lessee; and

(6) There is a sharing of harvests between the parties.

All these elements must concur. 33 It is not enough that they are alleged; to divest theMTC of jurisdiction, they must all be shown to be present. 34 In the instant case, the MTC,sustained by the RTC, ruled against the existence of tenancy. The DAR AdjudicationBoard (DARAB) separately confirmed this finding. Indeed, the DARAB dismissed theComplaint filed by respondents and also ruled against the existence of any tenancyrelationship.

First , respondents failed to prove that they were bona fide tenants. It should be stressedthat they were mere heirs of the original landowner when they took ownership of the

property. Unable to redeem the property after the bank foreclosed the mortgage,

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt34

7/28/2019 Under Batas Pambansa Blg.doc

2/5

respondents lost their ownership rights thereto. They cannot thereafter force a tenancyrelationship between them and the successive owners of the land.

Petitioner is the registered owner of the property, 35 having bought it in good faith and for value. Well-settled is the rule that persons dealing with a property covered by a Torrenscertificate of title may rely upon the face of the certificate; as a rule, they are not requiredto go beyond what appears thereon. 36 Good faith is likewise presumed. 37 Respondentshave not shown that petitioner acquired the property in bad faith.

Furthermore, the "affidavit of non-tenancy" annotated in the title certificates 42 when theproperty was still registered in the name of one of the respondents belies their assertionof tenancy.

Third , markedly absent is the consent of the landowner to any tenancyagreement. 1wphi1 The records do not show that petitioner or her predecessors-in-interest ever agreed or consented to a tenancy relationship. This was the findingof both trial courts and the DARAB, which we sustain.

Fourth , it was not established that agricultural production is the primary purposefor respondents possession of the property. Their possession arose from their former ownership of the premises. Tenancy arises only if an occupant is givenpossession of a piece of land for the primary purpose of agricultural production. 46

Fifth , no adequate proof was presented to show the personal cultivation of theproperty on the part of respondents. Mere allegation of tilling the land withoutsufficient proof does not amount to personal cultivation. The law is explicit inrequiring the tenant and his immediate family to work on the land. 47 He cannothire many persons, other than on an occasional or a temporary basis, to help inthe cultivation. 48

Sixth , the fact of crop sharing, by itself, is not enough to establish tenancy. 49 It isnot unusual for a landowner to receive the produce of the land from a caretaker who sows thereon. The fact of receipt, without an agreed system of sharing, doesnot ipso facto create a tenancy. 50

14 Fortune Guarantee and Insurance Corp. v. CA, GR No . 110701 , March 12,2002; Clavano v. HLURB, GR No . 143781 , February 27, 2002; Caraan v. CA, 289 SCRA579, 583, April 24, 1998.

15

Otherwise known as The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.16 33(2).

17 1A(1).

18 Otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. This law tookeffect on June 15, 1988. The statute cited in the CA Decision, Presidential Decree No .316, was not the law in force at the time the Complaint for ejectment was filed. It wasexpressly repealed by 76 of RA 6657.

19 Except over matters falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/mar2002/gr_110701_2002.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/mar2002/gr_110701_2002.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/mar2002/gr_110701_2002.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/mar2002/gr_110701_2002.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/mar2002/gr_110701_2002.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/mar2002/gr_110701_2002.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/mar2002/gr_110701_2002.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/feb2002/143781.htmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/feb2002/143781.htmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/feb2002/143781.htmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/feb2002/143781.htmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/feb2002/143781.htmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/feb2002/143781.htmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/mar2002/gr_110701_2002.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/feb2002/143781.htmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt19

7/28/2019 Under Batas Pambansa Blg.doc

3/5

20 Chico v. Court of Appeals, 348 Phil. 37, 41, January 5, 1998; Isidro v. Court of Appeals,228 SCRA 503, 508, December 15, 1993.

21 CA rollo , pp. 1-4; rollo , pp. 111-114.

22 Ignacio v. Court of First Instance of Bulacan, 42 SCRA 89, 95, October 29, 1971.

23 CA rollo , p. 3; rollo , p. 117.

24 7 and 8.

25 Isidro v. CA, supra , p. 509.

26 5 of Rule 16 (now par.1 of 6 of Rule 16).

27 Except on the ground of improper venue.

28This is not a prohibited motion under the RSP.

29 Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. I (7th re v. ed., 1999), p. 265; Herrera,Remedial Law, Vol. I (re v. ed., 1994), p. 523.

30 Feria and Noche, Civil Procedure Annotated, Vol. I (2001 ed.), p. 458.

31 CA Decision, p. 10; rollo , p. 40.

32 Isidro v. CA, supra , p. 510.

33

Id. , p. 511. See also Caballes v. Department of Agrarian Reform, 168 SCRA 247, 254,December 5, 1988.

34 Chico v. CA, supra , p. 42.

35 RTC Decision, p. 3; CA rollo , p. 56.

36 Seno v. Mangubat, 156 SCRA 113, 127, December 2, 1987; Centeno v. CA, 139 SCRA545, 555, November 11, 1985; Duran v. IAC, 138 SCRA 489, 495, September 10, 1985.

37 Seno v. Mangubat, supra .

38 RTC Decision, p. 3; CA rollo , p. 56.

39 CA Decision, pp. 8-9; id, pp. 38-39.

40 34 of Rule 132. See Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. II (7th re v. ed.,1995), p. 679.

