G.R. No. 187944 - Suarez vs. Emboy Jr.

Carmencita Suarez (petitioner) filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Mr. and Mrs. Felix E. Emboy, Jr. and Marilou P. Emboy-Delantar (respondents) at the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Cebu City.
MTCC ruled in favor of Carmencita, ordering the respondents to vacate the subject property.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, affirmed the MTCC decision.
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed and dismissed the complaint.
Carmencita filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court.

The dispute concerns a 222-square meter parcel designated as Lot No. 1907-A-2, located in Barangay Duljo, Cebu City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-174880, issued to Carmencita on February 9, 2005.
Originally, Lot No. 1907-A (957 sqm) was partitioned among heirs of Spouses Carlos and Asuncion Padilla into five lots including Lot No. 1907-A-2, owned by heirs of Vicente Padilla.
Respondents’ mother, Claudia Padilla-Emboy, occupied Lot No. 1907-A-2 during her lifetime, and respondents have continuously occupied it, claiming it as their inheritance from Claudia.

In 2004, respondents were asked by the heirs of Vicente Padilla (their cousins) to vacate the subject lot and move to Lot No. 1907-A-5, which respondents refused.
Carmencita purchased the subject lot from heirs of Vicente Padilla on February 12, 2004.
Carmencita, through counsel, sent a demand letter on February 23, 2004, demanding respondents vacate the subject lot. Respondents refused.
Respondents found possible irregularities in the partition deeds (e.g., forged signatures, alterations) and in August 2004 filed a petition for nullification of partition and the issuance of new TCTs covering their claimed portions.
Carmencita filed her unlawful detainer complaint on December 8, 2004.

Purchased the subject lot from registered owners (Heirs of Vicente) who allowed respondents’ occupation only by tolerance.
Respondents became deforciants unlawfully withholding possession after demand to vacate.
Possession of respondents was based on mere tolerance, making unlawful detainer the proper remedy.

They have been in possession as owners for decades, inherited from their mother Claudia.
Carmencita was a buyer in bad faith, having bought the property despite the notice of lis pendens on the title due to their pending nullification suit.
There was no agreement or tolerance permitting their possession by Carmencita or her predecessors.
Presented a 1957 Agreement allegedly showing Vicente and spouse waived hereditary rights to Lot No. 1907-A, thus heirs of Vicente lacked ownership to convey to Carmencita.
The complaint lacked essential jurisdictional facts for unlawful detainer (e.g., demand to vacate after the deed of sale).
The pendency of their petition to nullify partition should abate the unlawful detainer suit, especially since the issues of ownership and possession are intertwined.
Enforcement of the unlawful detainer could cause irreparable damage by demolishing their ancestral house.

Whether Carmencita’s complaint sufficiently alleged and proved the cause of action for unlawful detainer.
Whether the pendency of the respondents’ petition for nullification of the partition of Lot No. 1907-A can suspend or abate Carmencita’s unlawful detainer action.