G.R. No. 142276 ; August 14, 2001
FLORENTINO GO, JR., MA. LUZVIMINDA GO, LEONIDA GO, FELIPE GO, MARIETTA GO, ROBERTO GO, ESTRELITA GO, ANTONIO GO, ALBERTO GO, BABY LUCILA GO and MANUEL GO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and AURORA I. PEREZ, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a complaint for ejectment filed by petitioners, the children and heirs of the late spouses Florentino Go, Sr. and Lucila Go, against private respondent Aurora I. Perez in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Caloocan City. Petitioners alleged they are the owners of a parcel of land in Caloocan City registered under TCT No. C-32110 in the name of their late mother, Lucila Go. They claimed that through mere tolerance of themselves and their late mother, Perez was allowed to occupy the land temporarily on condition she would vacate when asked. In December 1994, petitioners demanded that Perez vacate, but she refused. Perez, in her answer, denied the allegations and claimed she had been occupying the land since 1963 with permission from PHHC security guards, had cleared the land and built houses, and had applied to acquire it from PHHC/NHA. She claimed she only learned in December 1994 that the land was titled in Lucila Go’s name in 1980, alleging the title was acquired through false statements, and asserted a preferential right to acquire the property. The MTC dismissed the case without prejudice, ruling it was neither unlawful detainer (as petitioners failed to substantiate tolerance) nor forcible entry (as the action was not filed within one year from entry). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTC, ordering Perez to vacate, pay attorney’s fees, and pay for reasonable use and occupancy. The RTC found that an attorney was allowed by Lucila Go to temporarily use a house on the land in 1964, and Perez was first seen residing with this attorney relative in 1977, thus her possession was similarly tolerated. The RTC held the action was properly filed within one year from the December 1994 demand. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and reinstated the MTC dismissal, holding that Perez’s possession since 1977 was not by mere tolerance but was adverse, and petitioners’ remedy was an accion publiciana or reivindicatoria in the RTC, not an ejectment suit.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioners’ proper remedy is an accion publiciana or reivindicatoria, and not an ejectment action for unlawful detainer or forcible entry.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the essential allegations for an unlawful detainer case were absent. Petitioners failed to prove that Perez’s possession was by mere tolerance of the owner. The evidence showed Perez entered the land in 1963 or 1977, long before the demand to vacate in 1994, and her possession was open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious, constituting adverse possession that could not be deemed mere tolerance. For forcible entry, the complaint must allege prior physical possession by the plaintiff and deprivation thereof by the defendant through force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, with the action brought within one year from the date of entry. Petitioners knew Perez was occupying the land since 1977 but filed the case only in 1995, beyond the one-year period. The Court ruled that if petitioners are the owners and were unlawfully deprived of possession, their claim should be presented before the regional trial court in an accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria, not before the metropolitan trial court in a summary ejectment proceeding.