GR 587; (July, 1902) (Digest)
G.R. No. 587 : July 14, 1902
FIDEL RIVERA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PAULA DE GUZMAN, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
Plaintiff Fidel Rivera filed an action for unlawful detainer against defendant Paula de Guzman. Rivera alleged he was the owner and possessor of a lot, based on a possessory information title recorded in the property registry. He claimed de Guzman occupied the lot as a mere precarious tenant by his tolerance, without paying rent, and that she refused to vacate after a formal demand.
De Guzman denied Rivera’s allegations, claiming she and her husband were the true owners of the lot. She asserted she purchased it from the same previous owner, Jose Torres y Osorio, years earlier and had constructed a house on it approximately fifteen years prior. She presented evidence including acts of conciliation and an affidavit to support her claim of ownership. Rivera admitted that de Guzman’s house was already on the lot when he purportedly purchased it.
ISSUE:
Whether the action for unlawful detainer (forcible entry and detainer) is the proper remedy, given that the defendant claims ownership and the plaintiff failed to prove the defendant’s possession was merely by his tolerance as a precarious tenant.
RULING:
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s judgment and dismissed the unlawful detainer action.
The Court held that while Rivera’s recorded possessory information title gave him the capacity to sue, it was insufficient to succeed in an action for unlawful detainer. For such an action to prosper under the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s possession falls under specific statutory categories, such as that of a precarious tenant holding possession by the owner’s mere tolerance.
Rivera failed to present any evidence to substantiate his allegation that de Guzman’s possession was precarious or by his tolerance. On the contrary, de Guzman’s claim of ownership and her prior possession (which Rivera admitted) negated the premise of precarious tenancy. The Court ruled that contested claims of ownership cannot be adjudicated in a summary action for unlawful detainer. The proper recourse for the parties is to settle the question of title in an ordinary declarative action.
The eviction was denied, and the parties were reserved the right to litigate their respective claims of ownership in the proper action. No costs were awarded.