Balibago Faith Baptist Church (BFBC) and Phil. Baptist S.B.C. Inc. (PBSBC) v.

Faith in Christ Jesus Baptist

Church (FCJBC) and Reynaldo Galvan

Doctrine: The rule is that the allegations in the complaint determine both the nature of the action and
the jurisdiction of the court. The cause of action in a complaint is not what the designation of the
complaint states, but what the allegations in the body of the complaint define and describe.

Notes: JD over the remedy- Rule 70 ROC

Petitioner- BFBC and PBSBC; Respondent- FBJBC and Galvan

FACTS: A contract of loan was entered into between PBSBC and BFBC where the latter borrowed money
from the former to enable it to purchase the subject property. Thereafter, BFBC took possession of the
subject property and held therein their religious activities. While BFBC was still in possession of the
subject property, Galvan and his companions began attending BFBC's religious activities at the subject
property. BFBC alleged that Galvan apparently was interested on the property because after some time
Galvan formed and incorporated FCJBC and took control of the subject property. Galvan’s actuations
came to the knowledge of the Luzon Convention of Southern Baptist Churches, Inc. (LCSBC). in a Letter
LCSBC upheld BFBC's right over the subject property and recognized BFBC's pastor, Rev. Rolando T.
Santos, as its legitimate pastor.

However, despite the letter demand given, FCJBC continued to occupy the subject property, thus, in a
Demand Letter, BFBC demanded that FCJBC vacate the property within (5) days from notice and to pay
the amount of P10,000.00 per month beginning October 2001 as reasonable compensation for its use.
Due to its noncompliance, BFBC and PBSBC filed a complaint for unlawful detainer and damages against
FCJBC and Galvan.

In its Answer, FCJBC and Galvan contended that:

- it has been in existence since 1984; it was formerly known as "Faith Baptist Church" (FBC) and held
services therein; FBC eventually moved to a building along MacArthur Highway in the same
subdivision; that some of the members of the FBC availed of the loan from the Church Loan Fund of
Foreign Mission Board, SBC, Philippine Baptist Mission for the purpose of purchasing the subject
property. Rolando Santos was the pastor of FBC from 1993 to 2000; vutdue to a misunderstanding
within the church group, Santos left FBC, together with some of its members.
- That February 2001, Santos' group formed BFBC, an organization which was duly registered with the
SEC. FBC continued to occupy the subject property and, on January 9, 2001, organized themselves
into FCJBC; that it paid installments due on the subject property in the sum of P10,000.00, leaving a
balance of P240,615.53. FCJBC alleged that since June 2001, they were willing and able to pay the
installments due on the subject property, however, PBSBC refused to accept any payment from it.
By September 9, 2002, the installments due had reached P47,232.00; that prior to BFBC's filing of
the present complaint, a Petition for Consignation of Payment was already filed with the RTC. FCJBC
prayed that PBSBC be required to accept the amount of P240,615.53 as full payment of the
Contract of Simple Loan or Mutuum

The MTC ruled in favor of respondent BFBC. The MTC ruled that the case was one of forcible entry and
not unlawful detainer. The RTC affirmed the MTC’s decision. FCJBC moved for reconsideration but was
denied. Thus, it filed a petition for review on certiorari before the appellate court which the latter
granted.

ISSUE: Whether the complaint in this case sufficiently alleged one of a forcible entry case

HELD: No. In this case, pars 5 and 6 (formed there group and takeover of defendants) make it clear that
FCJBC’s occupancy was unlawful from the start and was bereft of contractual or legal basis. No
allegation that petitioners tolerated respondent’s possession of the subject property. Neither was there
averment in the complaint which shows any overt act on the part of petitioners indicative of permission
to occupy the land. While these facts were established, the SC held that t his case would have to fall
under the concept of forcible entry as it has been long settled that in forcible entry cases, no force is
really necessary. The act of going on the property and excluding the lawful possessor therefrom
necessarily implies the exertion of force over the property, and this is all that is necessary.

However, while BFBC sufficiently alleged that they had prior physical possession of the subject property,
nothing has been said on how FCJBC's entry was effected or when dispossession started. The rule is that
the allegations in the complaint determine both the nature of the action and the jurisdiction of the
court. The cause of action in a complaint is not what the designation of the complaint states, but what
the allegations in the body of the complaint define and describe.

It is in this light, the Court ruled that the present complaint is similarly defective even if the Court are to
treat the same as forcible entry as it failed to allege on how and when entry was effected. BFBC and
PBSBC's failure to allege when the dispossession took place and how it was effected leaves the
complaint wanting in jurisdictional ground. If the dispossession did not occur by any of the means
stated in Section 1, Rule 70, as in this case, the proper recourse is to file a plenary action to recover
possession with the Regional Trial Court. Consequently, the MTC has no jurisdiction over the case.