GR 265223; (November, 2024) (Digest)
G.R. No. 265223 , November 13, 2024
NOE R. PAGARAO, JR. AND REBECCA CABALLA, PETITIONERS, VS. IMMACULADA T. TRINIDAD, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Respondent Immaculada T. Trinidad is the owner of a parcel of land in Cainta, Rizal. Petitioners Noe R. Pagarao, Jr. and Rebecca Caballa occupied the land and built a structure in February 2015. In 2018, Trinidad discovered their occupation and verbally demanded they vacate. Petitioners pleaded to stay and offered to buy the property for PHP 2.5 million. Trinidad agreed, subject to a written contract to sell, and accepted a partial payment of PHP 300,000 as earnest money, allowing petitioners to continue occupying the property. Petitioners later refused to sign the contract. Trinidad then sent a written demand to vacate and, after refusal, filed a complaint for unlawful detainer with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) on April 1, 2019. The MTC ruled in favor of Trinidad, ordering petitioners to vacate and pay compensation. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTC decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) denied petitioners’ petition, upholding the lower courts. Petitioners sought review by the Supreme Court, arguing that unlawful detainer was not the proper remedy.
ISSUE
Whether the courts a quo correctly ruled that Trinidad properly availed of the remedy of unlawful detainer.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, and dismissed the complaint for unlawful detainer for lack of cause of action.
The Court held that for an unlawful detainer case to prosper, the defendant’s initial possession of the property must be by virtue of a contract with or by the tolerance of the plaintiff. If the possession is unlawful from the start, the action cannot be one for unlawful detainer. The Court emphasized that tolerance must be present at the beginning of the possession. In this case, Trinidad admitted in her complaint that she did not know when or how petitioners initially occupied her lot. Their entry was, therefore, unauthorized and unlawful from the start. The subsequent tolerance or permission granted after the discovery of the occupation and the agreement to sell did not convert the nature of their initial possession from unlawful to lawful. Consequently, the proper remedy should have been a plenary action for recovery of possession, not the summary action of unlawful detainer. The one-year prescriptive period for filing an unlawful detainer case had also lapsed.