Valdez vs. CA G. R. NO. 132424 This is a petition for review filed by the petitioners spouses Valdez.

Facts: Spouses Valdez are the registered owner of a piece of residential lot located in Antipolo Rizal which they acquired by virtue of sales contract. The respondents Fabella occupied the said lot by building their house in the said lot thereby depriving the plaintiffs rightful possession. Several ti es! the plaintiffs orally as"ed the defendants to peacefully surrender the pre ises to the ! but they refused to vacate the lot they unlawfully occupied. #ecause the unfounded refusal on the part of the private respondents! the #rgy. $apt. %as forced to issue the issue the necessary certificate to file action. The petitioners filed a co plaint for unlawful detainer before the &T$. The &T$ rendered a decision in favor of the petitioners spouses Valdez. 'rivate respondents appealed to the RT$ in which the RT$ affir ed in toto the decision of the &T$. Thereafter! they appealed to the $A. the $A of appeals reversed the decision of the RT$. (t held that for spouse Valdes! the petitioners failed to a"e a case for unlawful detainer because they failed to show that they had given the private respondents the right to occupy the pre ises or that they have tolerated private respondents possession of the sa e! which is a require ent in unlawful detainer cases. (t added that the allegations in petitioners co plaint lac" )urisdictional ele ents for forcible entry which requires an allegation or prior aterial possession. Thus! this petitioner for review. Issue: 1. %hether or not the allegations of the co plaint clearly ade out a case of unlawful detainer *. %hether or not the &T$ has the original )urisdiction over the case Ruling: The petition is denied and the )udg ent of $A that the &T$ for lac" of )urisdiction is affir ed. The Supre e $ourt held that+ it is the nature of defendants entry into the land which deter ines the cause of action! whether it is forcible entry or unlawful detainer. (f the entry is illegal! then the action which ay be filed against the intruder if forcible entry. (f! however! the entry is legal but the possession thereafter beco es illegal! the case is unlawful detainer. 'etitioners alleged in their co plaint that they inherited the property fro their parents, that possession thereof by private respondent was by tolerance of their other! and after her death by their own tolerance. (t is settled that one whose stay is erely tolerated beco es a deforciant illegally occupying the land the o ent he is required to leave. (t is essential in unlawful detainer cases of this "ind! that plaintiffs supposed acts of tolerance ust have been present right fro the right fro the start of the possession which is later sought to be recovered. This is where the petitioners cause of action fails. The evidence revealed that the possession of defendant was illegal at the inception and not erely tolerated as alleged in the co plaint! considering that defendant started to occupy the sub)ect lot and then built a house thereon without the per ission and consent of petitioners and before the ! their other. $learly! defendants entry in to the land was effected clandestinely! without the "nowledge of the owner! consequently! it is categorized as possession by stealth which is forcible entry. (n the instant case! the allegations in the co plaint do not contain any aver ent of fact that would substantiate petitioners clai they per itted or tolerated the occupation or the property by respondents. The co plaint contains only bare allegations that respondents without any color of title whatsoever occupies the land in question by building their house in the said land thereby depriving petitioners the possession thereof. Since the co plaint did not satisfy the )urisdictional require ent of a valid cause for unlawful detainer! the &T$ had no )urisdiction over the case.