G.R. No. 212979 February 18, 2019
MA. ANTONETTE LOZANO, Petitioner, vs. JOCELYN K. FERNANDEZ, Respondent

FACTS

Respondent Jocelyn Fernandez filed an unlawful detainer case against petitioner Ma. Antonette Lozano before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC). Fernandez anchored her claim on a Waiver and Transfer of Possessory Rights allegedly executed by Lozano on December 11, 2006, transferring possessory rights over a parcel of land in Olongapo City. Fernandez claimed that after the waiver, she tolerated Lozano’s continued possession until she sent a demand to vacate on July 15, 2009. Lozano resisted, denying she validly signed the waiver, claiming she was tricked into signing a blank document for a loan transaction, and asserting she remained the true owner and possessor since 1996.
The MTCC dismissed the complaint, ruling the cause of action had prescribed, as the complaint was filed more than one year from the alleged unlawful withholding, and Fernandez failed to prove tolerance. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed, finding Lozano’s possession after the waiver was by mere tolerance, making her subsequent refusal to vacate upon demand actionable. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, upholding the waiver’s validity and the finding of tolerance.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s decision ordering Lozano’s ejectment, specifically on the finding that her possession was by the respondent’s tolerance, a jurisdictional requirement for unlawful detainer.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the MTCC decision, dismissing the unlawful detainer case. The Court clarified that for unlawful detainer to lie, the plaintiff’s prior physical or legal possession and the defendant’s possession by the plaintiff’s tolerance or permission are jurisdictional facts that must be clearly alleged and proved. Mere silence or inaction by a claimant after a purported transfer of rights does not, by itself, constitute the “tolerance” contemplated by law. Tolerance must be positive, consisting of overt acts signifying permission or authorization for the continued possession.
Here, Fernandez relied solely on the execution of the Waiver and her subsequent inaction until the demand letter. The Court found this insufficient to establish tolerance. The affidavits presented by Fernandez merely concluded possession was tolerated without describing any positive act of permission. The absence of such overt act is fatal to an unlawful detainer suit. Consequently, the MTCC correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of a valid cause of action, as Fernandez failed to prove the requisite factual basis of possession by tolerance to confer jurisdiction upon the court over the ejectment case.