THIRD DIVISION

APRIL 4, 2018

G.R. No. 195814

EVERSLEY CHILDS SANITARIUM, represented by DR. GERARDO M. AQUINO, JR. (now DR.
PRIMO JOEL S. ALVEZ) CHIEF OF SANITARIUM,, Petitioner 
vs
SPOUSES ANASTACIO PERLABARBARONA, Respondents

DECISION

LEONEN, J.:

A case for unlawful detainer must state the period from when the occupation by tolerance started and the
acts of tolerance exercised by the party with the right to possession. If it is argued that the possession
was illegal from the start, the proper remedy is to file an accion publiciana,  or a plenary action to recover
the right of possession. Moreover, while an ejectment case merely settles the issue of the right of actual
possession, the issue of ownership may be provisionally passed upon if the issue of possession cannot
be resolved without it. Any fina1 disposition on the issue of ownership, however, must be resolved in the
proper forum.

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 assailing the Court of Appeals February 17, 2011
Decision,2 which upheld the judgments of the Municipal Trial Court and Regional Trial Court ordering
Eversley Childs Sanitarium (Eversley) to vacate the disputed property. Eversley assails the August 31,
2011 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals for resolving its Motion for Reconsideration despite its earlier
submission of a Motion to Withdraw the Motion for Reconsideration.

Eversley is a public health facility operated by the Department of Health to administer care and treatment
to patients suffering from Hansen's disease, commonly known as leprosy, and to provide basic health
services to non-Hansen's cases.4 Since 1930, it has occupied a portion of a parcel of land denominated
as Lot No. 1936 in Jagobiao, Mandaue City, Cebu.5

Spouses Anastacio and Perla Barbarona (the Spouses Barbarona) allege that they are the owners of Lot
No. 1936 by virtue of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 53698. They claim that they have acquired the
property from the Spouses Tarcelo B. Gonzales and Cirila Alba (the Spouses Gonzales),6 whose
ownership was covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. R0-824. Per the Spouses Barbarona's
verification, OCT No. R0-824 was reconstituted based on Decree No. 699021, issued to the Spouses
Gonzales by the Land Registration Office on March 29, 1939.7

On May 6, 2005, the Spouses Barbarona filed a Complaint for Ejectment (Complaint)8 before the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Mandaue City against the occupants of Lot No. 1936, namely, Eversley,
Jagobiao National High School, the Bureau of Food and Drugs, and some residents (collectively, the
occupants). The Spouses Barbarona alleged that they had sent demand letters and that the occupants
were given until April 15, 2005 to vacate the premises. They further claimed that despite the lapse of the
period, the occupants refused to vacate; hence, they were constrained to file the Complaint.9

In their Answer, 10 the occupants alleged that since they had been in possession of the property for more
than 70 years, the case was effectively one for recovery of possession, which was beyond the jurisdiction
of the Municipal Trial Court. They likewise claimed that the Spouses Barbarona were guilty of laches
since it took more than 60 years for them to seek the issuance of a Torrens title over the property. They
also averred that the Spouses Barbarona's certificate of title was void since they, the actual inhabitants of
the property, were never notified of its issuance. 11

In its September 29, 2005 Decision, 12 the Municipal Trial Court in Cities ordered the occupants to vacate
the property, finding that the action was one for unlawful detainer, and thus, within its jurisdiction. It
likewise found that the Spouses Barbarona were the lawful owners of Lot No. 1936 and that the
occupants were occupying the property by mere tolerance. 13
publiciana or accion plenaria de posesion,  or a plenary action to recover the right of · possession; and
(3) accion reivindicatoria,  or an action to recover ownership. 73

Although both ejectment and accion publiciana are actions specifically to recover the right of possession,
they have two (2) distinguishing differences. The first is the filing period. Ejectment cases must be filed
within one (I) year from the date of dispossession. If the dispossession lasts for more than a year, then
an accion publiciana  must be filed. The second distinction concerns jurisdiction. Ejectment cases, being
summary in nature, are filed with the Municipal Trial Courts. Accion publiciana,  however, can only be
taken cognizance by the Regional Trial Court.74

Petitioner argues that the Municipal Trial Court has no jurisdiction over the case since respondents' cause
of action makes a case for ace ion publiciana and not ejectment through unlawful detainer. It asserts that
respondents failed to prove that petitioner occupied the property by mere tolerance.

Jurisdiction over subject matter is conferred by the allegations stated in the complaint. 75 Respondents'
Complaint before the Municipal Trial Court states:

That [the occupants] are presently occupying the above-mentioned property of the [Spouses Barbarona]
without color [of] right or title. Such occupancy is purely by mere tolerance. Indeed, [the occupants']
occupying the lot owned by [the Spouses Barbarona] is illegal and not anchored upon any contractual
relations with the [Spouses Barbarona.]76

Indeed, no mention has been made as to how petitioner came to possess the property and as to what
acts constituted tolerance on the part of respondents or their predecessors-in-interest to allow petitioner's
occupation. In Carbonilla v. Abiera:77

A requisite for a valid cause of action in an unlawful detainer case is that possession must be originally
lawful, and such possession must have turned unlawful only upon the expiration of the right to possess. It
must be shown that the possession was initially lawful; hence, the basis of such lawful possession must
be established. If, as in this case, the claim is that such possession is by mere tolerance of the plaintiff,
the acts of tolerance must be proved.

Petitioner failed to prove that respondents' possession was based on his alleged tolerance.1âwphi1 He
did not offer any evidence or even only an affidavit of the Garcianos attesting that they tolerated
respondents' entry to and occupation of the subject properties. A bare allegation of tolerance will not
suffice. Plaintiff must, at least, show overt acts indicative of his or his predecessor's permission to occupy
the subject property . . . .

....

In addition, plaintiff must also show that the supposed acts of tolerance have been present right from the
very start of the possession - from entry to the property. Otherwise, if the possession was unlawful from
the start, an action for unlawful detainer would be an improper remedy. Notably, no mention was made in
the complaint of how entry by respondents was effected or how and when dispossession started. Neither
was there any evidence showing such details.

In any event, petitioner has some other recourse. He may pursue recovering possession of his property
by filing an accion publiciana,  which is a plenary action intended to recover the better right to possess; or
an accion reivindicatoria, a suit to recover ownership of real property. We stress, however, that the
pronouncement in this case as to the ownership of the land should be regarded as merely provisional
and, therefore, would not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving title to the land. 78

The same situation is present in this case. Respondents failed to state when petitioner's possession was
initially lawful, and how and when their dispossession started. All that appears from the Complaint is that
petitioner's occupation "is illegal and not anchored upon any contractual relations with [respondents.]"79

This, however, is insufficient to determine if the action was filed within a year from dispossession, as
required in an ejectment case. On the contrary, respondents allege that petitioner's occupation was illegal
from the start. The proper remedy, therefore, should have been to file an accion publiciana or accion
reivindicatoria  to assert their right of possession or their right of ownership.

Considering that respondents filed the improper case before the Municipal Trial Court, it had no
jurisdiction over the case. Any disposition made, therefore, was void. The subsequent judgments of the
Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, which proceeded from the void Municipal Trial Court
judgment, are likewise void.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The February 17, 2011 Decision and August 31, 2011
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CAG. R. SP No. 02762 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
Temporary Restraining Order dated May 13, 2011 is made PERMANENT.

SO ORDERED.