JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

Sumulong vs CA
G.R. No. 108817
May 10, 1994

FACTS:
Sumolong entered into a contract of lease with Jopson Corporation over a parcel of land which Jopson
is using as a parking lot for its supermarket. The contract provides that incase Jopson abandons the
property , the lease contract shall be automatically terminated. Jopson ceased its operation for 2 years
and Sumolong took possession of the property. Inland Trailways misrepresented to Sumolong that
Jopson had resumed operations under the name of Inland supermarket. Because of this
misrepresentation, Summolong was misled into accepting the check payment from Inland and allowed
inand to reposses property. When Sumolong learned of the misrepresentation, he demanded Inland to
vacate property. Inland misrepresented to SUmolong that they are ready to enter into a lease contract
with him so Sumolong allowed inland to take over the subject lot. However Inland maliciously failed to
enter into a lease contract with plaintiff and failed to deliver the agreed monetary consideration.
Despite repeated demands, Inland refused to vacate prompting Sumolong to file a case of forcible entry
by stealth and strategy.

MTC - Granted. MTC ordered Inland to vacate the subject property and pay compensation for the use of
the premises. MTC disregarded the defense of Inland that the proper action should have been for
unlawful detainer.

RTC- Reversed. Case is not of forcible entry because Sumolong was not in prior physical and actual
possession of the property.

CA- Affirmed. Lack of cause of action for forcible entry.

ISSUE:
1.WON there is cause of action for forcible entry.
2. if not, WON complaint contains sufficient allegations for unlawful detainer

RULING :
Cause of action is not for forcible entry because the allegations does not amount to stealth and
strategy. However the allegations sufficiently establish a cause of action for unlawful detainer. The
possession of inland was by virtue of Sumulongs tolerance because Inland promised to negotitate a
contract of lease. Possesssion by tolerance is lawful but the occupant must vacate upon demand and in
case of failure to vacte , a summary action for ejectment is proper. Since the allegations in the complaint
are sufficient to establish a cause of action for unlawful detainer , a judgement can be validly rendered.
Since the decision of MTC is consistent with that for unlawful detainer, MTC decision is REINSTATED.

DOCTRINE : The lack of cause of action, which is a ground for a motion to dismiss, must appear on the
face of the complaint (from the allegations in the complaint). A complaint should not be dismissed for
insuffiency unless it appears clearly from the face of the complaint that the plaintiff is not entiled to any
relief under any state of facts which could be proved from the facts alleged. Though the allegations in
the complaint are ambiguous, indefifnite or uncertain but nevertheless a cause of action can be made
out therefrom and the plaintiff would be entitled to recover in any aspect of the fact or any combination
of the factd alleged.