G.R. No. 212979 - Lozano vs. Ferdez

The dispute involves a parcel of land and its improvements in CM Subdivision, New Cabalan, Olongapo City, currently declared for taxation under the name of respondent Jocelyn K. Fernandez.
The controversy centers on whether a purported Waiver and Transfer of Possessory Rights executed on December 11, 2006 by petitioner Ma. Antonette Lozano in favor of Fernandez is valid, and if its execution gave Fernandez the right to demand possession from Lozano.

Contends that after the execution of the notarized Waiver on December 11, 2006, Fernandez acquired possessory rights over the property.
Asserts that despite the waiver, Fernandez allowed Lozano’s continued possession, which constitutes a showing of tolerance.
Filed a demand letter on July 15, 2009 ordering Lozano to vacate the premises, and subsequently initiated an unlawful detainer action.

Denies ever executing a valid waiver, alleging that she was tricked into signing a blank document that was later converted into the Waiver.
Claims that her true arrangement with Fernandez was that of a loan with the property as collateral, evidenced by her continued possession and issuance of checks for repayments.
Asserts that there is no proof of Fernandez’s act of tolerance toward her possession, and argues that the complaint for unlawful detainer was filed beyond the one-year prescriptive period.

The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 2, Olongapo City initially dismissed Fernandez’s unlawful detainer complaint on February 16, 2011 for lack of timely filing and absence of sufficient proof of tolerance.
Fernandez appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which, in its November 3, 2011 Decision, reversed the MTCC ruling, finding that:

Fernandez’s inaction after the waiver evidenced tolerance; and
Accordingly, granted the ejectment of Lozano, awarded rentals from July 20, 2009 until actual vacation of the premises, attorney’s fees, and other costs.

The Court of Appeals (CA) in its November 22, 2013 Decision affirmed the RTC ruling, upholding:

The validity of the notarized Waiver despite petitioner’s allegations of irregularities in its execution; and
The grant of rentals and attorney’s fees, notwithstanding questions regarding the factual basis for tolerance.

The CA later denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in its June 13, 2014 Resolution.
Petitioner then elevated her issues through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 challenging both the ejectment order and the award of rentals and attorney’s fees.

The notarized Waiver document, which is presumed valid and regular; and
Affidavits of Fernandez and her witness Michael Gascon stating that Fernandez tolerated Lozano’s possession after the execution of the waiver.

The alleged waiver was not properly executed nor notarized by her appearance, and
The evidence of tolerance is merely based on conclusions from self-serving affidavits lacking specific positive acts.

Whether the Court of Appeals grossly erred in sustaining the RTC’s decision ordering the ejectment of the petitioner from the subject property despite the absence of proven tolerance under the law.
Whether the CA erred in upholding the RTC’s award of reasonable rentals and attorney’s fees in favor of the respondent, specifically in light of the alleged lack of sufficient factual and legal basis to support these awards.