Case Summary (G.R. No. 256851)
Factual Background
The respondents alleged that they were the lawful owners of Cadastral Lot No. 6277 under Tax Declaration No. 033370, inherited from their parents. According to respondents, in 1952 petitioners’ ancestors, Spouses Marino and Julita Dagode, migrated from Camotes Island to Inoburan, Cebu. Petitioners’ ancestors were said to have been temporarily allowed to reside on the subject property free of rent, allegedly out of pure generosity, as relatives of respondents’ mother. Respondents further stated that, over time, the petitioners’ family members bred descendants who then resided on the same lot as extended family.
Respondents narrated that on July 31, 2009, they informed the petitioners that they would already use the property. Petitioners refused to vacate, prompting respondents to file an action for unlawful detainer before the MTCC.
Petitioners’ Defense in the Trial Court
Petitioners countered that respondents failed to establish that the lot they occupied formed part of the property covered by respondents’ tax declaration. Petitioners emphasized that Tax Declaration No. 033370, issued only in respondents’ names, could not serve as sufficient proof of possession and ownership because it purportedly did not contain a technical description of the land. Petitioners also contended that the alleged tolerance by respondents’ parents was only hearsay and was not supported by evidence.
MTCC Ruling
On August 25, 2010, the MTCC dismissed the complaint for unlawful detainer for lack of evidence. It held that, aside from an affidavit executed by Elesito, respondents presented only a single tax declaration issued in their names. The MTCC ruled that such a tax declaration was insufficient to establish respondents’ right to possess the real property without additional proof, particularly because respondents failed to show that they had been in physical possession of the property.
RTC Ruling
On appeal, the RTC affirmed. In its March 8, 2011 Decision, the RTC ruled that a mere tax declaration did not prove ownership in the absence of actual physical possession by respondents. It also noted that respondents failed to present evidence showing the actual location of Lot No. 6277. The RTC found the identification of the lot to be confused and compounded by an alleged error by the Naga City Assessor’s Office, which had previously designated the land as Lot No. 12865-P, supposedly covered by Tax Declaration No. 03369, although the lot was allegedly actually denominated as Lot No. 6277.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals reversed. In its March 28, 2018 Decision, the CA held that respondents were entitled to possession of the property owned by their parents. It stressed that the issue in ejectment cases is possession of real property, and that possession does not require that a claimant have “his feet on every square meter” of the land. The CA further stated that prior physical possession by the plaintiff was not indispensable in unlawful detainer cases because physical possession by the plaintiff is not the essential element; rather, unlawful detention exists when the occupant continues to occupy despite expiration or termination of the right to possess.
On the tax declaration issue, the CA ruled that Tax Declaration No. 033370 issued in respondents’ name constituted prima facie evidence of respondents’ claim of title and, consequently, their right to possession.
The CA ordered petitioners and all persons claiming under them to vacate and surrender actual physical possession; to pay petitioners reasonable monthly rentals of Php3,000.00 from July 31, 2009 until respondents vacated, with interest at 6% per annum from finality until fully paid; and to pay costs.
Petitioners’ Arguments on Review
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied the motion in its January 26, 2021 Resolution. On Rule 45 review before the Supreme Court, petitioners argued that the CA erred in declaring that respondents had a better right of possession based on a tax declaration allegedly issued only in 2009. Petitioners also claimed that respondents did not present earlier tax declarations to prove that their predecessors-in-interest had adverse constructive possession since the 1950s.
On tolerance, petitioners asserted that respondents’ bare allegation of tolerance lacked support in the record and failed to show overt acts demonstrating such tolerance. Petitioners also maintained that respondents failed to show that the land claimed under Tax Declaration No. 033370 was the same lot occupied by petitioners. Petitioners concluded that, because respondents failed to establish the identity of the lot by preponderance of evidence, their complaint for unlawful detainer should have been dismissed. Respondents did not file any comment.
Supreme Court Approach to the Issues
The Supreme Court held that a Rule 45 petition limited the Court’s jurisdiction to questions of law and that the Court was not a trier of facts. However, the Court recognized exceptions, including when the CA’s findings were contrary to those of the MTCC and RTC, as in the case at bar. Guided by this exception, the Court re-examined the record to determine whether the CA committed a reversible error.
Nature and Requisites of Unlawful Detainer
The Supreme Court cited Section 1 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, which allows a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom possession is unlawfully withheld, or their legal representatives or assigns, to file an action for restitution of possession after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession. The Court emphasized that an action for unlawful detainer presupposes that the plaintiff is not in actual physical possession. It distinguished unlawful detainer from forcible entry, where physical possession by the plaintiff is indispensable.
The Court reiterated that to sustain unlawful detainer, the plaintiff must establish: (a) initial possession by the defendant was by contract or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (b) possession became illegal upon notice of termination of the right; (c) the defendant remained and deprived the plaintiff of enjoyment; and (d) the complaint was filed within one year from the last demand to vacate.
Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Merits
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA and held that the requisites were sufficiently established.
First, the Court held that the respondents sufficiently established that petitioners’ ancestors initially occupied the land lawfully because they were permitted by respondents’ parents sometime in 1952 to use the land as a temporary abode while seeking livelihood in Inoburan, Cebu. The Court observed that petitioners’ family stayed free of charge out of benevolence, which made the initial entry lawful by tolerance.
Second, the Court held that although tax declarations and tax payments were not conclusive proof of possession, they were good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, because a person would not ordinarily pay taxes for land belonging to another. The tax declaration registered in respondents’ names, Tax Declaration No. 033370, thus supported respondents’ claim of title and, at minimum, indicated a valid claim of ownership.
Third, the Court found that petitioners refused to vacate despite respondents’ demand, thereby depriving respondents of rightful possession and use.
Fourth, the Court found no dispute that respondents filed the unlawful detainer action within one year from petitioners’ receipt of the demand letter, and that upon becoming the owners, respondents informed petitioners that they would need the land and asked them to vacate. The Court ruled that petitioners then became deforciant occupants once tolerance was withdrawn and they refused to comply.
Evidence of Tolerance and Sufficiency of Petitioners’ Denials
On petitioners’ challenge that tolerance was not supported by evidence, the Court held that Elesito’s affidavit adequately established how respondents’ p
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 256851)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Spouses Marino Dagode and Julita Duero Dagode filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to assail the Court of Appeals (CA)-Cebu City Decision dated March 28, 2018 and its Resolution dated January 26, 2021.
- The CA reversed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19 of Cebu City and ordered the respondents—Elesito D. Tapao, substituted by his children (Tapao siblings)—to vacate the effect of the trial courts’ rulings in an unlawful detainer dispute over Cadastral Lot No. 6277.
- The petitioners assailed the CA’s determination that respondents had a better right of possession.
Key Factual Allegations
- The Tapao siblings alleged that they were the lawful owners of Cadastral Lot No. 6277 based on Tax Declaration No. 033370 inherited from their parents.
- The petitioners alleged that their ancestors migrated from Camotes Island to Inoburan, Cebu in 1952 and were temporarily allowed to reside on the lot free of rent and out of pure generosity, as relatives of respondents’ mother.
- The petitioners alleged that their ancestors bred descendants who then continued residing as extended families in the disputed lot.
- The Tapao siblings alleged that on July 31, 2009, they informed the petitioners that they would already use the property, but the petitioners refused to vacate.
- The Tapao siblings then filed an action for unlawful detainer before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), City of Naga, Cebu.
Defenses and Evidence Presented
- The petitioners denied that respondents proved that the land they occupied was the same land covered by Tax Declaration No. 033370.
- The petitioners argued that Tax Declaration No. 033370 could not serve as proof of possession and ownership because it lacked a technical description of the land.
- The petitioners asserted that the alleged tolerance by respondents’ parents was hearsay and lacked evidentiary support.
- The MTCC noted that apart from Elesito’s Affidavit, respondents relied chiefly on the single tax declaration issued in their names.
- On appeal, the RTC emphasized that respondents failed to show actual physical possession and failed to present evidence on the actual location of Lot No. 6277, noting confusion compounded by an alleged assessor’s error in designating the land as Lot No. 12865-P instead of Lot No. 6277.
- In the CA proceedings, the petitioners maintained that respondents relied on a tax declaration issued only in 2009, failed to present earlier tax declarations, and did not prove overt acts consistent with tolerance.
- The petitioners also argued that there was no showing that the land claimed under Tax Declaration No. 033370 was the same land occupied by them.
- The decision records that the petitioners filed an Answer that, in substance, stated the land they occupied was different from the land subject of the complaint, but they did not adduce evidence to prove identity of the lot or their alleged superior right of possession.
MTCC and RTC Rulings
- The MTCC dismissed the unlawful detainer complaint for lack of evidence in its August 25, 2010 Decision.
- The MTCC ruled that the single tax declaration was not sufficient to establish respondents’ right of possession unless supported by additional proof.
- The MTCC particularly noted that respondents had not shown they were in physical possession of the property.
- The RTC, Branch 19 affirmed in its March 8, 2011 Decision, holding that a mere tax declaration does not prove ownership, especially absent actual physical possession by respondents.
- The RTC also found respondents’ evidence inadequate as to the identity and exact location of Lot No. 6277, and it attributed the confusion to an alleged error by the Naga City Assessor’s Office.
- The RTC denied respondents’ motion for reconsideration in an order dated April 12, 2013.
CA Reversal and Rationale
- The CA reversed the trial courts in its March 28, 2018 Decision and ruled that the respondents had a better right of possession.
- The CA stressed that in an ejectment case, the core issue was possession of real property, and physical presence on every square meter was not required.
- The CA held that prior physical possession by the plaintiff was not an indispensable requirement in unlawful detainer.
- The CA clarified that unlawful detainer focuses on possession unlawfully withheld by the occupant despite the expiration of the right to possess.
- The CA treated Tax Declaration No. 033370 in respondents’ name as prima facie evidence of respondents’ claim of title, and it concluded that respondents thus established the right to possession.
- The CA ordered the petitioners and those claiming under them to: (a) vacate and surrender actual physical possession to respondents; (b) pay reasonable monthly rentals of Php3,000.00 from July 31, 2009 until respondents vacated; (c) pay interest at 6% per ann