DIGEST/ ANDRINO/ ESPERANZA P. SUMULONG, represented by MARIO P. SUMULONG, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and INLAND TRAILWAYS, INC., respondents/1994

 

ESPERANZA P. SUMULONG, represented by MARIO P. SUMULONG, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and INLAND TRAILWAYS, INC., respondents.

Facts:

The MTC sustained the theory of plaintiff Esperanza P. Sumulong (hereinafter Sumulong) that the defendant (hereinafter INLAND) entered the premises "by stealth and strategy, since it has no sublease when it entered the premises and remained because it misrepresented itself as owned by Jopson and also because it asked to negotiate for a new lease." The MTC disregarded the defense of INLAND that the proper action should have been for unlawful detainer.

On appeal to the RTC by INLAND, the MTC decision was reversed. The RTC held that the MTC's ruling "betrays a misapplication and/or misinterpretation of the law and jurisprudence on Forcible Entry," and that although Sumulong had constructive possession of the subject premises, she was, nevertheless, not in prior physical and actual possession thereof. The latter kind of possession is an essential element in forcible entry; accordingly, her action for forcible entry should fail.

Hence, it ordered the dismissal of Civil Case No. 132844-CV.

Sumulong filed a petition for review with the respondent Court of Appeals which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 27987. Sumulong contended therein that the RTC seriously erred in holding that she had failed to establish prior physical possession of the subject premises despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and in disregarding long-established law and jurisprudence when it ordered the dismissal of the complaint for forcible entry. In its challenged Decision of 28 January 1993, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision on the ground that Sumulong failed to specifically aver in her complaint facts which would clearly show that her cause of action is for forcible entry.

Hence, this petition.

Issue:

1. Whether the complaint in Civil Case No. 132844-CV before the MTC fails to state a cause of action for forcible entry.

2. Assuming that it does not, whether it, in fact, contains sufficient allegations for unlawful detainer for which judgment may be rendered accordingly.

Ruling:

Forcible entry and unlawful detainer are two distinct causes of action defined in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. In forcible entry, one is deprived of physical possession of any land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. In unlawful detainer, one unlawfully withholds possession thereof after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied. In forcible entry, the possession is illegal from the beginning and the only issue is who has the prior possession de facto. In unlawful detainer, possession was originally lawful but became unlawful by the expiration or termination of the right to possess and the issue of rightful possession is the one decisive, for in such action, the defendant is the party in actual possession and the plaintiff's cause of action is the termination of the defendant's right to continue in possession. 

Accordingly, in forcible entry, the plaintiff must allege in the complaint and prove that he was in prior physical possession of the property in litigation until he was deprived thereof by the defendant, but in unlawful detainer, the plaintiff need not have prior physical possession of the property, or, elsewise stated, prior physical possession is not an indispensable requirement in an unlawful detainer case. 

The aforequoted allegations in the complaint of Sumulong indubitably show that she anchors her claim of prior physical possession on her peaceful take-over of the leased premises in November 1989 from INLAND who had been in possession thereof since June 1989 allegedly by virtue of an oral sublease contract. She overlooks, however, that as her allegations show, she allowed INLAND to re-occupy the premises in December 1989 when it misrepresented to her that Jopson was also its (INLAND's) owner. When it was ascertained that Jopson was not, she again re-took possession of the premises, only, thereafter, to allow again INLAND to temporarily re-occupy the premises because of its representation that it will negotiate with her a contract of lease in its favor. Such negotiations were undertaken from 1 February 1990 to 1 March 1990.

However, since the parties could not agree on the rate of rentals, and INLAND procured through "strategy and stealth" a sublease agreement from Jopson on 2 April 1990, Sumulong re-took the physical possession of the leased premises on 4 April 1990. However, on the night of the said date, INLAND misrepresented to her that it was ready to finalize the appropriate lease contract and because of that misrepresentation, INLAND was again able to re-occupy the premises. It is clear then that since Sumulong's first re-taking of possession in November 1989, INLAND was permitted to re-occupy the premises thrice.

The words strategy and stealth, as means of forcible entry, are used by Sumulong in paragraphs 17 and 20 of her complaint. They refer, however, to the procurement by INLAND of the sublease agreement on 2 April 1990 and its misrepresentation that it was ready to finalize the appropriate lease contract. Assuming them to be true, those acts hardly constitute either strategy or stealth as a means of forcible entry. "Strategy" in this regard could only mean machination or artifice and considering that the parties tangled for weeks to reach an agreement on the terms and conditions of a contract of lease, no such machination or artifice could be said to have been employed by INLAND. "Stealth," on the other hand, is defined as any secret, sly, or a clandestine act to avoid discovery and to gain entrance into or remain within residence of another without permission

4 April 1990 also refute her argument that for purposes of determining prior physical possession, her retaking of the property in November 1989 should be the basis in determining her cause of action for forcible entry. It must be stated, however, that whatever illegality may have tainted INLAND's entry in June 1989 was removed by Sumulong's acceptance of rentals from INLAND after her November 1989 take-over, even if such acceptance was thru the latter's misrepresentation that Jopson is also its owner. INLAND's succeeding acts of re-occupying the premises twice thereafter were tolerated by Sumulong for the reasons earlier adverted to. We thus agree with the RTC and the Court of Appeals that the complaint fails to show a cause of action for forcible entry. Neither was Sumulong able to prove it by her evidence, which on the contrary, established that she allowed INLAND to re-occupy the premises, not because of the claim of the latter of an oral sublease agreement and then of a written sublease agreement, but because of the allegation that Jopson is the owner of INLAND; that INLAND would negotiate for a formal lease contract; and that INLAND was ready to finalize the lease contract.

Also, from the allegations in the complaint, the nullity of the sublease agreement which INLAND allegedly obtained from Jopson on 2 April 1990 is beyond question. Jopson had no right to sublease the property since the contract of lease in its favor had already been automatically cancelled pursuant to Section III thereof and Jopson was properly notified of such automatic cancellation first in December 1989 and then on 14 March 1990. Neither party proved that Jopson protested the cancellation of the contract of lease. A sublessee can invoke no right superior to that of his sublessor. Consequently, as correctly held by the MTC, "the written sublease was only resorted to by Defendant [INLAND] when the parties could not agree as to the terms of a new lease,” which, however, the MTC erroneously considered as the act which constituted "stealth and strategy." 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the complaint should not have been dismissed merely for its failure to state a cause of action for forcible entry, for although Sumulong has designated or denominated it in the caption as one for forcible entry, her allegations in the body thereof sufficiently establish a cause of action for unlawful detainer. Well-settled is the rule that what determines the nature of the action as well as the court which has jurisdiction over the case are the allegations in the complaint.  The cause of action in a complaint is not what the designation of the complaint states, but what the allegations in the body of the complaint define or describe. The designation or caption is not controlling, more than the allegations in the complaint themselves are, for it is not even an indispensable part of the complaint. It is equally settled that in an action for unlawful detainer, an allegation that the defendant is unlawfully withholding possession from the plaintiff is deemed sufficient, and a complaint for unlawful detainer is sufficient if it alleges that the withholding of possession or the refusal to vacate is unlawful without necessarily employing the terminology of the law.