GR 238513; (July, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 238513 , July 31, 2019
SPOUSES BELINDA LIU AND HSI PIN LIU, Petitioners vs. MARCELINA ESPINOSA, MARY ANN M. ESTRADA, ARCHIE ASUMBRADO, INESITA ASUMBRADO, LORETO TUTOR, ELIAS PENAS, BENITA ABANTAO, BASILIZA MARTIZANO, ARMAN PARAS, MIGUELITO M. ANTEGA, JOVENTINO CAHULOGAN, AND TITO TUBAC, Respondents
FACTS
Petitioner Belinda Y. Liu owns a parcel of land in Davao City covered by TCT No. 146-2010008891, acquired from a predecessor-in-interest. The respondents are the present occupants of the land. The petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest merely tolerated the respondents’ occupation upon the understanding that they would vacate once the petitioners needed the land. After demands to vacate, the latest on February 12, 2013, were refused, petitioners filed an unlawful detainer complaint in the MTCC on August 6, 2013. The MTCC ruled for the petitioners, ordering respondents to vacate and pay rentals and attorney’s fees. The RTC affirmed the MTCC decision on appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding petitioners failed to sufficiently prove tolerance from the start of respondents’ possession. Petitioners filed this petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC and MTCC decisions and in finding that the petitioners’ action for unlawful detainer was not sufficiently proven.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution, and reinstated the RTC Decision. The Court held that all requisites for unlawful detainer were sufficiently established: (1) respondents’ initial possession was by tolerance of petitioners and their predecessor; (2) such possession became illegal upon petitioners’ demand to vacate; (3) respondents remained in possession depriving petitioners of enjoyment; and (4) the complaint was filed within one year from the last demand (February 12, 2013 to August 6, 2013). Petitioners, as registered owners evidenced by a Torrens title, possess superior rights to possession. Respondents’ offer to purchase the land negated their claim of possession in the concept of an owner. The only issue in unlawful detainer is physical possession, independent of ownership claims.