Establishing Tolerance in Unlawful Detainer Cases: The Need for Concrete Evidence

The Supreme Court has long held that unlawful detainer cases rise or fall on one critical question: how did the defendant enter the property? If the plaintiff cannot prove that the defendant's possession began with permission or tolerance, the case fails—even if the plaintiff clearly owns the land. The 2015 case of Sabellina v. Buray (G.R. No. 187727) illustrates this principle and serves as a warning to property owners who rely on bare allegations rather than concrete evidence.

The Facts of the Case

Tomasa Sabellina filed an unlawful detainer complaint against ten respondents who occupied her inherited lot in Misamis Oriental. She claimed that her late sister had given the respondents permission to occupy the property during the late 1980s, and that she allowed them to construct houses on the condition they would vacate when she needed the land. When she needed to sell the property to pay a debt, she demanded they leave. The respondents refused.

The respondents countered that they had possessed the property in good faith since the 1970s and had acquired it through acquisitive prescription. They presented barangay certifications, affidavits, and utility receipts to support their claim of long-term occupation.

The Municipal Circuit Trial Court ruled in Sabellina's favor, and the Regional Trial Court affirmed. But the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Sabellina failed to prove her allegation of tolerance by competent evidence.

The Issue: Proving the Character of Entry

The Supreme Court framed the sole issue as whether Sabellina established her cause of action by a preponderance of evidence. The Court emphasized that in ejectment cases, the circumstances of the defendant's entry determine whether the action is forcible entry or unlawful detainer.

In forcible entry, possession is unlawful from the beginning because the defendant entered through force, intimidation, stealth, threats, or strategy. In unlawful detainer, possession is initially lawful because the plaintiff consented to entry, but becomes unlawful when that consent is withdrawn or the right to possess expires. The Court stressed that subsequent tolerance will not convert a forcible entry into unlawful detainer—the plaintiff must prove the character of entry through competent evidence.

Why the Plaintiff's Evidence Failed

Sabellina presented tax declarations, demand letters, a deed of extrajudicial settlement, realty tax receipts, and a promissory agreement from one respondent. But the Court found that most of this evidence was irrelevant to the central question of how the respondents entered.

The tax declarations, while good indicia of ownership, only showed possession de jure (in law), not possession de facto (in fact). They shed no light on the circumstances of the respondents' entry.

The Court scrutinized the remaining evidence:

• Elena Jaramillo's affidavit stated she knew "as a fact" that the respondents were allowed to occupy the property, but she never explained how she acquired this knowledge. The Court could not determine whether she had personal knowledge or merely second-hand information, giving the affidavit "very little probative value."
• Roberto Acido's promissory agreement, even if genuine, only affected Acido's rights—not the other nine respondents. It also failed to explain when and how the respondents entered possession.
• Sabellina's own affidavit merely repeated her complaint's allegations. The Court called this "self-serving" and noted that "allegations are not evidence."

The respondents' evidence fared no better. Their joint affidavit repeated self-serving allegations, and the affidavits of two other witnesses were word-for-word identical except for minor details—creating suspicion of fabrication.

When Evidence Is in Equipoise

Because neither party proved its claim, the Court found the evidence in equipoise. Under Rule 133, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, when evidence on an issue is in equipoise, the party bearing the burden of proof fails. The Court dismissed the complaint, noting that Sabellina was not without remedy: she could still file accion publiciana or accion reinvindicatoria to recover possession and vindicate ownership.

Practical Takeaways

• Prove the entry, not just ownership. In unlawful detainer, tax declarations and titles establish ownership but do not prove how the defendant entered. Plaintiffs must present evidence of the initial grant of permission or tolerance.
• Use witnesses with personal knowledge. Affidavits must explain how the affiant knows the facts. A statement that one knows something "as a fact" without explaining the source carries little weight.
• Evidence must cover all defendants. A document binding one occupant does not establish tolerance as to the others. Plaintiffs need evidence addressing each defendant's entry.
• Bare allegations are not evidence. Both plaintiffs and defendants must substantiate their claims. Self-serving affidavits that merely repeat complaint or answer allegations will not suffice.
• Consider the proper remedy. If the circumstances of entry cannot be proven, a plenary action for accion publiciana or accion reinvindicatoria may be the better path, especially where ownership is clear.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.