In ejectment cases, particularly unlawful detainer, proving tolerance is crucial for a plaintiff to succeed. The Supreme Court, in this case, reiterated that mere allegations of tolerance are insufficient; the plaintiff must present concrete evidence demonstrating that the defendant’s initial entry onto the property was indeed permitted and that such permission was subsequently withdrawn. This ruling underscores the importance of documenting consent and providing clear proof when claiming tolerance in unlawful detainer actions.

Possession Predicaments: When Tolerance Claims Tumble in Property Disputes

The case revolves around Tomasa J. Sabellina’s complaint for unlawful detainer against several respondents, alleging they occupied her land with her tolerance, which she later revoked. Tomasa claimed ownership of a 13,267-square meter parcel of land in Misamis Oriental, which she inherited. She asserted that her sister had initially allowed the respondents to occupy the land, and Tomasa continued this arrangement, with the understanding that they would vacate when needed. However, when Tomasa requested the respondents to leave, they refused, leading to the legal battle.

The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) initially ruled in favor of Tomasa, finding that she had sufficiently established her cause of action. The MCTC relied on Tomasa’s tax declarations and the affidavits presented, which indicated the respondents’ occupation was by mere tolerance. However, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MCTC’s decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the lower courts’ decisions, holding that while Tomasa was indeed the owner, she failed to provide sufficient evidence of tolerance. The CA emphasized that the evidence presented was in equipoise, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

The Supreme Court (SC) took on the task of determining whether Tomasa had successfully proven her case by a preponderance of evidence. The core of the issue was whether Tomasa adequately demonstrated that the respondents’ entry into the property was initially permissive and subsequently became unlawful upon her demand to vacate. Preponderance of evidence means evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than what is offered against it.

Tomasa presented various documents, including tax declarations, a deed of extrajudicial settlement, and affidavits, to support her claim. The respondents countered with certifications from the barangay captain, affidavits attesting to their long-term residency, and receipts for utilities. The SC scrutinized the evidence presented by both parties. While Tomasa’s tax declarations indicated ownership, they did not clarify the circumstances of the respondents’ entry onto the property. The affidavits presented were also found to be lacking in credibility and probative value. The affidavit of Elena R. Jaramillo, for instance, stated knowledge of the facts without explaining how this information was acquired.

The Supreme Court found that Tomasa’s affidavit contained sweeping statements about the respondents entering the property with her consent and occupying it by mere tolerance. This was deemed insufficient. The Court emphasized that allegations alone do not constitute evidence. The Court stated:

The petitioner failed to present convincing proof of her allegation of tolerance. There is no competent evidence to support her claim other than her own self-serving affidavit repeating her allegations in the complaint. Allegations are not evidence and without evidence, bare allegations do not prove facts.

The respondents’ evidence also fell short. Their joint affidavit and the affidavits of Romeo Mapiot and Jener Daayata were viewed with skepticism, particularly due to the identical nature of the latter two, suggesting fabrication. The Supreme Court concluded that neither party had sufficiently established their claims.

The failure to prove tolerance meant that Tomasa’s case for unlawful detainer could not stand. The court highlighted the critical distinction between forcible entry and unlawful detainer, noting that the circumstances of entry determine the cause of action. In unlawful detainer, the initial possession must be lawful, based on the plaintiff’s consent, which later becomes unlawful upon the termination of that right. Here, Tomasa failed to convincingly demonstrate that initial consent.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that when evidence is in equipoise, the party with the burden of proof fails. In such cases, courts have no choice but to leave the parties as they are and dismiss the complaint. This principle is well-established in Philippine jurisprudence. As the Supreme Court stated:

When the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt as to which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof fails upon that issue.

Despite the dismissal of the unlawful detainer case, the Supreme Court clarified that Tomasa was not without recourse. She could still pursue other legal avenues to recover possession and assert her ownership, such as accion publiciana or accion reinvindicatoria. These actions allow for a more comprehensive examination of ownership and the right to possess the property.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Tomasa Sabellina provided sufficient evidence to prove that the respondents’ occupation of her property was initially based on her tolerance, which she later withdrew, thus justifying an action for unlawful detainer.
What is unlawful detainer?	Unlawful detainer is a legal action to recover possession of a property from someone who initially had permission to be there but whose right to possession has ended. It requires proving that the initial entry was lawful and based on tolerance.
What is preponderance of evidence?	Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence presented by one party is more convincing than the evidence presented by the other party. It is the standard of proof required in civil cases like unlawful detainer.
What kind of evidence is needed to prove tolerance?	To prove tolerance, a plaintiff needs to show concrete evidence that the defendant’s initial entry onto the property was permitted and that this permission was subsequently withdrawn. Affidavits, written agreements, or testimonies can serve as evidence.
Why did the Court of Appeals reverse the lower court’s decision?	The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision because it found that Tomasa failed to provide sufficient evidence of tolerance. The evidence was deemed to be in equipoise, meaning neither party had a clear advantage in proving their case.
What is the difference between forcible entry and unlawful detainer?	Forcible entry involves unlawful possession from the beginning, typically through force or stealth, while unlawful detainer involves initially lawful possession that becomes unlawful upon the termination of a right. The key difference lies in the initial entry.
What other legal actions can Tomasa take to recover her property?	Tomasa can pursue an accion publiciana, which is an action for recovery of the right to possess, or an accion reinvindicatoria, which is an action to recover ownership of the property. These actions are more plenary and allow for a more comprehensive examination of rights.
What was the significance of the respondents’ evidence in this case?	The respondents’ evidence, including certifications from the barangay captain and affidavits, was insufficient to prove their claim of long-term occupation. The court found credibility issues and noted that the evidence did not outweigh the petitioner’s claims.
Can self-serving affidavits be considered as sufficient evidence?	Self-serving affidavits alone are generally not sufficient to prove a claim. They must be supported by other credible evidence to be persuasive.

This case serves as a crucial reminder that in unlawful detainer cases, proving tolerance requires more than just allegations. Concrete evidence demonstrating the initial permissive entry and its subsequent withdrawal is essential for a successful claim. Without such evidence, the courts are likely to dismiss the case, leaving the parties to pursue other legal remedies to resolve their property disputes.

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: Tomasa J. Sabellina vs. Dolores Buray, et al., G.R. No. 187727, September 02, 2015