Dayandayan v. Rojas
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondents, Spouses Eduardo and Enriquita Rojas, own Lot No. 635, acquired on March 9, 1997. Petitioners Teresita Dayandayan, Clara Talle, and their relatives occupied portions of this lot. The Spouses Rojas claim the petitioners initially asked permission to build houses with the understanding they would vacate upon demand, which was granted out of compassion. When the Spouses Rojas demanded they vacate in January and February 2009, the petitioners refused. The petitioners countered that their houses were built on government-reclaimed property, not the Spouses Rojas' lot, and that they had resided there long before the respondents purchased the property. 2. Procedural History: On April 17, 2009, the Spouses Rojas filed an Unlawful Detainer Complaint. The MCTC ruled in their favor on October 1, 2010, ordering the petitioners to vacate and pay fees. The petitioners appealed to the RTC, which reversed the MCTC's decision on May 13, 2011, dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, later clarified as lack of evidence of tolerance, and ordered the respondents to respect the petitioners' possession. The RTC denied the Spouses Rojas' motion for reconsideration on March 26, 2012. Subsequently, the Spouses Rojas filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in its September 30, 2015 Decision, reversed the RTC's ruling, reinstated the MCTC's decision, finding that the Spouses Rojas had sufficiently alleged and proven tolerance and rejecting the petitioners' reclaimed land claim. The petitioners then filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek the reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the respondents failed to prove the essential element of tolerance for an unlawful detainer case. They contend their possession predated the respondents' acquisition of the property, making the claim of permission and subsequent tolerance improbable and self-serving. The petitioners also suggest that if any cause of action exists, it should be against the Municipality of Isabel, Leyte, which allegedly ordered their relocation. Their core argument is that the respondents did not establish a lawful basis for ejectment through an unlawful detainer action, specifically by failing to prove overt acts of tolerance.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondents sufficiently alleged and proved the element of tolerance in their action for unlawful detainer. Whether the petitioners occupied the subject property prior to the respondents' acquisition thereof. Whether the respondents availed of the proper remedy to recover possession of the subject property.
Ruling
The Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals decision, and reinstated the Regional Trial Court's ruling dismissing the unlawful detainer case. The dispositive portion ordered the dismissal of the unlawful detainer case due to the respondents' failure to prove the essential requisites for such an action.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of alleging and proving tolerance: The Court held that for an unlawful detainer action to prosper, the plaintiff must allege and prove by preponderance of evidence that the defendant's possession was initially by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff. Tolerance must be present from the outset and must be proven by positive acts, not mere silence or inaction. In this case, the respondents' claim of tolerance was based on vague, self-serving statements without specific details on how and when permission was granted. The Deed of Sale showing respondents acquired the property in 1997, years after petitioners had been residing there, contradicted the claim that petitioners asked permission to build houses. The Court reiterated that allegations are not proof and that tolerance cannot be equated with indifference or negligence. On the petitioners' prior possession: The Court found that the petitioners presented evidence, including affidavits and certifications, establishing their residence on the subject property prior to the respondents' acquisition in March 1997. This prior possession, independent of any contract with the respondents or their predecessors-in-interest, directly contradicted the respondents' claim that petitioners asked for permission to build their houses. The Court noted that it would be illogical for petitioners to seek permission to build when they had already been residing there for years. This prior possession negated the respondents' basis for an unlawful detainer action. On the propriety of the remedy: The Court emphasized that an owner cannot simply use an action for unlawful detainer to wrest possession from a lawful occupant. To recover possession, the owner must avail of the proper judicial remedy, such as accion reivindicatoria or accion publiciana, and satisfy the necessary conditions for those actions. The Court cited previous rulings, including Muñoz v. CA and Javelosa v. Tapus, which stressed that possession cannot be recovered through a summary ejectment action if the occupant has been in possession for a long period, especially if the owner fails to prove the essential requisites of unlawful detainer, such as tolerance. Since the respondents failed to prove tolerance, their chosen remedy was improper, and they should have pursued other legal avenues.
Main Doctrine
An owner cannot wrest possession from a lawful occupant through an action for unlawful detainer without proving by preponderance of evidence that the occupant's possession was initially based on the owner's tolerance or permission. If possession was unlawful from the start, or if tolerance cannot be proven, the owner must avail of other appropriate remedies like accion reivindicatoria or accion publiciana.