Case Summary (G.R. No. 169380)
Factual Background
Rodolfo Chua Sing purchased and held title to the subject lot in 1991. On April 1, 1999, Chua Sing leased the property to petitioner Jose pursuant to a five-year lease providing that the lessor transferred to the lessee the rights and prerogatives to evict occupants and that the lessee would bear eviction expenses. The lease was neither notarized nor registered at the Registry of Deeds. Respondents were already occupying the property prior to the lease; on April 28, 1999 the petitioner demanded that respondents vacate within 30 days and pay P1,000 monthly pending vacation. Respondents refused.
Procedural History — Lower Courts
Petitioner filed an ejectment complaint in the Municipal/Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Civil Case No. 11344, on October 20, 1999. A barangay conciliation was conducted and a Certification to File Action was issued on March 1, 2000; petitioner subsequently filed an amended complaint (March 17, 2000) incorporating barangay proceedings. The MeTC ruled for petitioner on January 27, 2003, finding respondents had no right to possess the land and that their occupation was by the owner's tolerance; it ordered respondents to vacate, pay P500 per month each from filing until vacation, and to pay attorney’s fees and costs. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 257, affirmed the MeTC decision on October 8, 2003, treating the action as one for unlawful detainer and confirming jurisdiction and timeliness.
Court of Appeals Disposition
The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and MeTC on March 14, 2005 and dismissed the amended ejectment complaint. The CA held respondents’ possession was not by the petitioner’s or lessor’s tolerance; tolerance requires permission at the inception of possession and is not established merely by allegations or the owner’s silence. Because respondents had possessed the property prior to 1991 (before Chua Sing’s acquisition), their possession was not shown to have originated by permission from the lessor or petitioner; thus the complaint did not state the jurisdictional facts for an unlawful detainer action and the MeTC/RTC lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate title or a full recovery of possession by plenary action. The Court of Appeals’ resolution denying reconsideration was later affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented in the Petition
The petitioner raised: (I) whether the CA erred by treating the complaint as one for recovery of possession (accion publiciana) rather than unlawful detainer; (II) whether the CA relied on a material change of theory by respondents on appeal; and (III) whether the Supreme Court could decide the case on the merits to avoid circuitous procedure.
Governing Legal Principles — Unlawful Detainer and Tolerance
Unlawful detainer is a summary remedy to recover physical possession where the defendant’s initial possession was lawful by virtue of an express or implied contract and became unlawful only after demand and refusal; it must be filed within one year from the unlawful withholding. The complaint must allege the facts constituting unlawful detainer on its face because jurisdictional facts must appear in summary actions. Tolerance (sufferance) is permission, tacit or express, present at the inception of possession; it arises from neighborliness or familiarity and is distinguishable from mere owner knowledge or silence. If possession was unlawful from the start (e.g., forcible entry or entry without permission), unlawful detainer is inappropriate and the proper remedies are plenary actions such as accion publiciana (for better right to possession) or accion reivindicatoria (for recovery of ownership).
Application of Law to the Amended Complaint
The amended complaint alleged that respondents’ occupancy was unlawful from the outset and “bereft of contractual or legal basis,” yet elsewhere asserted the occupation was by “mere tolerance.” The Supreme Court found these allegations contradictory: unlawful detainer requires that tolerance or permission existed at the start of possession, and the petitioner's pleadings failed to allege when respondents entered or who authorized their entry. The record contained respondents’ assertions that they had possessed the land since the late 1970s and that Chua Sing never had physical possession upon acquiring title in 1991, further undermining petitioner’s claim of tolerance. Because the complaint lacked essential averments and evidence showing tolerance at the inception of possession, the summary remedy of unlawful detainer was improperly pleaded.
Precedents and Doctrinal Support
The Court relied on longstanding precedents establishing that tolerance must be present at the start of possession (Sarona v. Villegas; Ten Forty Realty v. Cruz; Go, Jr. v. CA; Padre v. Malabanan), that contradictory statements in a complaint for unlawful detainer are fatal (Unida v. Heirs of Urban), and that summary ejectment proceedings cannot be converted into plenary actions (Regis, Jr. v. CA; Gonzaga v. CA). The Court emphasized the policy reasons: summary proceedings must remain expeditious, and permitting ejectment suits to substitute for plenary actions would undermine procedural safeguards an
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 169380)
Parties and Case Caption
- Petitioner: Fiorello R. Jose.
- Respondents: Roberto Alfuerto, Ernesto Bacay, Iluminado Bacay, Manuel Bantaculo, Letty Barcelo, Jing Bermejo, Milna Bermejo, Pablo Bermejo, Jhonny Borja, Bernadette Buenafe, Alfredo Calagos, Rosauro Calagos, Alex Chacon, Aida Consulta, Carmen Corpuz, Rodolfo De Vera, Ana Dela Rosa, Rudy Ding, Jose Escasinas, Gorgonio Espadero, Demetrio Estrera, Rogelio Estrera, Eduardo Evardone, Antonio Gabaleao, Arsenia Garing, Narcing Guarda, Nila Lebato, Andrade Ligaya, Helen Lopez, Ramon Macairan, Domingo Nolasco, Jr., Florante Nolasco, Regina Operario, Carding Orcullo, Felicisimo Pacate, Conrado Pamindalan, Jun Paril, Rene Santos, Dominador Selvelyejo, Rosario Ubaldo, Sergio Villar, John Doe, Jane Doe and Unknown Occupants of Olivares Compound, Phase II, Barangay San Dionisio, ParaAaque City.
