ESPERANZA P. SUMULONG, represented by MARIO P. SUMULONG, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and INLAND TRAILWAYS, INC..
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 108817
- Promulgated: 1994-05-10
- Ponente: Davide, Jr., J.
Doctrine
What determines the nature of the action and the proper court is the allegations in the body of the complaint, not its designation or caption.
In forcible entry the plaintiff must allege and prove prior physical possession until deprived by defendant, whereas in unlawful detainer prior physical possession is not an indispensable requirement.
Facts
This is a petition for review on certiorari from the Court of Appeals decision affirming the RTC judgment which had reversed the MTC decision in a forcible entry complaint filed by Esperanza P. Sumulong against Inland Trailways, Inc.
The subject involves two adjoining lots owned by Sumulong along M. Earnshaw Street, Sampaloc, Manila, covered by TCT Nos. 102994 and 102995.
The complaint alleges a 1975 lease to Jopson, subsequent occupation by Inland allegedly under an oral sublease in June 1989, and multiple re-occupations and re-takings of physical possession between November 1989 and April 1990.
Issues
Whether the complaint in Civil Case No. 132844-CV before the MTC fails to state a cause of action for forcible entry.
Assuming it does fail as forcible entry, whether the complaint contains sufficient allegations for unlawful detainer for which judgment may be rendered accordingly.
Ruling
The Court found that although captioned as forcible entry, the allegations in the complaint sufficiently establish a cause of action for unlawful detainer; the nature of the action is determined by allegations in the body, not the caption.
The petition is granted: CA and RTC decisions are set aside; the MTC decision is reinstated, but the reasonable compensation awarded should run from December 1989 (not June 1989). No pronouncement as to costs.
Keywords
G.R. No. 108817, petition for review on certiorari, forcible entry, unlawful detainer, cause of action, prior physical possession, stealth and strategy, Article 539, NCC, Section 1(g), Rule 16, Revised Rules of Court, Sarona vs. Villegas (22 SCRA 1257), sublease, lease contract, abandonment of premises, actual physical possession, dispositive portion, action, complaint, cause, plaintiff, civil