G.R. No. L-12011-14 - People vs. Gatchalian

On October 12, 2012, respondents (Spouses Erlinda Ventanilla and Arturo Ventanilla) filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Bulacan against petitioner Fortunato Anzures.
In their complaint, the respondents alleged that:

They were the owners of a residential house located in Barangay Sta. Ines, Bulakan, Bulacan.
The house had been declared for taxation in their names for the year 2012.
The property, a 289-square-meter parcel under OCT No. 2011000008, was subject to prior ownership claims but partly donated by petitioner and his wife Carolina to the respondents through a deed of donation dated March 21, 2011.
Their intention was to partition the property, but the location of the residential house constituted a stumbling block to such partition.
Despite their demands to vacate the property, petitioner continued to occupy it solely by the respondents’ tolerance.

He and his late wife Carolina were the rightful owners of both the residential house and the 289-square-meter parcel of land.
The property was acquired through a transaction evidenced by a Pagpapamana sa Labas ng Hukuman document dated August 2, 2000, and supported by tax receipts evidencing payments for the house from 1998 to 2011.
The deed of donation executed on March 21, 2011 was not genuine since at that time, Carolina was allegedly mentally and physically incompetent; further, petitioner contended he neither knew of nor signed such deed.

Documentary evidence including notarized instruments such as the Waiver of Rights, Deed of Absolute Sale, Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate, and the deed of donation.
Their assertion that petitioner’s occupancy was based solely on their tolerance, implying an implied promise for him to vacate on demand.

The MTC, on August 16, 2013, ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering petitioner to:

Vacate the residential house.
Pay monthly compensation of P1,000.00 for use of the property from the filing of the complaint until vacation.
Pay attorney’s fees amounting to P5,000.00.

Unconvinced, petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) where, on June 30, 2014, the RTC affirmed the MTC’s decision in toto and held:

That the respondents, by merely tolerating his possession, held a better right over the property.

Petitioner then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA), raising two main points:

That the respondents failed to sufficiently allege the jurisdictional fact of unlawful withholding by petitioner.
That the deed of donation executed on March 21, 2011 was forged.

Denied petitioner’s petition, finding the allegations on unlawful detainer sufficient despite the absence of the precise wording “unlawful withholding.”
Ruled that occupation by tolerance transforms into unlawful possession when the possessor refuses to vacate upon the owner’s demand.
Dismissed the forgery allegation due to the absence of clear, positive, and convincing evidence.
Reiterated the heavy weight accorded to the factual findings of the trial courts.

Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the CA.
The Supreme Court identified essential conflicting factual issues, notably the co-ownership of the subject property, and determined that the proper remedy for the respondents should be an action for partition rather than ejectment.

Whether the CA gravely erred in upholding the RTC’s decision affirming that the respondents have a cause of action to eject petitioner based on the claim of possession by tolerance.
Whether the CA erred in upholding the validity of the deed of donation dated March 21, 2011 in light of petitioner’s allegation that it was forged.