Perez v. Rasaceña
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Thamerlane M. Perez filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against respondents Dominador Rasaceña, Priscilla Navarro, and Adelfa Lim for the property located at 800 Loyola Street corner San Diego Street, Sampaloc, Manila. Petitioner claimed ownership based on a Deed of Conditional Sale dated January 13, 2010, and a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 29, 2010, both from LNC 3 Asset Management, Inc. (LNC), the registered owner. Petitioner alleged that LNC had tolerated respondents' occupancy and that after acquiring the property, he demanded respondents vacate via a letter dated April 19, 2010, which they refused. Procedural History: The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering respondents to vacate, pay monthly compensation, and attorney's fees. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MeTC decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, finding that petitioner failed to prove possession by tolerance and that the Deed of Absolute Sale was dubious due to lack of registration, affidavit of the notary, and proof of authority of signatories for LNC. The CA dismissed the unlawful detainer case. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution, raising issues on whether the CA erred in ruling that petitioner failed to prove possession by tolerance and in deeming the Deed of Absolute Sale as dubious.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in ruling that petitioner failed to allege and prove that respondents' possession was by mere tolerance of his predecessors-in-interest. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in ruling that the Deed of Absolute Sale of the petitioner is highly dubious and questionable; and whether the arguments regarding PD 1517 and a pending expropriation case should be considered.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reinstated the Metropolitan Trial Court's decision, and ordered the respondents to vacate the premises. The Court found that petitioner sufficiently established possession by tolerance and that the Deed of Absolute Sale, being notarized, enjoys a presumption of regularity which respondents failed to overcome with clear and convincing evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of possession by tolerance: The Court reiterated that in unlawful detainer cases, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant's possession was initially lawful by tolerance of the owner, which became unlawful upon demand to vacate. The Court found that petitioner sufficiently established this by presenting letters showing that previous owners (Agus and Metrobank) had demanded the Navarros to vacate in 2004. Metrobank's failure to file an ejectment case shortly after this demand was considered a waiver, implying tolerance. This tolerance was maintained by LNC, thus petitioner was able to establish that respondents' possession was by tolerance of his predecessors, making them bound by an implied promise to vacate upon demand. On the issue of the Deed of Absolute Sale's validity, PD 1517, and the pending expropriation case: The Court disagreed with the CA's conclusion that the Deed of Absolute Sale was dubious, holding that notarized deeds enjoy a presumption of regularity, which respondents failed to overcome. The CA's reliance on a certification not presented before the trial courts was erroneous. Furthermore, the Court noted that respondents' arguments regarding PD 1517 and a pending expropriation case were raised for the first time on appeal and were thus proscribed. Even if considered, respondents failed to prove that the property was covered by PD 1517 or that they were qualified beneficiaries. The pending expropriation case would not affect the resolution of the unlawful detainer case.
Main Doctrine
In unlawful detainer cases, possession by tolerance requires proof of overt acts indicative of the owner's permission. A notarized deed of sale enjoys a presumption of regularity, which can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. Issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.