cases discussing elements and definition of tolerance

8/19/2019 cases discussing elements and definition of tolerance

1/19


2/19


3/19

onifacio and %enida %alde8 against private

respondents /abriel and 9rancisca 9abella

before the :unicipal rial !ourt of (ntipolo,

Ri8al. he complaint alleges these material

facts;

*. hat plaintis are the registered

owner5s6 of a piece of residential lot

denominated as l2 1? located

at !arolina @ecutive %illage, rgy. Sta.!ru8, (ntipolo, Ri8al which 5they6 ac$uired

from !arolina Realty, Inc. Sometime 5i6n

=ovember 1??* by virtue of Sales

!ontract, ero copy of which is hereto

attached mar2ed as (nne -(- and the

ero copy of the orrens !erti3cate of

itle in her name mar2ed as (nne --A

>. hat defendants, without any color of

title whatsoever occupie5d6 the said lot by

building their house in the said lot thereby

depriving the herein plaintis rightful

possession thereofA


4/19

0. hat for several times, plaintis orally

as2ed the herein defendants to peacefully

surrender the premises to them, but the

latter stubbornly refused to vacate the lot

they unlawfully occupiedA

). hat despite plaintisB referral of the

matter to the arangay, defendants still

refused to heed the plea of the former to

surrender the lot peacefullyA

&. hat because of the unfounded refusal

of the herein defendants to settle the case

amicably, the arangay !aptain was

forced to issue the necessary !erti3cation

to 9ile (ction in favor of the hereinplaintis in order that the necessary cause

of action be ta2en before the proper court,

ero copy of which is hereto attached

mar2ed as (nne -!-A

7. hat by reason of the deliberate,malicious and unfounded refusal of the

defendants to vacateCsurrender the

premises in $uestion, the herein plaintis


5/19

were constrained to engage the

professional services of counsel thus

incurring epenses amounting to @=

D4ES(=F #@S4S "#1,.+

representing acceptance fee and

additional 4=@ D4ES(=F #@S4S

"#1,.+ per appearance, who on Guly

1*, 1??0 sent a formal demand was

li2ewise ignored, "sic+ copy of which ishereto attached as (nne -F-A

'. hat li2ewise by virtue of the adamant

refusal of the defendants to

vacateCsurrender the said premises in

$uestion, plainti5s6 suered serious

aniety, sleepless nights, mental torture

and moral erosionA *

In their answer, private respondents

contended that the complaint failed to state

that petitioners had prior physical possession

of the property or that they were the lessors

of the former. In the alternative, private

respondents claimed ownership over the land

on the ground that they had been in open,

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#fnt2


6/19

continuous, and adverse possession thereof

for more than thirty years, as attested by an

ocular inspection report from the Fepartment

of @nvironment and =atural Resources. hey

also stressed that the complaint failed to

comply with Supreme !ourt !ircular =o. *'H?1

regarding adavits against nonHforum

shopping.

he :unicipal rial !ourt ":!+ rendered adecision in favor of the petitioners, ordering

private respondents to vacate the property

and to pay rent for the use and occupation of

the same plus attorneyBs fees.

Ender eisting law and jurisprudence, thereare three 2inds of actions available to recover

possession of real property; "a+ accion

interdictalA "b+ accion publicianaA and

"c+ accion reivindicatoria.&

Accion interdictal comprises two distinctcauses of action, namely, forcible entry

"detentacion+ and unlawful detainer

"desahuico+.7 In #orc$%&' '!(r), one is

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#fnt7


7/19

deprived of physical possession of real

property by means of force, intimidation,

strategy, threats, or stealth whereas in

!&a#& "'(a$!'r, one illegally withholds

possession after the epiration or termination

of his right to hold possession under any

contract, epress or implied.' he two are

distinguished from each other in that in

forcible entry, the possession of thedefendant is illegal from the beginning, and

that the issue is which party has prior de

facto possession while in unlawful detainer,

possession of the defendant is originally legal

but became illegal due to the epiration or

termination of the right to possess.?

he jurisdiction of these two actions, which

are summary in nature, lies in the proper

municipal trial court or metropolitan trial

court.1 oth actions must be brought within

one year from the date of actual entry on theland, in case of forcible entry, and from the

date of last demand, in case of unlawful

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#fnt10


8/19


9/19

sought to be recovered.1) 4therwise, if the

possession was unlawful from the start, an

action for unlawful detainer would be an

improper remedy.1& (s eplained in Sarona v.

%illegas17;

ut even where possession preceding the suit

is by tolerance of the owner, still, distinction

should be made.

If right at the incipiency defendantBs

possession was with plaintiBs tolerance, we

do not doubt that the latter may re$uire him

to vacate the premises and sue before the

inferior court under Section 1 of Rule 7,

within one year from the date of the demandto vacate.

A close assessment of the la and the

concept of the ord !tolerance! con"rms our

vie heretofore e#pressed that such

tolerance must be present right from the start

of possession sought to be recovered$ to

categorize a cause of action as one of



10/19

unlaful detainer % not of

forcible entry. Indeed, to hold otherwise would

espouse a dangerous doctrine. (nd for two

reasons; &irst . 9orcible entry into the land is

an open challenge to the right of the

possessor. %iolation of that right authori8es

the speedy redress in the inferior court H

provided for in the rules. If one year from the

forcible entry is allowed to lapse before suit is3led, then the remedy ceases to be speedyA

and the possessor is deemed to have waived

his right to see2 relief in the inferior

court. 'econd$ if a forcible entry action in the

inferior court is allowed after the lapse of a

number of years, then the result may well bethat no action of forcible entry can really

prescribe. =o matter how long such defendant

is in physical possession, plainti will merely

ma2e a demand, bring suit in the inferior

court upon a plea of tolerance to prevent

prescription to set in H and summarily throw

him out of the land. Such a conclusion is

unreasonable. @specially if we bear in mind

the postulates that proceedings of forcible


11/19

entry and unlawful detainer are summary in

nature, and that the one year timeHbar to suit

is but in pursuance of the summary nature of

the action.1' "Enderlining supplied+

It is the nature of defendantBs entry into the

land which determines the cause of action,

whether it is forcible entry or unlawful

detainer. If the entry is illegal, then the action

which may be 3led against the intruder isforcible entry. If, however, the entry is legal

but the possession thereafter becomes illegal,

the case is unlawful detainer.

