JAVELOSA V. CA (REMEDIAL)

In FORCIBLE ENTRY cases, the prescriptive period is counted from the date of defendant's actual entry on the land; in UNLAWFUL DETAINER, from the date of last demand to vacate.

Hence, to determine whether the case was filed on time, there was a necessity to ascertain whether the complaint was one for forcible entry or unlawful detainer. In light of these consideration, the Court ruled that since the main distinction between the two actions is when and how defendant entered the land, the determinative facts should be alleged in the complaint.

It is settled that prior physical possession is indispensable only in actions for forcible entry but not in unlawful detainer. Since we have ruled that the MTC case filed against petitioner is one for unlawful detainer, petitioner's prior possession of the land is of no moment. Private respondents are entitled to its possession from the time title was issued in their favor as registered owners. An action for unlawful detainer may be filed when possession by a landlord, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of their right to hold possession by virtue of a contract, express or implied.

We find that private respondents have adequately proved that they are entitled to possess the subject land as the registered owners thereof. The age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens title over the land is entitled to possession thereof. Except for the bare claim that the title of private respondents was obtained in bad faith, petitioner has pointed to no right to justify his continued possession of the subject property.

Be that as it may, we reiterate the rule that the award of possession de facto over the subject land to private respondents would not constitute res judicata as to the issue of ownership thereof, which issue is still litigated before the RTC where the case for annulment of mortgages and foreclosure proceedings is pending.

The one-year period should be counted:

• unlawful detainer - from the date of last demand to vacate.
• forcible entry - from accrual of cause of action (dispossession).

REFUGIA V. CA (REMEDIAL)

Issue: Whether the MTC, as well as the RTC, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, have jurisdiction to resolve the issue of ownership in an action for unlawful detainer where the issue of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the question of ownership.

As the law on forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases now stands, even where the defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the MTCs, nevertheless have the undoubted competence to resolve the issue of ownership albeit only to determine the issue of possession as set forth in Section 33(2) of BP 129.

In the case at bar, petitioners failed to show that they were legally entitled to continue occupying the unit in question. On the considerations detailed, we agree with the position of respondent CA that petitioners would in effect be occupying the premises by mere tolerance. A person who occupies the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate the same upon demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against him. The status of petitioners is analogous to that of a lessee or tenant whose term of lease has expired but whose occupancy continued by tolerance of the owner.