Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > December 2009 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 177039 : December 02, 2009] THE HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES LUZ BAELLO MAGAT AND ARCADIO MAGAT, NAMELY, ROSALINDA B. MAGAT, CARMELINA B. MAGAT, AND ZENAIDA B. MAGAT-MARIANO V. RODOLFO LIM A.K.A. PRUDENCIO LIM:

Quoted hereunder, for your information,  is a resolution of this Court dated 02 December 2009:

G.R. No. 177039 (The Heirs of the Late Spouses Luz Baello Magat and Arcadio Magat, namely, Rosalinda B. Magat, Carmelina B. Magat, and Zenaida B.'Magat-Mariano v. Rodolfo Lim a.k.a. Prudencio Lim).

This is a case of unlawful detainer filed by Zenaida, Rosalinda and Carmelina Magat (the Magats) against Rodolfo Lim (Lim) and Raymundo Dionella.


Luz Magat, married to Arcadio Magat, owned a titled lot on Esguerra Street, Barangay Calaanan, Caloocan City. In 1983, respondent Lim asked the Magat couple's permission to build a chapel on their lot for their religious denomination. They agreed and waived any rent. When Magat couple died, they were survived by their children, namely, petitioner Zenaida, Rosalinda, and Carmelina Magat. The Magats continued to tolerate Lim's stay on the land.

But on June 25, 2002 the Magats, through their lawyer, wrote Lim, terminating his occupancy of the lot and demanding that he vacate it. But Lim refused to vacate the land, prompting the Magats to seek the ejectment of Lim and the others with him from the property in Civil Case 02-26963 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Caloocan City on September 27, 2002.

Among the defendants, only Lim filed an answer to the complaint. He alleged that the Magats did not own the lot and that Maria Concepcion Vidal, wife of Pioquinto Rivera, owned it as evidenced by Original Certificate of Title 994 issued by the Register of Deeds on April 19, 1917. The only surviving heir of spouses Rivera was Bartolome Rivera who conveyed 25 percent of the land to Jose Dimson. Lim also alleged that the subject lot is a part of the Maysilo Estate. Lim claimed in his comment that the Magats' title had been declared void by the Supreme Court and that he did not occupy it by tolerance of the Magats.


On April 25, 2003 the MeTC decided the case in favor of the Magats considering that they presented a registered title in their parents' name while Lim's claim of ownership is bare. The court ordered respondent Lim and the other defendants and all persons claiming rights under them to vacate the lot and surrender possession of it to the Magats.   The court also ordered them to pay P5,000.00 a month to the Magats for their occupation of the lot from June 25, 2002 until they vacate it.


On September 25, 2003, acting on respondent Lim's appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the same and affirmed in toto the MeTC decision.


On November 30, 2006 the Court of Appeals (CA) granted petitioner Lim's petition for review. It ruled that the MeTC had no jurisdiction over the action. Quoting Sarona v. Villegas,^[1] the CA held that tolerance of the occupant must be present from the start of his possession in order for a cause of action to be one of unlawful detainer and not of forcible entry. The complaint did not meet this requirement.

The CA also ruled that there was no evidence that the Magats were ever in possession of the lot. Possession, said the CA, cannot be taken from those who had been in physical possession for more than a year by resorting to summary procedure.


The key issue in this case is whether or not the CA correctly dismissed the complaint on the ground that it fails to allege a case of unlawful detention.


The petition is meritorious.

An action for unlawful detainer is summary, brought before the first level courts by a person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld by another after the termination of the latter's right to hold possession. It seeks to recover physical possession of the property within one year after such unlawful withholding of possession.^[2] This one year period begins from the time the owner makes a demand to vacate. When the owner makes several demands, the count is made from the last demand.

On July 6, 2002 Lim received the Magats' demand letter to vacate. When he refused to leave, the unlawful withholding of possession began on that date not on the date of his actual entry into the property. More than two months after or on September 27, 2002, the Magats filed their complaint for ejectment. Clearly they filed their action within the one year period set by law and is to be governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure under the jurisdiction of the MeTC.

The case of Sarona cited by the CA does not apply to this case since unlike Sarona, the Magats' complaint alleged that Lim occupied the subject property with the consent of their deceased parents and that the Magats continued to tolerate their stay after their parents passed away. Consequently, Lim and his co-defendants' possession was lawful and became unlawful only when the Magats, as owners, want their property back in their possession.

Persons who occupy the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, know that their occupation of the premises may be terminated any time. They are necessarily bound by an implied promise that they will vacate the same upon demand, failing in which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against them.^[3] Possession by tolerance becomes unlawful the moment the owner demands that he vacate the land.^[4]

The Court also reiterates that in unlawful detainer cases, the plaintiff need not have been in prior physical possession of the property.^[5]  Prior physical possession of the plaintiff is not an indispensable requirement in an unlawful detainer case.^[6]

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' decision in CA-G.R. SP 81185 dated November 30, 2006 is SET ASIDE, and the Regional Trial Court's decision in Civil Case C-20491 dated September 25, 2003 is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 2^nd day of December, 2009.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] 131 Phil. 365 (1968).

^[2] RULES OF COURT, Rule 70, Sec. 1; B.P. 129, Sec. 19, par. 2, as amended by R.A. 7691; Reyes v. Judge Sta. Maria, 180 Phil. 141, 145 (1979).

^[3] Spouses Anicete v. Balanon, 450 Phil. 615, 622 (2003).

^[4] Pangilinan v. Aguilar, 150 Phil. 166, 176 (1972).

^[5] Demamay v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 87263, June 18, 1990, 186 SCRA 608, 612.

^[6] Pangilinan v. Aguilar, supra note 4.

Back to Home | Back to Main