G.R. No. 250159 , April 26, 2021
SUSANA BARCELO, CATHERINE B. FLORES, CLARIZA B. BIATO, CHESCA B. MACAPAGAL, CARLO BARCELO AND CAMILLE BARCELO, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT SUSANA BARCELO, PETITIONERS, VS. DOMINADOR RIPARIP, ROMEO RIPARIP, ROMEO RIPARIP, JR., AND DANILO TAMALLANA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Adolfo Barcelo, husband of petitioner Susana and father of the other petitioners, was the registered owner of a parcel of land in Nueva Ecija. Upon his death in 2004, petitioners succeeded to the property. In 2006, petitioners discovered that respondent Dominador Riparip had clandestinely encroached on about one hectare of the land. Petitioners demanded he vacate, but he refused, even constructing a nipa house and fencing the area. A barangay complaint yielded no settlement. Due to financial constraints, petitioners did not immediately file a court action. In June 2013, petitioners learned that respondents Dominador, Romeo Riparip, Romeo Riparip Jr., and Danilo Tamallana had, through strategy and stealth, occupied the remaining area of the property. Further demands and barangay mediation failed, prompting petitioners to file a complaint for ejectment before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). Respondents, in their Answer, claimed their grandfather had possessed the land since 1980, that it was formerly public land, and that Adolfo’s title was obtained by fraud. They also argued the action had prescribed, as demand to vacate was made in 2006. Petitioners countered that their formal demand letter was given on August 8, 2013, and the complaint was filed on February 28, 2014. The MTC denied the motion to dismiss and later granted the ejectment complaint, upholding petitioners’ Torrens title. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed, but characterized the action as one for forcible entry, not unlawful detainer. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed and dismissed the complaint, holding that based on petitioners’ own allegations of respondents’ entry by “stealth,” the proper action was forcible entry, not unlawful detainer. Since the possession was illegal from the start, there could be no possession by tolerance to sustain an unlawful detainer case.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in dismissing the complaint for ejectment on the ground that it was improperly filed as an unlawful detainer case despite petitioners’ allegations of entry by stealth.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the RTC Decision. The nature of an ejectment action is determined by the allegations in the complaint. Petitioners’ complaint alleged that respondents’ entry was effected “clandestinely or stealthily,” which are key allegations constitutive of forcible entry. The complaint also stated petitioners were in prior possession and were deprived thereof by such stealth. Therefore, the complaint, on its face, was one for forcible entry. The CA correctly identified this but erred in dismissing the complaint outright. A complaint for ejectment should not be dismissed simply for being mislabeled. If the allegations and evidence substantiate a cause of action for either forcible entry or unlawful detainer, the court should proceed to decide the case on the merits. Here, the allegations and evidence (including the Torrens title and prior possession) clearly made out a case for forcible entry, filed within the one-year prescriptive period from the discovery of the stealthy entry in June 2013. Furthermore, the respondents’ attack on the validity of petitioners’ certificate of title is a collateral attack not permitted in an ejectment case, which primarily deals with possession. Petitioners’ Torrens title is evidence of their ownership and superior right to possession.