Tan siokk kuan and pute ching vs felicismo boy ho et. Al.

Facts: This is a petition for certiorari for a civil case in which the petitioners alleged
that they are the owner of a parcel of land and its improvements which the
defendants were possessing. The facts states there are 7 separate complaints for
unlawful detainer and that the petitioner alleged that the defendants were leasing
their land from the year 1973 and defendants failed to pay in 1997 and in 2003 the
petitioner notified the defendants for their failure to pay rentals. The defendants
were given 10 days to pay or else vacate the premises however the defendant
ignored the demand which promted the petitioner to file such case. Two of the
other respondents contend that they could not have been subjected to lease
because of the reason that the petitioners where non filipino citizens which does not
allow them to own lands here in the Philippines while the other 5 contends that
there is no existing contract between them and the petitioners and they contend
that they already posses the land for about 37 years the defendants also contends
that if ever that the titles of the petitioners are authentic the case that should have
been filed is accion publiciana and not unlawful detainer because they have been in
the possession of the land. After trial in METC (metropolitan trial court) it ruled in
favor of the petitioners which ruled that the defendants impliedly admitted the
existence of the lease. Upon appeal the RTC affirmed the decision of the lower
court. However when appealed to the court of appeals the court of appeals ruled in
favor of the defendants and reversed the ruling of the RTC.
Issue: Whether or not the action that should have been filed is accion publiciana?
Ruling: yes, The Supreme court ruled that accion publiciana should have been filed
considering the fact that the petitioner failed to show evidence that there is an
existing tenancy relationship between the petitioners and the defendants which
suggests that the unlawful detainer will not apply.
In the present case, petitioners failed to establish the defendants alleged implied
admission of a lessor-lesse relationship falls under the exceptions to the principle of
res inter alios acta as to make such admission binding upon respondents. Although
defendants and respondents were all defendants in the complaints for unlawful
detainer filed by the petitioners, it is very clear that defendants and respondents
espoused different defenses. Contrary to defendants positions, respondents, as
early filing of their response to petitioners demand letter, firmly and consistently
denied the existence of any lease contract between them and petitioners over the
subject land.
Wherefore, finding no reversible error in the assailed rulings, the court resolves to
deny the present petition. Accordingly, the decision dated June 29, 2006 and
resolution dated October 17, 2006 of the court of appeals are hereby affirmed and
the complaints for unlawful detainer filed by petitioners Tan siok kuan and pute

ching against respondents Felicisimo boy ho , Rodolfo Returta, Vicente Salas, and
Lolita Malonzo are dismissed.