Del Rosario v. Manuel
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents, spouses Jose and Concordia Manuel, filed an unlawful detainer case against petitioner, Alfredo Yasay del Rosario. They alleged that they are the owners of a lot and had allowed petitioner to occupy it temporarily after his house was destroyed by a typhoon, with the understanding that he would build a temporary shelter of light materials. However, petitioner constructed a concrete house without their consent. When respondents asked petitioner to vacate in 1992, he refused. After failed barangay conciliation, a certification to file action was issued. Procedural History: On August 12, 1999, the Manuels filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against del Rosario with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Mateo, Rizal. The MTC ruled in favor of the respondents on September 22, 2000, ordering del Rosario to vacate the property and pay monthly compensation. Del Rosario appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MTC's decision on May 10, 2001. Subsequently, del Rosario filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals on November 29, 2001. The Petition: The Court of Appeals dismissed del Rosario's petition for review on May 22, 2002, finding it was filed out of time. The present petition for review on certiorari assails this dismissal. Del Rosario raises two issues: (1) whether the MTC had jurisdiction over the ejectment case, and (2) whether he was a builder in good faith entitled to reimbursement under Article 448 of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court, in its decision, denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' ruling that the MTC had jurisdiction and that del Rosario was not a builder in good faith as his possession was by mere tolerance.
Issue(s)
Whether the MTC has jurisdiction over the ejectment case. Whether petitioner is a builder in good faith entitled to reimbursement under Article 448 of the Civil Code.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that prior physical possession is not a prerequisite for filing an unlawful detainer case. It distinguished unlawful detainer from forcible entry, noting that unlawful detainer involves unlawfully withholding possession after the expiration or termination of the right to occupy under a contract, express or implied. Since the respondents filed an unlawful detainer case, they were not required to allege prior physical possession. The Court found that petitioner's possession was by mere tolerance of the respondents, making him a deforciant occupant upon demand to vacate. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that petitioner is not a builder in good faith. It reasoned that since his occupation of the land was by mere tolerance, he was aware that his occupancy could be terminated at any time by the respondents. Therefore, he could not claim the rights of a builder in good faith under Article 448 of the Civil Code, which typically applies when a builder is unaware of defects in their title or mode of acquisition.
Main Doctrine
In unlawful detainer cases, prior physical possession by the plaintiff is not a requirement. Possession by mere tolerance makes the occupant a deforciant occupant once demand to vacate is made.