The Supreme Court ruled that an unlawful detainer case was improperly filed because the claimant failed to prove their tolerance of the occupant’s possession, and a prior court decision already established the occupant’s ownership. This means that simply claiming tolerance is not enough to win an ejectment case; actual proof of permission must be shown, especially when ownership is disputed. The ruling reinforces the principle that ownership disputes are better resolved through actions like accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria, not summary ejectment proceedings.

From Legal Counsel to Occupant: Did Tolerance Truly Exist in the Peralta Property Dispute?

The Estate of Valeriano C. Bueno filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., seeking to eject him from a property in Manila. The Estate claimed that the Spouses Bueno, out of kindness, allowed Atty. Eduardo M. Peralta, Sr. (Associate Justice Peralta’s father), to occupy the property due to his legal services, a situation they argued continued by tolerance. However, the MeTC, RTC, and CA all dismissed the complaint, leading to this Supreme Court review. The central legal question is whether the Estate of Bueno successfully proved their tolerance of the Peralta family’s possession to justify an unlawful detainer action.

In the Philippines, actions to recover possession of real property are categorized into three types: accion interdictal (forcible entry and unlawful detainer), accion publiciana, and accion reivindicatoria. An accion interdictal involves summary proceedings before municipal or metropolitan trial courts concerning physical possession. Accion publiciana is a plenary action to recover the right of possession, typically brought in the regional trial court when dispossession lasts more than one year. Lastly, accion reivindicatoria is an action to recover ownership and full possession, also initiated in the regional trial court.

For an unlawful detainer case to succeed, certain jurisdictional facts must be established in the complaint, as highlighted in Hidalgo v. Velasco:

1. That initially, the possession of the property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;
2. That eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter’s right of possession;
3. That thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and
4. That within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.

These elements, when properly alleged, form the basis of an unlawful detainer claim. The Estate of Bueno asserted that Associate Justice Peralta’s possession was based on their tolerance, stemming from the legal services provided by his father to the Spouses Bueno. However, proving this tolerance is crucial, as mere allegations are insufficient.

Tolerance, in the context of unlawful detainer, must be demonstrated through overt acts that indicate permission or allowance for another to occupy the property. The Estate of Bueno failed to provide concrete evidence showing when and how the Peralta family entered the property, or how permission was expressly given. The Court of Appeals noted that while Atty. Peralta, Sr., provided legal services, this alone did not prove the Spouses Bueno’s benevolence led to the Peralta family’s tolerated occupation.

Moreover, a critical point was the earlier Supreme Court decision in Estate of Bueno v. Estate of Peralta, Sr. In that case, the Court addressed the ownership issue directly, recognizing an oral contract between Bueno and Atty. Peralta for the property’s transfer in exchange for legal services. The Estate of Bueno’s failure to object to oral evidence and their acceptance of benefits (legal services) served as ratification, effectively removing the contract from the Statute of Frauds. This prior ruling held that the Estate of Peralta, Sr. was the rightful owner, which became a case of res judicata in the unlawful detainer action.

The doctrine of res judicata prevents parties from relitigating issues already decided by a competent court. As explained in Degayo v. Magbanua-Dinglasan, res judicata ensures that disputes, once settled, remain in repose, fostering stability and order in the legal system. The case highlights the concepts of bar by prior judgment and conclusiveness of judgment under Section 47 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The latter, conclusiveness of judgment, applies when the same parties litigate different causes of action, but a specific issue or fact was already determined in the previous case.

Here, the prior decision in Estate of Bueno v. Estate of Peralta, Sr., which involved the same parties, had already determined the ownership of the disputed property, meaning it could not be re-litigated. This prior determination undermined the Estate of Bueno’s claim of tolerance, as they no longer had the legal basis (ownership) to assert such a claim.

Adding to the complexity, the Estate of Bueno’s demand for rental payments from May 16, 2001, contradicted the idea of possession by tolerance. As established in Heirs of Melchor v. Melchor, seeking rental payments implies that the tolerance had ceased to exist from that point forward. Even if the Court were to overlook these issues, the timing of the unlawful detainer complaint was problematic.

Although the Estate of Bueno argued that the one-year period should be counted from the February 28, 2011 demand letter, the Court found that a prior final demand had been made on August 30, 2002. This earlier demand triggered the one-year period within which to file the unlawful detainer case, meaning the February 2011 filing was well beyond the prescribed time frame. This reflects the principle established in Racaza v. Gozum and Reyes, Sr. v. Heirs of Forlales that subsequent demands merely reiterate the original one and do not renew the one-year period.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Estate of Bueno could successfully claim unlawful detainer against Associate Justice Peralta, based on the assertion that the Peralta family’s possession of the property was by their tolerance.
What is unlawful detainer?	Unlawful detainer is a legal action to recover possession of property from someone who initially had lawful possession but whose right to possession has expired or been terminated. It requires proving that the initial possession was legal (by contract or tolerance) and that the possessor refused to leave after a demand.
What is ‘tolerance’ in the context of property law?	In property law, ‘tolerance’ means that the property owner allowed someone to occupy their property without any formal agreement or payment of rent. It implies permission, which can be withdrawn at any time, leading to an unlawful detainer action if the occupant refuses to leave after a demand.
Why did the Supreme Court dismiss the unlawful detainer case?	The Court dismissed the case primarily because the Estate of Bueno failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove their tolerance of the Peralta family’s possession. Additionally, a prior court decision had already established that the Peralta family was the rightful owner of the property.
What is res judicata, and how did it apply to this case?	Res judicata is a legal doctrine that prevents the same parties from relitigating issues that have already been decided by a competent court. In this case, a prior ruling on the ownership of the property was considered res judicata, preventing the Estate of Bueno from claiming ownership again in the unlawful detainer case.
What is the significance of the demand letter in unlawful detainer cases?	A demand letter is crucial because it formally notifies the occupant that their right to possess the property has been terminated and that they must vacate. The one-year period to file an unlawful detainer case starts from the date of the last demand.
Why wasn’t the February 2011 demand letter considered the start of the one-year period?	The February 2011 demand letter was not considered the start because the Court found that a prior ‘final demand’ had already been issued in August 2002. Subsequent demands do not restart the one-year period.
What are the alternative legal actions available to recover property?	Besides unlawful detainer, other legal actions include accion publiciana and accion reivindicatoria. Accion publiciana is used to recover the right of possession when dispossession has lasted for more than one year, while accion reivindicatoria is used to recover ownership of the property.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of documenting agreements related to property possession and the need to pursue the correct legal remedies based on the specific circumstances. It underscores that claims of tolerance must be supported by clear evidence and that prior court decisions on ownership can have a binding effect on subsequent cases.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ESTATE OF VALERIANO C. BUENO VS JUSTICE EDUARDO B. PERALTA, JR., G.R. No. 248521, August 01, 2022