Determinative allegations in ejectment
The invariable rule is that what determines the nature of the action, as well as
the court has jurisdiction over the case, are the allegations in the
complaint.[1] In ejectment cases, the complaint must state and sufficiently
show on its face the essential facts laid down under Section 1, Rule 70 of the
Rules of Court, to give the court jurisdiction without resort to parol evidence.
The above-cited provision requires that in action for forcible entry, as in
this case, it must be alleged that the complainant was deprived of the
possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or
stealth, and that the action was filed anytime within one year from the time the
unlawful deprivation of possession took place,[2] except that when the
entry is through stealth, the one-year period is counted from the time the
complainant learned of the dispossession.[3] It is not necessary, however,
for the complainant to utilize the language of the statute.[4] It would
suffice that the facts are set up. showing that complainant has prior physical
possession of the property in litigation and that he was dispossessed thereof
through defendant's unlawful act/s constituting force, intimidation, threat,
strategy, or stealth.[5]
The above-cited provision requires that in action for forcible entry, as in
this case, it must be alleged that the complainant was deprived of the
possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or
stealth, and that the action was filed anytime within one year from the time the
unlawful deprivation of possession took place,[2] except that when the
entry is through stealth, the one-year period is counted from the time the
complainant learned of the dispossession.[3] It is not necessary, however,
for the complainant to utilize the language of the statute.[4] It would
suffice that the facts are set up. showing that complainant has prior physical
possession of the property in litigation and that he was dispossessed thereof
through defendant's unlawful act/s constituting force, intimidation, threat,
strategy, or stealth.[5]
It is imperative, thus, to carefully scrutinize the allegations in the complaint to determine whether the required jurisdictional averments were complied with.
[1] Javier v. Lumontad, 749 Phil. 360, 368 (2014).
[2] Id.
[3] Diaz v. Spouses Punzalan, 783 Phil. 456, 462 (2016).
[4] Dela Cruz v. Hermano, 757 Phil. 9, 18 (2015).
[5] Javier v. Lumontad, supra note 1.