In ejectment cases, allegation of "unlawful withholding" sufficient words of jurisdiction

In their complaint for unlawful detainer, private respondents alleged that they are the registered owners of the subject land and therefore, entitled to possession thereof; that petitioners were illegally occupying the premises without their consent and thus unlawfully withholding possession from them; and, despite receipt of their demand to vacate the premises, petitioner refused to leave the property. On the face of the complaint, it also appears that private respondent were seeking to recover merely the physical possession or possession de facto of the subject land. Private respondents did not allege the incidents respecting the mortgage of the land and the pending RTC case questioning the mortgage contract as the issue involved therein is ownership which has no place in an ejectment case. In fine, the allegations in the complaint make out a case for unlawful detainer. We have ruled in a long line of cases that "in an action for unlawful detainer, a simple allegation that defendant is unlawfully withholding possession from plaintiff is x x x sufficient for the words 'unlawfuly withholding' imply possession on the part of defendant, which was legal in the beginning, having no other source than a contract, express or implied, possession which has later expired as a right and is being withheld by defendant." Thus, in the case at bar, private respondents' allegation in their complaint that petitioner was unlawfully withholding possession of the land from them is sufficient to make out a case for unlawful detainer. [G.R. No. 124292. December 10, 1996]