This is another case of unlawful detainer. For an unlawful detainer action to prosper, what must the plaintiff allege and establish? When does possession of the defendant become illegal? These are some of the issues resolved in this case.
The case involves a stall space in a commercial building erected on a land with a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) registered in the name of Rosa, who verbally leased the same to Rita, her daughter-in-law, the wife of her son Domeng, for the purpose of selling dressed chicken. Despite 10 years of occupancy, Rita failed to pay the rentals of P400 a month totaling P73,000. Rita also violated the terms of the lease when she used the stall for storage purposes and for dressing live chicken using a gas stove, emitting foul odor.
Being bedridden already and staying in the adjacent room, Rosa needed an expansion of her room for ventilation. So she went to the barangay for purposes of asking that Rita be ordered to vacate the premises and pay the arrears in rental. But settlement failed, thus forcing her to file a complaint in the City Metropolitan Trial Court (METC).
In answer to the complaint, Rita alleged that the land was co-owned by Rosa and her children as heirs to the estate of the late husband of Rosa, who died about 12 years ago. Without settling the estate, Rosa subdivided the lot into three, one of which was the one where the stall space of Rita was located. Rita contended that she was occupying the stall not as lessee but as wife of Domeng, who is a co-owner of said property, while the amount being paid to Rosa was not in the form of rental but a financial aid or assistance to show gratitude to Rosa. And they used the stall to have a means of livelihood because her husband’s condition was worse than Rosa, who became bedridden after a car accident. Hence, she could not be ejected therein.
After hearing, the METC rendered a decision granting the complaint of Rosa and ordered Rita and all persons claiming rights under her to vacate the premises and restore its possession to Rosa, together with payment of the rentals in arrears as well as attorney’s fees and cost of suit. The METC said that Rita’s occupation of the stall is merely tolerated and Rosa has the right to demand that Rita vacate the premises. This ruling was affirmed in toto by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). So Rita asked the Court of Appeals (CA) to review and reverse said decisions.
During the pendency of the appeal before the CA, Rosa died. So she was substituted by her four sons as her heirs, represented by Juanito, one of the heirs. Rita thus filed a Manifestation and Motion praying that the ejectment case against her be dismissed since the property is now under co-ownership and one of its co-owners is Domeng, her husband. The CA granted Rita’s Manifestation and Motion and resolved that such Manifestation has the effect of withdrawal of her appeal of the decision of the lower courts ejecting her from the stall. Thus, she should now vacate the stall. Was the CA correct?
No said the Supreme Court. The CA misunderstood the meaning and purpose of Rita’s Manifestation and Motion. Such Manifestation and Motion simply means that Rita seeks to dismiss the ejectment case filed by Rosa against her and not her Petition for Review of the decisions of the METC and the RTC granting the complaint filed by Rosa ejecting her from the premises.
Under the circumstance of this case, there was neither an oral lease between Rosa and Rita, nor was there tolerance from the beginning of Rita’s possession of the stall. The amount given by Rita to Rosa was in the form of financial assistance to Rosa and not payment of rentals. Even assuming that Rita’s possession of the stall was by tolerance of Rosa, the husband of Rita became a co-owner of the property by virtue of co-ownership. From the time Rita started possessing the property and before title was registered in the name of Rosa, Rita’s possession of the subject property was by virtue of co-ownership.
In an unlawful detainer case, the key jurisdictional fact that should be proved is that the acts of tolerance should have been present right from the very start of possession and that such possession by tolerance shall continue up to the filing of the ejectment complaint. When Rosa filed the unlawful detainer case, she failed to establish that Rita’s possession of the property was tolerated all the way from the beginning. In the absence of such tolerated possession up to the filing of the complaint, the jurisdictional element of an illegal detainer case is not satisfied. So the resolutions of the CA are set aside and the complaint for unlawful detainer against Rita should be dismissed (Viray vs Heirs of Viray, G.R. 252325, March 18, 2021)
* * *
Email: js0711192@gmail.com