Tolerance in Unlawful Detainer: Proving Consent for Possession

In a significant ruling for property owners and possessors alike, the Supreme Court has clarified what constitutes "tolerance" in unlawful detainer cases. The case of Spouses Su v. Bontilao (G.R. No. 238892, September 4, 2019) reminds litigants that bare allegations of tolerance are insufficient—owners must present concrete evidence of consent to the possession of their property.

The Facts of the Case

The petitioners, Spouses Aurora and Amador Su, filed an unlawful detainer complaint against respondents who had constructed houses on their registered property in Lapu-Lapu City. The petitioners claimed that the respondents occupied the land by their mere tolerance, with the understanding that they would vacate upon demand. When the respondents refused to leave, the petitioners filed an ejectment case.

The respondents countered that they were the true owners as heirs of the original possessor, and that they could not have been occupying the property by mere tolerance. They also raised procedural objections, noting that the petitioners and their counsel failed to appear at the first scheduled preliminary conference.

The Procedural Issue

The Municipal Trial Court in Cities initially dismissed the case for the petitioners' non-appearance at the preliminary conference. However, the court later reconsidered, finding that the petitioners' counsel had a valid reason for his absence—his wife and young child had fallen ill. The court also noted that the petitioners had executed a Special Power of Attorney authorizing their counsel to represent them.

The Supreme Court upheld this liberal application of the rules. Under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure and Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, a party's non-appearance at a preliminary conference may be excused if a representative appears fully authorized in writing. The Court found that the Special Power of Attorney satisfied this requirement, and that the counsel's motion for reconsideration was not a prohibited pleading since the dismissal was not a judgment on the merits.

The Substantive Issue: Proving Tolerance

The more significant ruling concerned the substantive requirement for unlawful detainer. The Court emphasized that in an action for unlawful detainer based on tolerance, the acts of tolerance must be proved; bare allegations are insufficient.

The Court explained that tolerance signifies permission, not merely silence or inaction. As stated in Reyes v. Heirs of Deogracias Forlales (787 Phil. 541), acts merely tolerated are those which the owner allows out of friendship, courtesy, or neighborliness—such as passing over land or tying a horse therein. These acts do not ripen into a right by prescription.

Crucially, the Court found that the petitioners failed to present evidence showing how and when the respondents entered the property, and how and when permission to occupy was purportedly given. Without such proof, the unlawful detainer action could not prosper.

The Torrens Title Limitation

The Court also addressed a common misconception: that holding a Torrens title automatically entitles the owner to win an ejectment case. While the holder of a Torrens title is indeed the rightful owner entitled to possession, this fact alone does not give the owner unbridled authority to immediately wrest possession through a summary action.

Even a legal owner must prove the essential requisites of unlawful detainer. If the owner cannot establish that possession was originally lawful through permission or tolerance, the appropriate remedy may lie elsewhere—such as an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria.

Practical Takeaways

• Document permission: Property owners should keep written records of any permission granted to occupants, including the date and terms of such permission.
• Prove entry and consent: In unlawful detainer cases, plaintiffs must present evidence of how and when the defendant entered the property, and how and when consent was given.
• Silence is not tolerance: Mere knowledge of another's possession without objection does not constitute tolerance. Positive acts of permission are required.
• Title alone is insufficient: A Torrens title is strong evidence of ownership but does not automatically prove the elements of unlawful detainer.
• Observe procedural rules: While courts may relax procedural rules, parties should attend all scheduled hearings or ensure a duly authorized representative appears.

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