Understanding Unlawful Detainer When Tolerance Must Be Proven in Property Disputes

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that an owner of real property cannot simply file an unlawful detainer case to evict occupants without clearly proving that the occupants’ possession began with the owner’s permission or tolerance. The case of Dayandayan v. Spouses Rojas (G.R. No. 227411, July 15, 2020) underscores that ownership alone does not give an owner the right to wrest possession through a summary ejectment action. This article explains the ruling and its practical implications for property owners and occupants.

The Facts of the Case

Spouses Eduardo and Enriquita Rojas purchased Lot No. 635 in Isabel, Leyte in March 1997. They later filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Teresita Dayandayan, Yolly Laguna, Clara Talle, and several others who had built houses on the property. The respondents claimed that Talle and Dayandayan asked permission to construct their houses and promised to vacate upon demand. The respondents said they allowed the petitioners to stay out of compassion, without charging rent.

The petitioners, however, claimed they had been residing in the area since the early 1980s—long before the respondents bought the property. They argued that their houses were built on a reclaimed foreshore area, not on the respondents’ lot, and that they had no contract, express or implied, with the respondents or their predecessors.

The Municipal Circuit Trial Court ruled in favor of the respondents, but the Regional Trial Court reversed, finding that the respondents failed to prove the fact of tolerance. The Court of Appeals reinstated the MCTC ruling, prompting the petitioners to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

The Legal Framework: Three Actions to Recover Possession

The Supreme Court explained that an owner who wants to recover possession of property has three main remedies:

• Accion reivindicatoria — a suit to recover possession as an element of ownership, filed before the Regional Trial Court, where the judgment determines ownership.
• Accion publiciana — a plenary action to recover the right of possession, also filed before the RTC, when dispossession has lasted more than one year.
• Accion interdictal — a summary action that determines the right to physical possession, independent of ownership, filed before the Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Court. This includes forcible entry and unlawful detainer.

The Court emphasized that an owner cannot conveniently use a summary ejectment action to displace a possessor who has been in peaceable possession for years. As the Court warned in earlier cases like Muñoz v. CA and Javelosa v. Tapus, even a Torrens title does not justify wresting possession through unlawful detainer without proving the essential requisites.

Tolerance Must Be Present from the Start and Clearly Proven

For an unlawful detainer action to prosper, the plaintiff must allege and prove four elements: (1) initial possession by the defendant was by contract with or tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) possession became illegal upon notice of termination of the right to possess; (3) the defendant remained in possession despite the demand; and (4) the complaint was filed within one year from the last demand.

The Court defined “tolerance” in the landmark case of Sarona v. Villegas as acts permitted by the owner out of friendship, courtesy, or neighborliness. Crucially, tolerance must be present from the very start of possession. It is not mere silence, inaction, or neglect to file a case—it carries with it permission. As the Court put it, “tolerance always carries with it ‘permission’ and not merely silence or inaction, for silence or inaction is negligence, not tolerance.”

The plaintiff must prove tolerance through positive, overt acts—showing how and when the defendant entered the property and who granted permission. A bare, self-serving claim of tolerance will not suffice.

Why the Respondents Lost

Applying these rules, the Court found that the respondents failed to prove any overt act of tolerance. Their claim rested on vague, self-serving statements that the petitioners approached them for permission to build houses. They provided no specific details about how or when permission was given.

More importantly, the respondents’ own documents undermined their claim. The Deed of Sale showed they acquired the property in 1997, years after the petitioners had already been residing in the area since the early 1980s. The Court found it improbable that the petitioners would ask permission from people who had not yet owned the property. The petitioners’ evidence—including affidavits of disinterested witnesses and a certification from the Municipal Treasurer—established their prior possession.

The Court also rejected the respondents’ argument that the issue of tolerance was belatedly raised. Since the respondents themselves alleged tolerance in their complaint, they could not now claim surprise when the courts examined that very allegation.

Practical Takeaways

• Ownership is not enough. An owner cannot use unlawful detainer to evict occupants without proving that the occupants’ possession began with the owner’s permission or tolerance.
• Tolerance must be proven, not assumed. A mere claim that the occupant was “tolerated” will not suffice. The owner must present evidence of specific overt acts showing how and when permission was given.
• Timing matters. If the occupant entered the property before the owner acquired it, it is difficult—if not impossible—to prove that the owner tolerated the initial possession.
• Choose the right remedy. If the occupant’s possession was not initially lawful or tolerated, the owner should consider filing an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria before the RTC instead of a summary ejectment case.
• Evidence is key. Courts require preponderance of evidence—not just allegations—to establish the jurisdictional facts of an unlawful detainer case.

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