G.R. No. 227411 , July 15, 2020
TERESITA DAYANDAYAN, YOLLY D. LAGUNA, CLARA “CARING” TALLE, MR. & MRS. RODRIGO RIOS, AND MR. & MRS. REDEN BIGNAY, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES EDUARDO P. ROJAS AND ENRIQUITA A. ROJAS, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Spouses Eduardo and Enriquita Rojas (respondents) are the lawful owners of Lot No. 635 in Isabel, Leyte, purchased in 1997. They alleged that petitioners Teresita Dayandayan and Clara Talle asked permission to construct houses on a portion of the lot, promising to vacate upon demand, and were allowed to stay out of compassion without paying rent. Later, other petitioners (Laguna, Spouses Rios, and Spouses Bignay) also occupied the property. In 2009, respondents demanded that petitioners vacate, but they refused. Respondents filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC). Petitioners claimed their houses were on government property outside respondents’ lot, noting the lot area per tax declaration was 306 sqm, not 435 sqm. They asserted Talle built her house on a foreshore area in 1983, and Dayandayan’s house, built in 1984, was relocated by the municipal government to a reclaimed area near Talle’s in 1990. The MCTC ruled in favor of respondents, ordering petitioners to vacate. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed, dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, finding respondents failed to prove tolerance as petitioners were residing there before respondents purchased the lot. The RTC later clarified dismissal was for lack of evidence, not jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals (CA) reinstated the MCTC decision, holding respondents sufficiently alleged tolerance and petitioners failed to prove their entry preceded respondents’ acquisition.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents have a valid cause of action for unlawful detainer based on tolerance, thereby entitling them to possession of the subject property.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CA and reinstating the RTC’s dismissal of the unlawful detainer case. The Court held that for unlawful detainer based on tolerance to prosper, the plaintiff must prove that the possession was initially lawful, beginning with the owner’s permission or tolerance, and that such possession later became unlawful upon the owner’s demand to vacate. Respondents failed to substantiate their claim of tolerance. Their allegation that petitioners sought permission in 1997 was contradicted by petitioners’ evidence of occupying the area since the 1980s and the 1990 relocation by the municipality. The respondents’ evidence, primarily their joint affidavit, was deemed self-serving and insufficient. The burden of proof to establish tolerance rests on the plaintiff, which respondents did not discharge. Furthermore, the MCTC’s reliance on a Commissioner’s Report was misplaced as it did not conclusively establish the structures were on respondents’ specific lot. Since respondents did not prove the fact of tolerance, a requisite for unlawful detainer, the case was improperly filed. The proper remedy for respondents, if they claim ownership, is an accion reivindicatoria or plenary action in the proper RTC, not an ejectment case.