G.R. No. L-18327 - Atienza vs. Lopez

The dispute involves a 21,435 square meter parcel of land, designated as Lot No. 780 of the Santa Cruz de Malabon Estate Subdivision in Cavite, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 26277 in the names of Maria, Josefina, Marciana, and Virgilio Arcal.
Petitioners (collectively known as the Arcals) alleged that private respondents occupied the property through an implied tolerance or permission, but without any formal contract.
Despite the respondents’ occupancy, petitioners did not charge any rental until the matter escalated into litigation following a written demand to vacate.

On August 31, 1995, petitioners filed a complaint for unlawful detainer in Civil Case No. 370 before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Tanza, Cavite.

The complaint asserted that respondents had continued to occupy the property despite the withdrawal of any prior tolerance.
Petitioners also noted that respondents had previously engaged in other legal actions challenging petitioners’ title.

Previously, petitioners (except Virgilio Arcal) had filed an ejectment suit in Civil Case No. 285 on June 18, 1984, against substantially all of the respondents to regain possession of the property.
Additional litigation involved:

Civil Case No. TM-59 – An action for annulment of title with reconveyance and damages filed by Lucio Arvisu and several respondents against petitioners, which was later dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Civil Case No. TM-146 – A Registration of Claim Under Section 8, R.A. 26a filed by Lucio Arvisu as a follow-up after the dismissal of the first ejectment case, which was also later dismissed.

On October 26, 1995, the MTC ruled in favor of petitioners, ordering respondents to vacate the property, remove improvements, and pay rental and other costs.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cavite, Branch 23, later affirmed the MTC decision.
Private respondents then petitioned for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the complaint did not constitute an unlawful detainer suit due to allegations that their occupancy was not by mere tolerance and that they had withdrawn any such permission as early as 1984.

Petitioners contended that their written demands (the last on July 23, 1995) had clearly withdrawn any prior tolerance granted to respondents.
They claimed that despite being the registered owners and having the preferential right to possession, respondents refused to vacate the property, causing damage and prejudice.
The complaint stressed that the remedy sought was for the recovery of physical or de facto possession through summary proceedings.
The dispute was compounded by concurrent cases challenging petitioners’ title, thereby delaying the complete resolution of the underlying ownership issue.

The pendency of the title disputes (through cases TM-59 and TM-146) spanned nearly ten years, during which petitioners refrained from disturbing the status quo concerning respondents’ occupation.
The filing of the earlier ejectment case and the subsequent withdrawal of tolerance by respondents were critical in framing the present unlawful detainer suit.
The case was remanded to address whether the proper remedy for the petitioners was indeed an unlawful detainer action despite the residual issues regarding title.

Whether the complaint filed by petitioners for unlawful detainer appropriately establishes the remedy for recovering possession, notwithstanding the concurrent title disputes raised in other cases.

Did the alleged implied tolerance, which was purportedly withdrawn upon a formal demand to vacate, give rise to an unlawful detainer claim?
Does the existence of other litigations challenging petitioners’ title (Civil Cases TM-59 and TM-146) affect the jurisdiction and the summary nature of the unlawful detainer action?