SC – The owner cannot rely on the issuance of title in her name to avail herself of the benefit of filing an Unlawful Detainer case against a peaceful possessor of the property.
Moreover, a case of unlawful detainer must state the [period] when the occupation by tolerance stm1ed and the acts of tolerance exercised by the party with the right of possession.47
Well-settled is the rule that a title issued under the Torrens system is entitled to all the attributes of property ownership, which necessarily includes possession. However, the Court has also emphasized that "an ejectment case will not necessarily be decided in favor of one who has presented proof of ownership of the subject property.
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.
In Cabrera, et al. v. Getaruela, et al.,43 the Court held that a complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it recites the following:
(1) initially, possession of the property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
(2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter's right of possession;
(3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and
(4) within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.44
In this case, the Supreme Court held that the complainant (respondent) failed to prove the first element and held thus:
"After a perusal of the complaint and the available records of the case, the Court finds that respondent failed to prove the first recital. Respondent utterly failed to substantiate his claim that he merely tolerated petitioner's possession of the subject property. It must be noted that with respondent's averment that petitioner's possession was by his mere tolerance, the acts of tolerance must be proved, for a bare allegation of tolerance will not suffice.45 At the very least, respondent should show the overt acts indicative of his tolerance, but he miserably failed to adduce evidence to prove tolerance in this case.46
In this case, respondent claims that since the issuance of title in his favor, he has already allowed petitioner to remain on the subject property considering that the latter is his niece.48 OCT No. 0-1777 was issued on August 28, 2008 pursuant to the Decision dated February 7, 2003 rendered in LRC Case No. 070-2000 LRA Record No. N-73603.49 Petitioner, on the other hand, claims that she has been in continuous possession of the subject property for more than 30 years50 which, in fact, remains undisputed by respondent.
Otherwise stated, because respondent is required to state the period when petitioner's occupation by tolerance started, he was able to establish that the tolerance granted to petitioner started only on August 28, 2008, or at the time the OCT No. 0-1777 was issued in his name. Respondent, however, [failed] to provide [essential details] of his acts of tolerance as to petitioner's prior physical possession of the subject property for over 30 years, [or] before the issuance of the title in his name.
Case law has it, in an action for unlawful detainer, the owner of a property should prove that the possession of the occupant is premised on his permission or tolerance and failure in which the owner could pursue other appropriate legal remedies granted to him by law (not unlawful detainer case).
RATIONALE
The ruling of the Court does not mean that the Court favors the occupant of the subject property over the person claiming a right of ownership by virtue of a title,73 but rather, this ruling merely emphasizes an important fact that even a legal owner of the subject property cannot simply oust a party who is in peaceable quiet possession thereof through a summary action for ejectment, without having established by a preponderance of evidence the essential requisites of the action.
Footnotes
44 Id. at 66, citing Fernando v. Spouses Lim, 585 Phil. 141, 155-156 (2008)
45 Quijano v. Atty. Amante, 745 Phil. 40, 52 (2014).
Comments
Post a Comment