- Case identifier: G.R. No. 169380; decided November 26, 2012; reported at 699 Phil. 307; Second Division.
Nature of the Petition Before the Supreme Court
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
- Target of the petition: decision dated March 14, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 80166, which reversed RTC and MeTC decisions by dismissing petitioner’s complaint for ejectment.
- The Court of Appeals also issued a resolution of August 22, 2005 denying reconsideration; that resolution was affirmed by the Supreme Court in this petition.
Property Subject of Dispute
- A parcel of land registered in the name of Rodolfo Chua Sing under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 52594.
- Area: 1,919 square meters.
- Location: Barangay San Dionisio, ParaAaque City.
- Chua Sing acquired the land in 1991.
Lease Contract Between Chua Sing and Petitioner
- Date of lease: April 1, 1999.
- Parties: Rodolfo Chua Sing (lessor) and petitioner Fiorello R. Jose (lessee).
- Formalities: Contract neither notarized nor registered with the ParaAaque City Registry of Deeds.
- Key contractual provision quoted:
- Term: five (5) years, renewable for same period upon mutual agreement, to commence upon the total eviction of any occupant(s).
- Lessor purportedly transfers all rights and prerogative to evict occupants in favor of lessee; lessee responsible for all expenses incurred without reimbursement from lessor.
- Lessor purportedly waives in favor of lessee any and all damages that may be recovered from the occupants.
Possession Status of Respondents Prior to and at Time of Lease
- Respondents already occupied the property before the lease contract was executed.
- The complaint and pleadings reflect respondents’ assertion that they had been in possession long before Chua Sing acquired the property in 1991; respondents alleged occupation since late 1970 in their position paper.
- Respondents presented a Deed of Assignment dated February 13, 2000, issued by David R. Dulfo, which they asserted as basis for their possession.
Pre‑litigation Demand and Filing of Ejectment Complaint
- On April 28, 1999, petitioner demanded in writing that respondents vacate within 30 days and pay monthly rental of P1,000.00 until full vacation.
- Respondents refused to vacate and to pay rent.
- Petitioner filed an ejectment case on October 20, 1999 before Branch 77 of the ParaAaque City MeTC (Civil Case No. 11344).
- Initial complaint did not mention barangay proceedings; petitioner later brought the dispute to the barangay for conciliation.
- Barangay issued a Certification to File Action on March 1, 2000.
- Petitioner filed an amended complaint dated March 17, 2000 incorporating barangay proceedings.
Allegations and Prayer in the Amended Complaint
- Petitioner alleged his lease as lessee and asserted right to eject respondents who unlawfully occupy the land.
- Paragraph 7 alleged respondents “having been fully aware of their unlawful occupancy... have defiantly erected their houses thereat without benefit of any contract or law whatsoever, much less any building permit... but by mere tolerance of its true, lawful and registered owner, plaintiff’s lessor.”
- Petitioner alleged written demand and respondents’ refusal to vacate.
- Prayers sought:
- Order respondents to vacate premises.
- Payment of not less than P41,000.00 a month from May 30, 1999 until vacation.
- Attorney’s fees not less than P50,000.00, and costs of suit.
Respondents’ Answer and Counterclaims
- Respondents asserted they were in possession long before Chua Sing acquired the property in 1991 and that the lease does not affect their right to possess.
- They argued MeTC lacked jurisdiction because issue involved ownership.
- Sought dismissal for lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction.
- Filed a counterclaim for actual and moral damages for filing a baseless and malicious suit.
- Raised as defenses: alleged spurious title of Chua Sing; lessor never had prior physical possession; petitioner not real party-in-interest; respondents’ possession based on Deed of Assignment by Dulfo.
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Decision (Jan. 27, 2003)
- MeTC resolved case in petitioner’s favor.
- Findings:
- Respondents had no right to possess the land; their occupation was by owner’s tolerance.
- The issue of ownership was previously adjudicated (annulment/cancellation case before RTC Branch 260 regarding Chua Sing’s title found title genuine and valid); respondents could no longer raise ownership issue.
- MeTC retained jurisdiction despite respondents’ assertion of ownership, as ejectment addresses possession de facto.
- Orders:
- Respondents to vacate premises and remove structures.
- Each respondent to pay P500.00 per month from date of filing until they vacate.
- Joint and several payment of costs of suit and P20,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 257 Decision (Oct. 8, 2003)
- RTC affirmed MeTC decision.
- Reiterated that ejectment was proper and that petitioner, as lessee, had right to file ejectment.
- Held respondents occupied by mere tolerance and possession became unlawful upon petitioner’s demand on April 28, 1999.
- Noted complaint for ejectment was filed within one year of alleged unlawful deprivation (citing Pangilinan v. Aguilar and Yu v. Lara).
- Affirmed MeTC’s orders.
Court of Appeals Decision (Mar. 14, 2005) and Resolution (Aug. 22, 2005)
- Court of Appeals reversed RTC and MeTC decisions and dismissed amended complaint for ejectment.
- Principal holdings and r