Title
Galande vs. Espiritu-Sarenas
Case
G.R. No. 255989
Decision Date
Mar 1, 2023
Petitioner, a long-term tenant, allowed respondents to till land he purchased; respondents claimed ownership via adverse claim. SC ruled possession was by tolerance, ordered eviction and rent payment.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 255989)

Key Dates and Applicable Law

Key procedural dates (as recited in the record): petitioner’s complaint filed July 25, 2017; MTCC decision September 25, 2018; RTC decision January 7, 2019; CA decision September 24, 2020; CA resolution denying reconsideration February 17, 2021; Supreme Court resolution granting petition March 1, 2023. Governing law and authorities relied upon in the decision include: the 1987 Constitution (as the controlling constitution for cases decided after 1990), Rule 70, Section 1 of the Rules of Court (unlawful detainer), Presidential Decree No. 1529, Section 70 (adverse claim), and controlling jurisprudence cited in the record.

Procedural History

Petitioner instituted an unlawful detainer action in the MTCC; the MTCC ruled for petitioner and ordered respondents to vacate and pay reasonable rent. The RTC affirmed the MTCC. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed and dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action, concluding respondents’ possession was by color of title founded on the 1966 adverse claim. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court, which granted the petition and reinstated the RTC/MTCC rulings with modification as to interest on rentals.

Petitioner’s Factual Assertions

Petitioner alleged continuous physical possession of the subject lot for over forty years as tenant of the Salamancas and that he subsequently purchased the property on installment terms. In May 2015 petitioner permitted respondents to till half the lot on the condition that they would vacate upon demand. After making demands to vacate (including a written demand dated May 23, 2017), respondents allegedly refused, prompting the unlawful detainer complaint. Petitioner maintained he was the prior possessor and that respondents’ occupancy was by his tolerance.

Respondents’ Defenses and Contentions

Respondents asserted they are heirs of Gertrudes, whose adverse claim was annotated on TCT No. 21865 in 1966. They alleged Gertrudes purchased one‑half of the subject lot in 1966 and had actual occupancy until her death in 2008; thus, respondents claimed possession in the concept of owner by succession and argued petitioner knew or should have known of that claim. They also questioned the validity of certain payments received by a third party, Irene O. Timbol, and pointed to their payment of real estate taxes and the adverse claim annotation as support for their asserted better right to possess.

MTCC and RTC Findings

The MTCC found petitioner proved the elements of unlawful detainer by a preponderance of evidence and ordered respondents to vacate, remove improvements, and pay reasonable rent (not less than P2,000 per month from date of demand until surrender). The RTC affirmed the MTCC decision and ordered respondents to pay costs. The trial courts accepted petitioner’s proof of prior possession, his permission to respondents as tolerance, the demand to vacate, and respondents’ refusal.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA concluded petitioner failed to establish the jurisdictional requisites of unlawful detainer (prior physical possession and tolerance). It characterized respondents’ possession as by color of title and in the concept of owners, grounded on the 1966 adverse claim annotated on the title. On that basis, the CA dismissed the unlawful detainer complaint for lack of cause of action, holding that respondents could not be ejected by summary unlawful detainer.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Two principal issues were posed: (I) whether the CA gravely erred in finding petitioner’s complaint did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of unlawful detainer; and (II) whether a notice of adverse claim annotated on the title remains effective until ordered canceled by a court, such that it defeats an unlawful detainer action.

Standard of Review Adopted by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed the general rule that it is not a trier of facts and will not re‑evaluate evidence, but recognized the exception where the CA’s findings conflict with those of the trial court—warranting a second look for proper dispensation of justice. Applying this principle, the Court examined the record de novo insofar as the conflict between trial court findings and the CA’s conclusions required resolution.

Application of Unlawful Detainer Elements and Analysis

The Court recited the four essential elements for an unlawful detainer action under Section 1, Rule 70: (1) initial lawful possession by the defendant either by contract or plaintiff’s tolerance; (2) demand terminating the defendant’s right to possess; (3) defendant’s continued possession depriving plaintiff of enjoyment; and (4) filing the complaint within one year from last demand. The Court found petitioner met these elements: he had prior physical and continuous possession for decades; he tolerated respondents’ occupancy from the inception (permission to till granted in May 2015 on the condition of vacancy upon demand); he made written demand to vacate; respondents refused; and the complaint was timely filed. The Court emphasized that tolerance present at the inception of possession and overt acts evidencing tolerance are required and found both satisfied.

Prior Physical Possession and the Limited Scope of Ejectment Proceedings

The Court reiterated that ejectment/unlawful detainer addresses possession de facto (physical possession) and not title, and that a party in peaceful prior possession enjoys a disputable presumption of ownership and the security to remain until a person with a better right lawfully ejects them. Because petitioner established prior physical possession predating respondents’ occupancy, the summary remedy of unlawful detainer was appropriate to recover possession. The Court noted that while respondents raised own

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms