DIGEST/ANDRINO/ CECILIA T. JAVELOSA, represented by her attorney-in-fact, Ma. Diana J. Jimenez, Petitioner vs. EZEQUIEL TAPUS, MARIO MADRIAGA, DANNY M. TAPUZ,1 JUANITA / 2018TAPUS and AURORA MADRIAGA,, Respondents G.R. No. 204361

 CECILIA T. JAVELOSA, represented by her attorney-in-fact, Ma. Diana J. Jimenez, Petitioner
vs.
EZEQUIEL TAPUS, MARIO MADRIAGA, DANNY M. TAPUZ, JUANITA TAPUS and AURORA MADRIAGA,, Respondents

Facts: 

The petitioner is the registered owner of a parcel of land located at Sitio Pinaungon, Barangay Balabag, Boracay Island, Malay, Aklan (subject property). The subject property contains an area of 10,198 square meters, more or less, and is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-35394. The subject property was originally covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 2222, which the petitioner acquired by donation from her predecessor-in-interest Ciriaco Tirol (Tirol).

The subject property was occupied by Ezequiel Tapus (Ezequiel), Mario Madriaga (Mario), Danny M. Tapuz (Danny), Juanita Tapus (Juanita) and Aurora Madriaga (Aurora) (collectively referred to as the respondents). Allegedly, the respondents' predecessor was assigned as a caretaker of the subject property, and therefore possessed and occupied a portion thereof upon the tolerance and permission of Tirol.  The petitioner's daughter, Diane J. Jimenez (Jimenez), learned that Expedito Tapus, Jr., a relative of the respondents offered the subject property for sale. Alarmed, Jimenez sought the assistance of the Office of Barangay Balabag, Boracay Island, Malay, Aklan. Thereafter, the case was referred to the Office of the Lupong Tagapamayapa for a possible alternative resolution of the conflict. However, the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement.

In October 2003, the petitioner sent a demand letter to the respondents ordering them to vacate the subject property. The demand was unheeded. This prompted the petitioner to file a case for unlawful detainer.

The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) awarded the subject property in favor of the petitioner, and consequently, ordered the respondents to vacate and pay the petitioner a monthly rental of Php 500.00. The respondents then appealed to the RTC which affirmed the jurisdiction of the MCTC over the case. It observed that the allegations of the complaint sufficiently made out a case for unlawful detainer. Aggrieved, they appealed to the Court of Appeals. On March 30, 2012, the CA rendered the assailed Decision, reversing the disquisitions of the MCTC and the RTC.

The CA ratiocinated that although the MCTC had jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case, the trial court however erred in upholding the petitioner's right to possess the subject property. The CA pointed out that the petitioner failed to prove the fact that the respondents indeed occupied the subject property through her permission and tolerance.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the case for unlawful detainer.

Ruling:

It is an elementary principle of civil law that the owner of real property is entitled to the possession thereof as an attribute of his or her ownership. In fact, the holder of a Torrens Title is the rightful owner of the property thereby covered and is entitled to its possession. This notwithstanding, "the owner cannot simply wrest possession thereof from whoever is in actual occupation of the property." Rather, to recover possession, the owner must first resort to the proper judicial remedy, and thereafter, satisfy all the conditions necessary for such action to prosper.

Accordingly, the owner may choose among three kinds of actions to recover possession of real property - an accion interdictal, accion publiciana or an accion reivindicatoria.

Notably, an accion interdictal is summary in nature, and is cognizable by the proper municipal trial court or metropolitan trial court. It comprises two distinct causes of action, namely, forcible entry (detentacion) and unlawful detainer (desahuico). In forcible entry, one is deprived of the physical possession of real property by means of force, intimidation, strategy, threats, or stealth, whereas in unlawful detainer, one illegally withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied. An action for forcible entry is distinguished from an unlawful detainer case, such that in the former, the possession of the defendant is illegal from the very beginning, whereas in the latter action, the possession of the defendant is originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess. Both actions must be brought within one year from the date of actual entry on the land, in case of forcible entry, and from the date of last demand, in case of unlawful detainer. The only issue in said cases is the right to physical possession.

On the other hand, an accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the right of possession, which should be brought in the proper regional trial court when dispossession has lasted for more than one year. It is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title.

Lastly, an accion reivindicatoria is an action to recover ownership, also brought in the proper RTC in an ordinary civil proceeding.

In the case at bar, the petitioner, claiming to be the owner of the subject property, elected to file an action for unlawful detainer. In making this choice, she bore the correlative burden to sufficiently allege, and thereafter prove by a preponderance of evidence all the jurisdictional facts in the said type of action. Specifically, the petitioner was charged with proving the following jurisdictional facts, to wit:

(i) initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;

(ii) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter's right of possession;

(iii) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and

(iv) within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.

Particularly, the complaint stated that (i) the respondents occupied the subject property upon the tolerance of the petitioner; (ii) the petitioner sent the respondents a demand to vacate sometime in October 2003; (iii) the same demand was unheeded; and (iv) the action for unlawful detainer was filed within one year from the date of the demand. Verily, the following jurisdictional facts properly vested the MCTC of Buruanga, Aklan, with jurisdiction over the case.

However, in order for the petitioner to successfully prosecute her case for unlawful detainer, it is imperative upon her to prove all the assertions in her complaint. After all, "the basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof." This, the petitioner failed to do. As correctly observed by the CA, the petitioner failed to adduce evidence to establish that the respondents' occupation of the subject property was actually effected through her tolerance or permission. Unfortunately, the petitioner failed to prove how and when the respondents entered the subject lot, as well as how and when the permission to occupy was purportedly given. In fact, she was conspicuously silent about the details on how the permission to enter was given, save for her bare assertion that the respondents' occupied the premises as caretakers thereof. The absence of such essential details is especially troubling considering that the respondents have been occupying the subject property for more than 70 years, a fact which was not disputed by the petitioner. In this regard, it is must be shown that the respondents first came into the property due to the permission given by the petitioner or her predecessors.

It cannot be gainsaid that the fact of tolerance is of utmost importance in an action for unlawful detainer. Without proof that the possession was legal at the outset, the logical conclusion would be that the defendant's possession of the subject property will be deemed illegal from the very beginning, for which, the action for unlawful detainer shall be dismissed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

[ G.R. No. 214054, August 05, 2015 ] NG MENG TAM, PETITIONER, VS. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 214054, August 05, 2015 ] NG MENG TAM, PETITIONER, VS. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N VILLARAMA, JR., J.: Before this Court is a direct recourse from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) via petition [1]  for review on the question of whether Section 5 [2]  of the  Judicial   Affidavit   Rule  (JAR) applies to hostile or adverse witnesses.  The petition seeks to annul and set aside the May 28, 2014 [3]  and August 27, 2014 [4]  Orders of the RTC, Branch 139, Makati City in Civil Case No. 08-1028. This case stemmed from a collection suit filed by China Banking Corporation (China Bank) against Ever Electrical Manufacturing Company Inc. (Ever), the heirs of Go Tong, Vicente Go, George Go and petitioner Ng Meng Tam sometime in December 2008.  China Bank alleged that it granted Ever a loan amounting to P5,532,331.63.  The loan was allegedly backed by two surety agreements executed by Vic...
Read more

DIGEST/ACOPIADO/ LARA GIFTS V. PNB 2018

Lara Gifts and Decors, Inc. vs. PNB GR. Nos. 230429-30| January 24, 2018 Digest by: A. Acopiado FACTS: Petitioner company insured a building with respondent bank. Sometime later, the subject of the insurance was gutted by fire. Respondent engaged services of independent appraisers for the fire loss, but the latter were unable to ascertain the damage due to petitioner’s failure to supply documents. Respondent thus denied the insurance claim.  Petitioner sued in the RTC. In the pre-trial the parties agreed to the facts and issues in dispute and the judge issued an order which stipulated that the parties agree to the presentation of additional evidence. None of the parties objected to the stipulation.  Sometime later, petitioner introduced an affidavit and documents which were not submitted in the pre-trial. Respondent objected stating that the same is violative of the judicial affidavit rule and the court memo governing pre-trial procedures and modes of discovery (A....
Read more

G.R. No. 230429 LARA'S GIFT AND DECORS, INC., Petitioner vs. PNB GENERAL INSURERS CO., INC. and UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC., Respondents

 t HIRD DIVISION January 24, 2018 G.R. No. 230429 LARA'S GIFT AND DECORS, INC.,  Petitioner vs. PNB GENERAL INSURERS CO., INC. and UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC. , Respondents D E C I S I O N VELASCO,JR.,  J.: Nature of the Case Before this Court is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse and set aside the March 6, 2017 Amended Decision 1  of the Court of Appeals (CA), Special Former Fifth Division, in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 138321 and 138774. The Amended Decision granted respondents' motions for the reconsideration of the December 21, 2015 Decision 2  of the CA's Former Fifth Division annulling and setting aside the Omnibus Orders dated October 1, 2014 and November 26, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 14 7, in Civil Case No. 11-238. Factual Antecedents Petitioner Lara's Gifts and Decors, Inc. (LGDI) is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, and exporting various handicraft items and decor...
Read more