In ejectment cases, the Supreme Court has clarified that the central issue is who has the right to physical possession of the property, regardless of ownership claims. This means that even if someone holds the title to a property, they may not be able to evict someone else who has been in actual possession for a significant period. The Court emphasizes the importance of proving prior possession and tolerance when seeking to recover property in an ejectment suit, ensuring stability and preventing disruptions of public order.

Tolerance or Title? Unraveling the Right to Possess Disputed Land

This case revolves around a contested parcel of land in Ilocos Sur, where Victoria Echanes sought to evict Spouses Patricio and Adoracion Hailar, claiming they occupied the land with her family’s tolerance. Echanes presented an Original Certificate of Title in her name, while the Hailars argued their right stemmed from a purchase made by Adoracion’s father decades ago. The core legal question is whether Echanes successfully proved her claim of tolerance, or whether the Hailars’ long-standing possession and tax declarations established a superior right to possess the property.

The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) initially dismissed Echanes’s complaint, suggesting she file an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria—actions to recover the right of possession or ownership, respectively. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed this decision, favoring Echanes. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) sided with the MCTC, reinstating the dismissal. This divergence in rulings highlights the complexities of ejectment cases and the importance of establishing a clear basis for the right to possess.

At the heart of the matter lies the concept of tolerance. In unlawful detainer cases, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s initial possession was lawful, based on permission or tolerance, which was subsequently withdrawn. As the Supreme Court noted in Quijano v. Amante:

…the acts of tolerance must be proved showing the overt acts as to when and how the respondents entered the properties and who specifically allowed them to occupy the same. There should be any supporting evidence on record that would show when the respondents entered the properties or who had granted them to enter the same and how the entry was effected. Without these allegations and evidence, the bare claim regarding “tolerance” cannot be upheld.

Echanes argued that her parents allowed the Hailars to build their nipa house on the land, with the understanding they would vacate when needed. However, the Hailars presented evidence that Adoracion’s father had purchased the land from Echanes’s grandfather, Eduardo Cuenta, after World War II. Tax declarations in Domingo Joven’s name, dating back to 1959, supported this claim, suggesting a continuous exercise of ownership rights. Building on this principle, the Supreme Court has consistently held that tax declarations and realty tax payments, while not conclusive evidence of ownership, serve as significant indicators of possession in the concept of an owner.

The Court of Appeals emphasized that Echanes failed to provide sufficient evidence of the alleged tolerance. The appellate court pointed out that:

In emphasis, the petitioners very much placed in issue the alleged tolerance of the respondent’s parents. In the law of evidence, allegations are not proofs, no more so when, as here the other party very much denied those allegations. The fatal error committed by the RTC is that it mistook allegations as proofs, ignoring the fact that those allegations were denied by petitioners.

This failure to substantiate the claim of tolerance proved fatal to Echanes’s case. The Court looked into the evidence presented by both parties. Echanes derived her right to possess from Original Certificate of Title No. P-43056 issued in her name. However, the respondents presented Tax Declaration No. 12141-C issued in 1959 in the name of Domingo Joven. The Court weighed these pieces of evidence to determine who had a better right to possess the property.

Furthermore, the Court considered the long period of time during which the Hailars possessed the property. The fact that their documents spanned several decades indicated they never abandoned their claim and continuously exercised rights of ownership. This was strengthened by their actual possession and the construction of a concrete house on the land. Such acts of dominion are inconsistent with mere tolerance.

It is settled that in ejectment proceedings, the primary concern is physical possession, or possession de facto, not ownership. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated, the only question for resolution is who is entitled to the physical possession of the premises. Even if a party’s title to the property is questionable, the court must focus on actual possession. Where the issue of ownership is raised, the courts may pass upon it only to determine who has the right to possess the property, and such adjudication is provisional.

The ruling underscores the importance of distinguishing between actions for ejectment and actions to recover ownership. Ejectment suits, such as unlawful detainer and forcible entry, are summary proceedings designed to quickly restore physical possession to one who has been illegally deprived of it. These actions do not resolve the underlying issue of ownership, which must be addressed in a separate, more comprehensive proceeding.

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision, holding that the Hailars’ long-standing possession, coupled with their tax declarations and improvements on the land, outweighed Echanes’s claim of tolerance. This decision reinforces the principle that actual, continuous, and open possession, especially when coupled with indicia of ownership, can defeat a claim based on mere tolerance in ejectment cases. The Court reiterated that its ruling was limited to the issue of possession and did not preclude either party from filing a separate action to resolve the issue of ownership conclusively. The unlawful detainer and forcible entry suits, under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, are designed to summarily restore physical possession of a piece of land or building to one who has been illegally or forcibly deprived thereof, without prejudice to the settlement of the parties’ opposing claims of juridical possession in appropriate proceedings.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was determining who had the right to physical possession of the disputed land: Victoria Echanes, based on her title, or Spouses Hailar, based on their long-term possession and claims of purchase. The Court needed to assess whether Echanes proved tolerance or whether the Hailars established a superior right to possess.
What is an ejectment case?	An ejectment case is a legal action to recover possession of real property. It typically involves either forcible entry (illegal occupation) or unlawful detainer (originally lawful possession that has become unlawful).
What is the meaning of “tolerance” in property law?	In property law, “tolerance” refers to the permission or consent given by a landowner to another person to occupy their property. This permission can be withdrawn at any time, leading to an unlawful detainer action if the occupant refuses to leave.
How do tax declarations affect property disputes?	Tax declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership but serve as strong indicators of possession in the concept of an owner. They demonstrate that the possessor is asserting a claim of ownership and is willing to pay taxes on the property.
What is the difference between accion publiciana and accion reivindicatoria?	Accion publiciana is an action to recover the better right of possession, while accion reivindicatoria is an action to recover ownership of real property. The former is typically filed after the one-year period for ejectment has lapsed.
Can ownership be decided in an ejectment case?	While the primary issue in an ejectment case is possession, courts may provisionally determine ownership to resolve the issue of possession. However, this determination is not final and does not bar a separate action to definitively settle ownership.
What evidence is needed to prove tolerance in an ejectment case?	To prove tolerance, the plaintiff must show overt acts indicating when and how the defendant entered the property, and who specifically granted them permission to occupy it. Bare allegations of tolerance are insufficient without supporting evidence.
What happens if the occupant has made improvements on the property?	If the occupant has made substantial improvements on the property, such as building a house, it strengthens their claim of possession and weakens the argument that their occupation was merely by tolerance. This implies a claim of ownership, not just permissive use.
Does a title automatically grant the right to evict someone?	No, a title does not automatically grant the right to evict someone. The right to physical possession is the central issue, so even with a title, the claimant must prove their right to possess, often through prior possession or other legal means.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of proving the nature and duration of possession in ejectment cases. It clarifies that long-standing, open possession with claims of ownership can outweigh a claim of tolerance, even if the claimant holds a title. This ruling ensures that property rights are balanced with the need to maintain social order and protect those who have established a presence on the land.

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: Victoria Echanes vs. Spouses Patricio Hailar and Adoracion Hailar, G.R. No. 203880, August 10, 2016