Case 136: Ayson vs Enriquez, G.R. No. 152438. June 17, 2004 allegations in the complaint.

LOLITA R. AYSON, petitioner, vs. MARINA ENRIQUEZ vda. DE CARPIO, respondent. b) not holding that the Complaint failed to aver facts constitutive of unlawful
detainer.
Lolita Ayson was the owner of 3 parcels of land in Manibang, Porac, Pampanga c) not holding that the action for the purported right to possess was anchored
covered by TCTs. She has been in possession of the aforesaid properties being the on the elemental attribute of ownership and accordingly was of the nature of
owner thereof. On August 29, 1980, she mortgaged the said properties to PNB, an accion publiciana.
Angeles City Branch (Bank), and were subsequently foreclosed. After failing to redeem d) not holding that the action suffered from a jurisdictional defect with the
within the prescribed period, Ayson’s TCTs were canceled and new ones were issued manifest absence of proof of receipt of the demand letters.
in the name of PNB. 2. Whether Ayson is estopped from assailing the trial courts jurisdiction.

On April 14, 1999, PNB sold the property covered by TCT No. 220195-R to the Marina HELD: Ayson objects to the MTCs jurisdiction. She argues that a complaint that fails to
Enriquez and is now covered by TCT No. 466519-R. On October 22, 1999, Ayson filed a aver how entry was effected or to state the circumstances that brought about the
Complaint before RTC of Angeles City for the annulment of TCT No. [466519-R] and owners alleged dispossession is not a valid action for ejectment, but is actually a
the deed of sale between PNB and Enriquez as well as for reconveyance and damages. complaint for accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria. Thus RTC, not the MTC,
With said Civil Case still pending, Enqiquez, on January 3, 2000, sent demand letters that has jurisdiction over the case. Enriquez unduly claimed the title to herself and
dated December 29, 1999 demanding petitioner to vacate the premises covered by anchored her purported right to possess the property on her right of ownership
TCT No. 466519-R. thereof.

On March 7, 2000, Enriquez filed a complaint with the MTC for ejectment with Enriquez counters that ejectment is the proper remedy, because she is asking only for
damages which was granted. On appeal, the RTC affirmed with modification the MTCs possession de facto. She posits that in an action for unlawful detainer, it suffices to
decision. Enriquez then filed a Motion with the RTC on February 1, 2001 for issuance allege, without necessarily employing the terminology of the law, that the
of a writ of execution pending appeal. Ayson interposed an appeal to the CA, defendant is unlawfully withholding possession of the property or is refusing to
assigning that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the action. The Decision of the vacate it. Ayson is supposedly estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the trial
RTC affirming the trial courts decision is accordingly erroneous and consequently null court after she voluntarily participated in the trial on the merits and lost.
and void.
SC said that the complaint of Enriquez might have been vague in certain respects and
CA held that the continued possession of the property by Ayson had merely been lacking in some details about her alleged dispossession, but these defects were not
tolerated. Possession became unlawful when she was divested of her ownership of fatal. The origins of fair play were satisfied when she formally offered evidence, both
the premises. Holding that a summary action for ejectment was the proper remedy documentary and testimonial, that afforded Ayson the opportunity to refute and
against her, the CA explained that the parties were not precluded from ventilating object to them.
their grievances in another action based on a separate and distinct cause involving
ownership of the land. Section 5 of Rule 10 of the Rules of Court was thus rendered applicable pro tanto. It
provides:
Issues: SEC. 5. Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence. When issues
not raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the
1. Whether the Decision of CA erred because it: parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings.
a) digressed into matters not alleged in the Complaint, and by which it Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to
breached the cardinal rule that jurisdiction of the court is determined by the the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any
time, even after judgment; but failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial The continued occupation of the property by Ayson was merely tolerated and was
of these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not bound by an implied promise that she would vacate the premises upon demand. Her
within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be failure to do so justified the action for ejectment filed in the MTC. Under these
amended and shall do so with liberality if the presentation of the merits of the action circumstances, the trial court acted within the bounds of its jurisdiction and
and the ends of substantial justice will be subserved thereby. The court may grant a committed no reversible error in taking cognizance of the case.
continuance to enable the amendment to be made.
Ayson further assails the validity of the complaint on the basis of the RTCs finding that
The presentation of the evidence for and against imputations undoubtedly cured, it was not clear when she actually received the demand letter. She insists that there is
clarified or expanded, as the case may be, whatever defects in the pleadings or no factual or evidentiary basis to establish her receipt of the demand to vacate the
vagueness in the issues there might have been in the amended complaint. premises. This contention must fail. It is only in this late stage that petitioner is
raising this point. It was not raised before the MTC or the RTC. Hence, fair play,
It is settled that even if the complaint be defective, but the parties go to trial justice and due process dictate that this Court cannot now, for the first time on
thereon, and the plaintiff, without objection, introduces sufficient evidence to appeal, pass upon this question. They must be raised seasonably in the proceedings
constitute the particular cause of action which it intended to allege in the original before the lower courts. Questions raised on appeal must be within the issues framed
complaint, and the defendant voluntarily produces witnesses to meet the cause of by the parties; issues not raised before the TCs cannot be raised for the first time on
action thus established, an issue is joined as fully and as effectively as if it had been appeal.
previously joined by the most perfect pleadings.

Trial on the merits was conducted without objection of Ayson. She did not challenge
the statement of issues proffered by Enriquez. Ayson simply presented, as her own,
issues on the propriety of the ejectment case. She claimed (1) that Enriquez was not
in actual possession of the property; (2) that Enriquez’ acquisition of title over it was
fraudulent; and (3) that no actual conciliation proceedings had been held before the
office of the barangay chairman.

The trial brought to light the true nature of the right of possession of respondent over
the property, and the circumstances surrounding her dispossession. The facts, as
collected from the evidence presented by both parties, unequivocally show that the
instant case is one for unlawful detainer. Enriquez was able to present evidence
showing that after the foreclosure of the property, Ayson failed to redeem it within
the redemption period. Thus, she was divested of her ownership and right to retain
possession thereof. Enqriquez acquired a better right to possess the property after
acquiring title to it through a sale between her and the mortgagee-bank.

One who has never been in possession of a property may acquire a better right to possess as
where he acquires title to it through a sale between him and a mortgagee thereby divesting the
mortgagor of ownership and the right to retain possession thereof.