41 Petitioners Memorandum, pp. 14-15; rollo , pp. 375-376.

42 Id. , pp. 6-7; id. , pp. 367-368.

43

RTC Decision, p. 3; CA rollo , p. 56.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt43

7/28/2019 Under Batas Pambansa Blg.doc

4/5

44 MTC Decision, p. 7; id. , p. 141.

45 Isidro v. CA, supra , p. 511; De Jesus v. IAC, 175 SCRA 559, 566, July 24, 1989.

46 Caballes v. Department of Agrarian Reform, supra , p. 255.

47 Oarde v. CA, 345 Phil. 457, 466, October 8, 1997.

48 De Jesus v. IAC, supra , p. 566.

49 Caballes v. Department of Agrarian Reform, supra , p. 254.

50 Tiongson v. CA, 215 Phil. 430, 439, July 18, 1984.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx newcase

The issue is not new. It was held in Duremdes v. Duremdes 8 that:

First. For the DARAB to have jurisdiction over the case, there must be a tenancyrelationship between the parties. In order for a tenancy agreement to take holdover a dispute, it is essential to establish all its indispensable elements, to wit:

1) That the parties are the landowner and the tenantor agricultural lessee; 2) that the subject matter of the relationship isan agricultural land ; 3) that there is consent between the parties to the

relationship; 4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bringabout agricultural production; 5) that there is personal cultivation on thepart of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) that the harvest is sharedbetween the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.

These requisites for the jurisdiction of DARAB have been reiterated by the Court in anumber of cases .9

With regard to the first element, the petitioners have tried to prove that they are tenantsor agricultural lessees of the respondent corporation, CDC, by showing thatthe land was originally owned by their grandfather, Isaias Lara, who gave thempermission to work the land , and that CDC is merely a successor-in-interest of their

grandfather. It must be noted that the petitioners failed to adequately prove their grandfather's ownership of the land . They merely showed six tax declarations. It hasbeen held by this Court that, as against a transfer certificate of title, tax declarations or receipts are not adequate proofs of ownership. 10 Granting arguendo that the land wasreally owned by the petitioners' grandfather, petitioners did not even attempt to show howthe land went from the patrimony of their grandfather to that of CDC. Furthermore,petitioners did not prove, but relied on mere allegation, that they indeed had anagreement with their grandfather to use the land .

As for the third element, there is apparently no consent between the parties. Petitionerswere unable to show any proof of consent from CDC to work the land . For the sake of argument, if petitioners were able to prove that their grandfather owned the land , they

nonetheless failed to show any proof of consent from their grandfather to work the land .Since the third element was not proven, the fourth element cannot be present since therecan be no purpose to a relationship to which the parties have not consented.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/nov2003/gr_138256_2003.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_128392_2005.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_128392_2005.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_128392_2005.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_128392_2005.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_128392_2005.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_128392_2005.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_146501_2003.html#rnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/nov2003/gr_138256_2003.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_128392_2005.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_128392_2005.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_128392_2005.html#fnt10

7/28/2019 Under Batas Pambansa Blg.doc

5/5

For the sixth element, there was no proof adduced to show that the harvest was sharedbetween the parties.

Regarding the classification of the land , covered by the second element, considering theabsence of the first, third, fourth and sixth elements, the same is not necessary indetermining jurisdiction.

With regard to the fifth element, the petitioners alleged and labored to prove that theyhave been personally cultivating the subject land . However, even if such personalcultivation occurred it is not relevant since there is no showing of consent between theparties.

Since there is no proof of tenancy relationship, and in view of absence of the necessaryelements enumerated in Duremdes v. Duremdes ,11 the DARAB does not have jurisdictionover the present case. The MTC, therefore, had jurisdiction over the subject matter andhence properly exercised jurisdiction over the case.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Two. Wilfredo points out that the MTC has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the casesince it involved tenancy relation which comes under the jurisdiction of the DARAB. 9 Butthe jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is determined by theallegations of the complaint. 10 Besides, the records show that Wilfredo failed tosubstantiate his claim that he was a tenant of the land . The MTC records show that asidefrom the assertion that he is a tenant, he did not present any evidence to prove the same.To consider evidence presented only during appeal is offensive to the idea of fair play.

The remaining question is the nature of the action based on the allegations of thecomplaint. The RTC characterized it as an action for forcible entry, Wilfredo having

entered the property and taken over from widow Emiliana on the sly. The problem withthis characterization is that the complaint contained no allegation that the Dionisios werein possession of the property before Wilfredo occupied it either by force, intimidation,threat, strategy, or stealth, an element of that kind of eviction suit. 11 Nowhere in therecitation of the amended complaint did the Dionisios assert that they were in prior possession of the land and were ousted from such possession byWilfredos unlawful occupation of the property.

Is the action one for unlawful detainer ? An action is for unlawful detainer if thecomplaint sufficiently alleges the following: (1) initially, the defendant has possession of property by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) eventually, however, suchpossession became illegal upon plaintiffs notice to defendant, terminating the lattersright of possession; (3) still, the defendant remains in possession, depriving the plaintiff of the enjoyment of his property; and (4) within a year from plaintiffs last demand thatdefendant vacate the property, the plaintiff files a complaint for defendants ejectment. 12 If the defendant had possession of the land upon mere tolerance of the owner, suchtolerance must be present at the beginning of defendants possession. 13

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_128392_2005.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_128392_2005.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_128392_2005.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_178159_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_178159_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_178159_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_178159_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_178159_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_178159_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_128392_2005.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_178159_2011.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_178159_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_178159_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_178159_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_178159_2011.html#fnt13