GR 175990; (October, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 175990; October 11, 2012
HEIRS OF ALBINA G. AMPIL, represented by EXEQUIEL G. AMPIL, Petitioners, vs. TERESA MANAHAN and MARIO MANAHAN, Respondents.
FACTS
The petitioners, heirs of Albina G. Ampil, filed an unlawful detainer complaint against the respondents, the Manahan family, before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Paombong, Bulacan. Petitioners alleged ownership over two adjoining lots, evidenced by tax declarations in Albina’s name, and claimed that the respondents’ possession was by mere tolerance. They asserted that after Albina’s death in 1986, they demanded that the respondents vacate, but the latter refused. The MTC ruled in favor of the petitioners, awarding possession and rental compensation. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed this decision.
The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the lower courts, dismissing the complaint. The CA held that tax declarations alone are not conclusive proof of ownership or the right to possess. It found that the petitioners failed to sufficiently establish the fact of tolerance by the late Albina, which is a jurisdictional requirement for unlawful detainer. The CA concluded that the action was improperly filed as one for unlawful detainer.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the complaint for unlawful detainer on the grounds that the petitioners failed to prove their prior physical possession and the respondents’ possession by mere tolerance.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the CA and reinstated the MTC decision. The Court clarified that in an unlawful detainer case, the plaintiff must prove prior physical possession, which later became unlawful upon the termination of the defendant’s right by an act of demand to vacate. The petitioners successfully established this prior possession through Albina’s tax declarations and, more importantly, through a sworn statement (Sinumpaang Salaysay) executed by the respondents’ predecessor, Perfecto Manahan. In that document, Perfecto explicitly admitted that the lots were owned by Albina Ampil and that his family’s stay was with her permission.
The Court held that this judicial admission was conclusive upon the respondents and served as clear evidence of the petitioners’ prior possession and the fact of tolerance. The subsequent issuance of an Original Certificate of Title in the heirs’ names for one of the lots further bolstered their claim. The CA erred in focusing on ownership; the sole issue in ejectment is material possession or possession de facto. The petitioners’ evidence adequately proved their better right to physical possession, making the filing of the unlawful detainer case proper. The MTC and RTC correctly exercised jurisdiction.