LARANO V. CALENDACION (REMEDIAL)

Issue: Whether the complaint is one for unlawful detainer.

Settled is the rule that jurisdiction in ejectment cases is determined by the allegations pleaded in the complaint. The test for determining the sufficiency of those allegations is whether, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer of the plaintiff.

In UNLAWFUL DETAINER, the possession was originally lawful but became unlawful by the expiration or termination of the right to possess; hence, the issue of rightful possession is decisive for, in such action, the defendant is in actual possession and the plaintiff's cause of action is the termination of the defendant's right to continue in possession.

Applied to the present case, petitioner, as vendor, must comply with two requisites for the purpose of bringing an ejectment suit:

1. there must be failure to pay the installment due or comply with the conditions of the Contract to Sell (cause of action); and
2. there must be demand both to pay or to comply and vacate within the periods specified in Rule 70, namely: 15 days in case of land and 5 days in case of buildings (jurisdictional requirement).

The first requisite refers to the existence of the cause of action for unlawful detainer, while the second refers to the jurisdiction requirement of demand in order that said cause of action may be pursued.

Both demands - to pay installment due or adhere to the terms of the Contract to Sell and to vacate are necessary to make the vendee deforciant in order that an ejectment suit may be filed. It is the vendor's demand for the vendee to vacate the premises and the vendee's refusal to do so which makes unlawful the withholding of the possession. Such refusal violates the vendor's right of possession giving rise to an action for unlawful detainer. However, prior to the institution of such action, a demand from the vendor to pay the installment due or comply with the conditions of the Contract to Sell and to vacate the premises is required under the rule.

Thus, mere failure to pay the installment due or violation of the terms of the Contract to Sell does not automatically render a person's possession unlawful. Furthermore, the giving of such demand must be alleged in the complaint; otherwise, the MTC cannot acquire jurisdiction.

It is clear from the foregoing that the allegations in the Complaint failed to constitute a case of unlawful detainer. What is clear is that in the Complaint, petitioner alleged that respondents had violated the terms of the Contract to Sell. However, the Complaint failed to state the petitioner made demands upon respondents to comply with the conditions of the contract - the payment of the installments and the accounting and delivery of the harvests. When the complaint does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of a valid cause for unlawful detainer, the MTC does not have jurisdiction to hear the case.