G.R. No. 187727, September 2, 2015
TOMASA J. SABELLINA, Petitioner, vs. DOLORES BURAY, LEDENIA VILLAMOR, ARLENE MAGSAYO, LUDIMA ROMULO, RAMON CANADELLA, ROBERTO ACIDO, MARIO ESPARGUERA, RODRIGO ACIDO, RONNIE UBANGAN and CONCEPCION REBUSTO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Tomasa J. Sabellina filed a complaint for unlawful detainer before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) against the respondents, alleging she is the owner of a parcel of land she inherited from her father. She claimed the respondents occupied the land by permission of her late sister and later by her own tolerance, on condition they would vacate when needed. In 2003, she verbally requested them to vacate as she needed to sell the land to pay a mortgage debt, and after a failed barangay settlement, she sent a written demand on August 2, 2004. The respondents, in their answer, claimed they had possessed the land in good faith since the 1970s and had acquired it through acquisitive prescription, introducing improvements like homes and crops. The MCTC ruled in favor of Sabellina, ordering the respondents’ ejectment and awarding damages. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MCTC decision on appeal. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed, holding that while Sabellina established ownership via tax declarations and an extrajudicial settlement, she failed to prove by preponderance of evidence her specific allegation of tolerance. The CA found the parties’ evidence in equipoise and dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner established her cause of action for unlawful detainer by a preponderance of evidence.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s dismissal of the unlawful detainer complaint. The Court held that in an unlawful detainer case, the plaintiff must prove prior physical possession and that such possession was terminated by the defendant’s occupation by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or after possession by tolerance. While Sabellina presented evidence of ownership (tax declarations, extrajudicial settlement, tax receipts) and a “Promissory Agreement” from one respondent admitting caretakership, this evidence pertained more to ownership and did not sufficiently establish the specific fact of possession by tolerance. The respondents’ evidence, though also insufficient to prove acquisitive prescription, created equipoise. Since Sabellina, as plaintiff, bore the burden of proof and failed to establish her allegations of prior possession and tolerance by preponderance of evidence, her action for unlawful detainer could not prosper. The Court clarified she was not without remedy, as she could still avail of plenary actions like accion publiciana or accion reinvindicatoria to recover possession and vindicate ownership.