Sumulong vs.

Court of Appeals and Inland Trailways

G.R. No. 108817
May 10, 1994

Facts:
This case involves Esperanza P. Sumulong as the plaintiff and Inland Trailways, Inc. as
the respondent in an ejectment case. The case is denominated as a forcible entry case.
Sumulong owns a piece of land and leased it to Jopson Corporation, but when Jopson
Corporation ceased operations, the respondent allegedly took over possession of the
property, misrepresenting that Jopson Corporation continued to exist under a different
name. Sumulong demanded that the respondent vacate the property when she learned
of the misrepresentation, but the respondent offered to enter into a new lease
agreement, which did not push through and the respondent failed to pay the monetary
consideration. The respondent argued that forcible entry was not the proper remedy
because Sumulong did not have prior physical and actual possession of the property.
The Municipal Trial Court found the respondent liable for forcible entry, but the Regional
Trial Court reversed the decision, stating that forcible entry was not the proper action
since Sumulong did not have prior physical and actual possession of the property. The
Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the Regional Trial Court. Sumulong sought the
help of the Supreme Court after being aggrieved by the decision.
Issue:
Whether or not the complaint is sufficient to establish unlawful detainer.

Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled that forcible entry is not the proper recourse as the petitioner
had no prior physical and actual possession of the property. The respondent negotiated
to enter into a lease contract after the previous possessor ceased operations, and
possession was due to the tolerance of the petitioner. An action for unlawful detainer
would have been the proper remedy. Despite this, the petitioner may still seek relief
under the same Complaint as there is sufficient and adequate basis for a cause of
action for unlawful detainer. The court may still render judgment in favor of the
petitioner.