Case Digest (G.R. No. 227411)
Facts:
Teresita Dayandayan, Yolly D. Laguna, Clara "Caring" Talle, Mr. & Mrs. Rodrigo Rios, and Mr. & Mrs. Reden Bignay v. Spouses Eduardo P. Rojas and Enriquita A. Rojas, G.R. No. 227411, July 15, 2020, Supreme Court Third Division, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court.The respondents, Spouses Eduardo P. Rojas and Enriquita A. Rojas, acquired Lot No. 635 (about 435 sq. m.), Marvel Isabel, Leyte, by Deed of Sale dated March 9, 1997. The petitioners — Teresita Dayandayan, Yolly D. Laguna, Clara "Caring" Talle, and the two married couples — allege that they and their relatives occupied the area earlier and that some houses were built on a foreshore/reclaimed area; petitioners assert their occupancy predates respondents' purchase.
Respondents allege that Talle and Dayandayan asked permission to build on a portion of the subject lot and that respondents tolerated their occupation on the condition they would vacate on demand. After respondents demanded that petitioners vacate in January and again on February 8, 2009, and petitioners refused, respondents filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer on April 17, 2009 in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Merida–Isabel Circuit.
On October 1, 2010 the MCTC rendered judgment for respondents, ordering petitioners to vacate, and awarding attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. Petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which on May 13, 2011 reversed and dismissed the unlawful detainer complaint, initially stating lack of jurisdiction because respondents failed to prove tolerance and that petitioners had possession prior to respondents’ acquisition. The RTC denied reconsideration on March 26, 2012 but modified the ground of dismissal to lack of evidence (rather than lack of jurisdiction).
Respondents filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA). On September 30, 2015 the CA in CA‑G.R. SP No. 06815 reversed the RTC, holding that respondents had sufficiently alleged and proved tolerance and reinstating the MCTC decision; a July 22, 2016 CA resolution is also part of t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the petitioners' failure to raise the issue of tolerance before the MCTC bar the Court from considering whether respondents proved tolerance?
- Were the respondents entitled to possession of Lot No. 635 by way of an action for unlawful detainer based on alleged tolerance; i.e., did the respondents prove the requisite tolerance and other el...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)