Galande v. Espiritu-Sarenas

 

Galande v. Espiritu-Sarenas

G.R. No. 255989

March 1, 2023

 

FACTS:

                Petitioner filed an unlawful detainer case against Respondent, alleging that the former had been in actual and continuous possession of the disputed land, initially as a tenant of Spouses Salamanca before purchasing the same on an installment basis. While Petitioner was still paying installments, he allowed the Respondents to till half the land beginning on May 2015 under the condition that the latter may be forced to vacate at any time. Upon Petitioner’s eventual demand to vacate the premises, Respondents refused to do so as they claimed the disputed property to be theirs, having inherited the same from their deceased mother and also being in occupancy and enjoyment of the lot since 1966, all based on an adverse claim by their deceased mother on the property as annotate on Petitioner’s TCT. The MTCC, as affirmed by the RTC, ruled in favor of Petitioner and ordered Defendants to vacate the property, based on the strength of the former’s TCT. On appeal, the CA reversed the assailed decision, ruling that petitioner failed to prove the first and second requisites to establish a cause of action for unlawful detainer. Defendant’s possession of the one-half portion of the subject property was made not by tolerance of the petitioner but by color of title; that their possession was in the concept of an owner on the basis of the Notice of Adverse Claim annotated by their predecessor-in[1]interest, Gertrudes, on the title of the subject property in 1966 which has remained outstanding; and that respondents, therefore, cannot be ejected through an action for unlawful detainer.

 

ISSUE:

                Whether or not an action for unlawful detainer is the proper recourse for Petitioners.

 

HELD:

                Yes. The SC states that the CA erred in ruling that Petitioners lacked the jurisdictional facts necessary to initiate unlawful detainer proceedings, which are prior physical possession and tolerance. The CA held that defendant’s possession of the property was not by mere tolerance, as although there was an agreement between the two parties in 2015, the actual basis for the possession was the annotated adverse claim. The SC ruled this to be improper as between defendant’s occupancy since 1966 to their present possession, Petitioner had possessed the subject lot for a period of time sufficient enough to break defendant’s allegations of continued possession. As such, the possession starting from 2015 as agreed upon by the parties is already based on mere tolerance, and longer on the prior adverse claim.