Unlawful Detainer: Proving Tolerance Is Key to a Successful Ejectment

In an unlawful detainer case, the owner of real property cannot simply rely on a Torrens Title to eject an occupant. The Supreme Court, in Javelosa v. Tapus (G.R. No. 204361, July 4, 2018), reiterated that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's possession began with the owner's permission or tolerance. Without this essential jurisdictional fact, the ejectment case fails, even if the plaintiff is the registered owner.

The Facts of the Case

Cecilia Javelosa owned a 10,198-square-meter parcel of land in Boracay Island, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-35394. She acquired the property by donation from her predecessor-in-interest, Ciriaco Tirol. The respondents occupied a portion of the property, allegedly as caretakers upon Tirol's tolerance.

In 2003, Javelosa sent a demand letter ordering the respondents to vacate. When they refused, she filed an unlawful detainer case before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC). The MCTC ruled in her favor, and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed. The Court of Appeals (CA), however, reversed, holding that Javelosa failed to prove that the respondents' possession was by her tolerance.

The Issue

The central question was whether the CA erred in dismissing the unlawful detainer case for lack of proof of tolerance.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court denied Javelosa's petition and affirmed the CA's dismissal. The Court held that in an unlawful detainer case, the plaintiff must prove all jurisdictional facts, the most important being that the defendant's entry into the property was lawful and based on the plaintiff's permission or tolerance.

The Court enumerated the four jurisdictional facts in an unlawful detainer case:

1. Initially, the defendant's possession was by contract with or tolerance of the plaintiff;
2. Such possession became illegal upon notice by the plaintiff of the termination of the defendant's right of possession;
3. The defendant remained in possession, depriving the plaintiff of enjoyment; and
4. The complaint was filed within one year from the last demand to vacate.

While Javelosa's complaint properly alleged these facts, the Court stressed that "mere allegation is not evidence." She failed to adduce evidence showing how and when the respondents entered the property, and how and when permission was given. Her bare assertion that they were caretakers was insufficient, especially since the respondents had occupied the property for over 70 years.

Tolerance Cannot Be Presumed

The Court emphasized that tolerance cannot be presumed from an owner's failure to eject occupants. As it stated in Dr. Carbonilla v. Abiera (639 Phil. 473 [2010]), "tolerance always carries with it 'permission' and not merely silence or inaction for silence or inaction is negligence, not tolerance."

Javelosa argued that her tolerance was obvious because she allowed the respondents to stay for years without ejecting them. The Court rejected this, citing Go, Jr. v. CA (415 Phil. 172 [2001]), which held that tolerance cannot be presumed from the owner's failure to file an ejectment case.

The Proper Remedy

The Court clarified that when a complaint fails to state how entry was effected or how dispossession started, the proper remedy is not unlawful detainer but accion publiciana (a plenary action to recover possession) or accion reivindicatoria (an action to recover ownership). Even a registered owner cannot wrest possession through a summary action without proving the essential requisites.

Practical Takeaways

• Prove tolerance from the start. In an unlawful detainer case, the plaintiff must show that the defendant's possession was lawful from the beginning, based on permission or tolerance. Tolerance must be present at the time of entry, not merely inferred from the owner's inaction.
• Document permission. Owners should keep written records of any arrangement allowing another person to occupy their property. A clear contract, receipt, or written permission can serve as evidence of tolerance.
• Bare allegations are not enough. A complaint that merely alleges tolerance without details on how and when permission was given will likely fail. The plaintiff must point to overt acts indicating permission.
• Choose the right action. If the plaintiff cannot prove tolerance, the proper remedy may be accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria, not a summary ejectment case.
• Silence is not tolerance. Failing to eject an occupant for many years does not amount to tolerance. Permission, not negligence, is the basis of lawful possession.

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