View full case

CECILIA T. JAVELOSA v. EZEQUIEL TAPUS

FACTS:

Cecilia Javelosa filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Ezequiel Tapus, Mario Madriaga, Danny Tapuz, Juanita Tapus, and Aurora Madriaga, who occupied her property without her permission. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) ruled in favor of Javelosa, declaring her entitled to the possession of the land and ordering the respondents to vacate and pay monthly rental. The respondents appealed the MCTC decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), but the RTC affirmed the ruling of the MCTC. However, on appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the lower court's rulings, stating that the petitioner failed to prove that the respondents occupied the property with her permission. The CA held that without proof of tolerance, the remedy of unlawful detainer was inappropriate. Dissatisfied with the ruling, Javelosa filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. The main issue was whether the CA erred in dismissing the case for unlawful detainer. The petitioner argued that she had proven her ownership of the property and her right to possess it, while the respondents failed to present evidence to support their claim of ownership. The respondents countered that the petitioner failed to prove her supposed tolerance of their occupation and that they have been in physical possession of the property for a long period of time.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the case for unlawful detainer.

RULING:

  1. The instant petition is bereft of merit.

    • The Supreme Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to reviewing errors of law, not of fact.

    • The CA did not commit any error that would warrant a reversal of its assailed decision. The petitioner failed to prove the essential requisites for an action for unlawful detainer to prosper, particularly failing to establish proof of tolerance for the respondents' occupation of the property.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Jurisdiction in Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45): Limited to reviewing errors of law, not questions of fact.

  2. Essential Requisites for Unlawful Detainer: The owner must sufficiently prove that:

    • Initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff.

    • Eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by the plaintiff to the defendant of the termination of the latter’s right of possession.

    • The defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof.

    • The action for unlawful detainer was instituted within one year from the last demand to vacate.

  3. Distinction Between Different Actions for Possession:

    • Accion Interdictal: Summary action, including forcible entry and unlawful detainer, cognizable by municipal or metropolitan trial courts.

    • Accion Publiciana: Plenary action to recover the right of possession, brought in the regional trial court for dispossessions exceeding one year.

    • Accion Reivindicatoria: Action to recover ownership.

  4. Burden of Proof in Unlawful Detainer: The plaintiff must show acts of tolerance or permission at the beginning of the possession. Mere allegations are insufficient without evidence of how the entry of the respondents was effected or when the dispossession started.

  5. Right to Possession Versus Ownership: Possession cannot be wrested from an occupant without proving the requisites of the action pursued, even if the owner holds a Torrens Title.

  6. Legal Remedies for Owners: Even when asserting ownership, the proper legal remedies must be pursued, such as an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria, rather than a summary action for unlawful detainer if the requisites for the latter are not met.