DIGEST/ SANTIAGO/ SPS. GOLEZ vs HEIRS OF BERTULDO/ 2016
SPS GOLEZ vs HEIRS OF BERTULDO
GR No. 201289
May 30, 2016
FACTS:
The dispute involves two neighboring unregistered parcels of land located at Roxas, Capiz. Designated as Lot 1024 and Lot 1025. After the sale of Lot 1024 by Benito to Sps. Golez, the latter started constructing their house at Lot 1025 instead of Lot 1024.
Sometime, the respondent heirs confronted the Sps. Golez after a relocation survey on Lot 1025 was conducted which happens that the latters house stood on the Lot. To correct the alleged error on the sale, the parties executed an Amended Deed of Absolute Sale to change the stated property sold as Lot 1024 to Lot 1025.
Subsequently, a Complaint for Quieting of Title was filed over Lot 1025 against the respondent heirs but this was denied by the RTC. Meanwhile, the respondent heirs filed for a free patent over Lot 1025 which was contested by the Sps. Golez and applied their own free patent over the same lot. The latter continued their possession of Lot 1025 despite demand to vacate the area. Due to such act, an unlawful detainer was filed against Sps. Golez.
ISSUE:
WHETHER or not the filing of unlawful detainer against petitioner was proper.
Ruling:
No. A complaint for unlawful detainer must allege that: (a) the possession of the defendant was originally legal, as his possession was permitted by the plaintiff on account of an express or implied contract between them; (b) the defendant's possession became illegal when the plaintiff demanded that the defendant vacate the subject property due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess under the contract; (c) the defendant refused to heed such demand; and (d) the case for unlawful detainer is instituted within one year from the date of last demand.
In the present case, paragraph 6 of the complaint clearly characterized the Sps. Golez's possession of Lot 1025 as unlawful from the start and bereft of contractual or legal basis. Respondents did not tolerate the possession of Sps. Golez since they had immediately objected and protested over the construction of Sps. Golez's house on Lot 1025. Notably, the RTC expressly found that there was no tolerance or permission on the part of Domingo on the construction of the Sps. Golez house on Lot 1025. Since tolerance has not been effectively alleged in the complaint, the complaint fails to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer.
Even assuming arguendo that the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action, the respondents still failed to prove that they tolerated the Sps. Golez's possession on account of an express or implied contract between them.
Digested by: Santiago, Prince Dave C.
Comments
Post a Comment