Indeed, to vest the court jurisdiction to eect

the ejectment of an occupant, it is necessarythat the complaint should embody such a

statement of facts as brings the party clearly

within the class of cases for which the

statutes provide a remedy, as these

proceedings are summary in nature.1? he

complaint must show enough on its face the

court jurisdiction without resort to parol

testimony.*



12/19

he jurisdictional facts must appear on the

face of the complaint. Jhen the complaint

fails to aver facts constitutive of forcible entry

or unlawful detainer, as where it does not

state how entry was aected or how and

when dispossession started, the remedy

should either be an accion publiciana or an

accion reivindicatoria in the proper regional

trial court.*1

hus, in /o, Gr. v. !ourt of(ppeals,** petitioners 3led an unlawful

detainer case against respondent alleging

that they were the owners of the parcel of

land through intestate succession which was

occupied by respondent by mere tolerance of

petitioners as well as their deceased mother.Resolving the issue on whether or not

petitionersB case for unlawful detainer will

prosper, the court ruled*>;

#etitioners alleged in their complaint that they

inherited the property registered under !=o. !H>*11 from their parentsA that

possession thereof by private respondent was

by tolerance of their mother, and after her



13/19

death, by their own toleranceA and that they

had served written demand on Fecember,

1??0, but that private respondent refused to

vacate the property.

It is settled that one whose stay is merely

tolerated becomes a deforciant illegally

occupying the land the moment he is re$uired

to leave. It is essential in unlawful detainer

cases of this 2ind, that plaintiBs supposedacts of tolerance must have been present

right from the start of the possession which is

later sought to be recovered. his is where

petitionersB cause of action fails. he

appellate court, in full agreement with the

:! made the conclusion that the alleged

tolerance by their mother and after her death,

by them, was unsubstantiated.

he evidence revealed that the possession of

defendant was illegal at the inception and not

merely tolerated as alleged in the complaint,

considering that defendant started to occupy

the subject lot and then built a house thereon

without the permission and consent of


14/19

petitioners and before them, their mother.

!learly, defendantBs entry into the land was

eected clandestinely, without the 2nowledge

of the owners, conse$uently, it is categori8ed

as possession by stealth which is forcible

entry. (s eplained in 'arona vs. (illegas,

cited in )u*oz vs. +ourt ofAppeals 5**0 S!R(

*1& "1??*+6 tolerance must be present right

from the start of possession sought to berecovered, to categori8e a cause of action as

one of unlawful detainer not of forcible entry

.

(nd in the case of en 9orty Realty and

Fevelopment !orp. v. !ru8,*0 petitionerBs

complaint for unlawful detainer merely

contained the bare allegations that "1+

respondent immediately occupied the subject

property after its sale to her, an action merely

tolerated by petitionerA and "*+ her allegedly

illegal occupation of the premises was bymere tolerance. he court, in 3nding that the

alleged tolerance did not justify the action for

unlawful detainer, held;

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#fnt24


15/19

o justify an action for unlawful detainer, the

permission or tolerance must have been

present at the beginning of the possession.

In this case, the !omplaint and the other

pleadings do not recite any averment of fact

that would substantiate the claim of petitionerthat it permitted or tolerated the occupation

of the property by Respondent !ru8. he

complaint contains only bare allegations that

1+ respondent immediately occupied the

subject property after its sale to her, an action

merely tolerated by petitionerA and *+ herallegedly illegal occupation of the premises

was by mere tolerance.

hese allegations contradict, rather than

support, petitionerBs theory that its cause of

action is for unlawful detainer. &irst$ thesearguments advance the view that

respondentBs occupation of the property was

unlawful at its inception. 'econd$ they counter


16/19


17/19

cause for unlawful detainer, the municipal

trial court had no jurisdiction over the

case.*7 It is in this light that this !ourt 3nds

that the !ourt of (ppeals correctly found that

the municipal trial court had no jurisdiction

over the complaint.

JD@R@94R@, the petition is F@=I@F and the

judgment of the !ourt of (ppeals dismissing

the complaint in !ivil !ase =o. *)07 of the:! (ntipolo, Ri8al for lac2 of jurisdiction is

hereby (99IR:@F.

1 #enned by (ssociate Gustice Dector


18/19


19/19

17 1>1 #hil. >&) "1?&'+.

1' Id., >7*H>7>.

1? 'armiento v. +ourt of Appeals$ >* #hil.

10&, 1)& "1??)+.

* Id.

*1 Id.

** Supra note '.

*> Id., pp. 1'0H1'&.

*0 Supra note ).

*) Id., pp. 0?H0?1.

*& 1nida v. 2eirs of Ambrosio 1rban, /.R.

=o. 1))0>*, ? Gune *), 0& S!R( &',

7).

*7 Id.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_132424_2006.html#rnt27

cases discussing elements and definition of tolerance

Documents