In ejectment cases, particularly unlawful detainer, proving tolerance is crucial. The Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Dioscoro Carbonilla v. Marcelo Abiera emphasizes that a plaintiff must demonstrate overt acts of permission to establish tolerance as the basis for the defendant’s initial lawful possession. This ruling highlights the importance of concrete evidence, not mere allegations, in proving the foundation of an unlawful detainer claim, thus ensuring the protection of possessory rights.

Building on Sand: When a Land Title Doesn’t Guarantee Eviction

The case of Dr. Dioscoro Carbonilla v. Marcelo Abiera and Maricris Abiera Paredes began with a dispute over a parcel of land and a residential building in Maasin City. Dr. Carbonilla, claiming ownership of both the land and the building, filed an ejectment suit against the Abieras, who had been occupying the property. Carbonilla asserted that the Abieras’ occupation was based on the mere tolerance of the previous owners, which he argued entitled him to reclaim possession.

The Abieras, however, countered that they had been in possession of the building as owners, having inherited it from their ancestors since 1960. They also claimed ownership of the land through inheritance from Francisco Plasabas. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) initially ruled in favor of the Abieras regarding the building, recognizing their better right to its material possession due to their long-term occupancy. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed this decision, favoring Carbonilla, but the Court of Appeals (CA) ultimately sided with the Abieras, dismissing Carbonilla’s complaint due to lack of evidence of tolerance.

The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether Carbonilla had successfully proven that the Abieras’ possession of the building was based on his or his predecessors’ tolerance, a crucial element for an unlawful detainer case to prosper. The Court emphasized that while Carbonilla presented a Torrens certificate of title proving his ownership of the land, he failed to substantiate his claim of ownership or right to possess the building. The Supreme Court underscored that a claim of tolerance as a basis for possession in unlawful detainer cases requires concrete evidence, and a mere allegation is insufficient.

The Supreme Court reiterated the nature of ejectment cases, specifically unlawful detainer, as a summary proceeding aimed at protecting actual possession or the right to possession of a property. In these cases, the key question is who is entitled to the physical possession (de facto), not necessarily who has the better title (de jure). Thus, proving ownership alone does not automatically guarantee a favorable outcome in an ejectment suit; the jurisdictional facts of the specific ejectment case filed must be sufficiently proven.

In the case of unlawful detainer, a critical requirement is that the possession must have been originally lawful, turning unlawful only upon the expiration or termination of the right to possess. This means that the basis of the lawful possession must be established. If the claim is that such possession is by mere tolerance, the acts of tolerance must be proven. The Court, quoting its previous rulings, stressed the importance of demonstrating permission rather than merely silence or inaction, which could be construed as negligence rather than tolerance.

“Tolerance must be [present] right from the start of possession sought to be recovered to be within the purview of unlawful detainer. Mere tolerance always carries with it ‘permission’ and not merely silence or inaction for silence or inaction is negligence, not tolerance.”

This highlights that the plaintiff must show overt acts indicative of permission to occupy the property from the beginning of the possession.

The Court found that Carbonilla failed to provide any evidence of tolerance, such as affidavits from the previous owners (the Garcianos) attesting that they permitted the Abieras to occupy the property. Moreover, the complaint did not specify how the Abieras’ entry was effected or when the dispossession began, nor was there any evidence presented to show these details. These omissions were fatal to Carbonilla’s case.

The implications of this ruling are significant for property owners seeking to recover possession through ejectment cases. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder that proving ownership is not enough; plaintiffs must also establish the specific grounds for the ejectment case they file. In unlawful detainer cases based on tolerance, this requires demonstrating clear acts of permission that initially allowed the defendant to possess the property. The ruling highlights the importance of gathering and presenting concrete evidence of tolerance from the outset. In the absence of such proof, the action for unlawful detainer will fail, and the owner must resort to other legal remedies.

The Supreme Court suggested alternative legal actions available to Carbonilla. These include an accion publiciana, a plenary action to recover the better right to possess, or an accion reivindicatoria, a suit to recover ownership of real property. However, the Court clarified that its pronouncement on the ownership of the land in this case was provisional and would not prevent future actions involving title to the land between the parties.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Dr. Carbonilla sufficiently proved that the Abieras’ possession of the building was based on his or his predecessors’ tolerance, a necessary element for an unlawful detainer case.
What is unlawful detainer?	Unlawful detainer is an ejectment case where the defendant’s possession of the property was initially lawful but became unlawful after the expiration or termination of their right to possess it.
What does ‘tolerance’ mean in the context of unlawful detainer?	In unlawful detainer cases, tolerance refers to the permission or license granted by the owner or legal possessor of a property allowing another person to occupy it. This permission must be explicit and proven.
What evidence is needed to prove ‘tolerance’?	To prove tolerance, a plaintiff must show overt acts indicative of their or their predecessor’s permission for the defendant to occupy the property. Affidavits or other forms of explicit consent are helpful.
Why did Dr. Carbonilla’s ejectment case fail?	Dr. Carbonilla’s case failed because he did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the Abieras’ possession of the building was based on his or his predecessors’ tolerance. He merely alleged tolerance without providing any supporting evidence.
What other legal options are available to Dr. Carbonilla to recover possession?	Dr. Carbonilla can pursue an accion publiciana, which is a plenary action to recover the better right to possess, or an accion reivindicatoria, a suit to recover ownership of real property.
Does proving ownership of the land automatically win an ejectment case?	No, proving ownership of the land does not automatically win an ejectment case. The plaintiff must also establish the specific grounds for the ejectment case, such as tolerance in unlawful detainer cases.
What is the difference between possession de facto and de jure?	Possession de facto refers to actual physical possession, while possession de jure refers to the legal right to possess. Ejectment cases focus on possession de facto, not necessarily de jure.

This case underscores the necessity of providing concrete evidence in ejectment cases, especially when claiming tolerance as the basis for unlawful detainer. Property owners must be prepared to demonstrate clear acts of permission to support their claims. This ruling protects possessory rights and prevents arbitrary evictions based solely on land ownership.

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: Dr. Dioscoro Carbonilla v. Marcelo Abiera, G.R. No. 177637, July 26, 2010