SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234677. March 7, 2018.]
LINDA G. AGUILAR, petitioner,vs. SPOUSES ENGRACIO AND MAMERTA A. OLAYVAR, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated07 March 2018which reads as follows: SDHTEC
"G.R. No. 234677 — Linda G. Aguilar versus Spouses Engracio and Mamerta A. Olayvar
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals' (CA) Minute Resolution 1 dated March 29, 2017 and Resolution 2 September 7, 2017 in CA-G.R. SP No. 08013-MIN, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition, affirming the dismissal of petitioner's complaint for unlawful detainer against respondents by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Butuan City, as upheld by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the CA. The MTCC held that the vital facts necessary to establish unlawful detainer have not been alleged nor proved in this case, and that accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria may have been the proper remedy available for the petitioner.
As held in Bugayong-Santiago v. Bugayong, 3 the nature of entry into the land determines the cause of action, i.e., if the entry is illegal, then the action which may be filed against the intruder within one year therefrom is forcible entry; on the other hand, if the entry is legal but the possession thereafter became illegal, the case is one of unlawful detainer which must be filed within one year from the date of the last demand. 4 The Court further ruled in Bugayong that jurisdiction in ejectment cases is determined by the character of the relief sought and the allegations of the complaint which should include such statement of facts as to bring the case clearly within the class of cases under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, as these proceedings are summary in nature. 5
In the present case, the allegations in petitioner's complaint for unlawful detainer was not clear on how entry into the disputed lot was effected and how or when dispossession started. The complaint merely alleged the following: (1) after petitioner bought the land in 2013, she told respondents to remove their structures thereon; and (2) respondents, allegedly acknowledging themselves to be mere squatters thereon and just tolerated by the previous owner, acceded but changed their minds. Thus, the MTCC correctly held that these bare allegations have not been substantiated with facts and evidence. On the contrary, respondents claimed that they have been in possession of the disputed lot since 1984 and that there was no other claimant of the same until petitioner filed a complaint against them before the barangay in 2013.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 43.
2.Id. at 44-47. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, with Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Louis P. Acosta concurring.
3. G.R. No. 220389, December 6, 2017.
4.Id. at 6, citing Sarmiento v. Court of Appeals, 320 Phil. 146, 154 (1995).
5.Id. at 8, citing Rosario v. Alba, 784 Phil. 778, 785 (2016).