G.R. No. 255989 . March 01, 2023.
RODRIGO GALANDE, PETITIONER, VS. FLORDELIZA ESPIRITU-SARENAS AND JIMMY O. ESPIRITU, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Rodrigo Galande filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against respondents Flordeliza Espiritu-Sarenas and Jimmy O. Espiritu. Petitioner alleged he had been in actual and continuous possession of a 4,606-square-meter parcel of land in San Jose City, Nueva Ecija, as a tenant of the registered owners, Spouses Salamanca, for over 40 years. He later purchased the property from them on installment. In May 2015, while still paying installments, petitioner allowed respondents to till one-half of the property on the condition they would vacate upon demand. When petitioner demanded they vacate, respondents refused, asserting ownership based on a Notice of Adverse Claim annotated on the title in 1966 by their late mother and predecessor-in-interest, Gertrudes Ducusin, covering a one-half portion. The Spouses Salamanca refused to recognize this adverse claim. The MTCC ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering respondents to vacate and pay reasonable rent. The RTC affirmed the MTCC decision. The Court of Appeals reversed, dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action, ruling that respondents’ possession was not by mere tolerance but by color of title based on the annotated adverse claim.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in dismissing the complaint for unlawful detainer.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the Court of Appeals decision. The Court held that petitioner sufficiently established the elements for unlawful detainer. Respondents’ initial possession of the one-half portion was by petitioner’s tolerance, as he allowed them to till the land in May 2015 on the condition they vacate upon demand. The permission granted did not constitute an agreement or acknowledgment of respondents’ ownership, nor a waiver of petitioner’s rights. The Notice of Adverse Claim, annotated in 1966, had already lapsed as it was effective only for 30 days from registration under the Property Registration Decree and was not renewed. It did not create a vested right or serve as proof of ownership. Petitioner proved prior physical possession as a tenant and later as purchaser, and respondents’ possession became illegal upon their refusal to vacate after demand. The MTCC and RTC correctly found a cause of action for unlawful detainer.