Tolerance Only Lasts So Long: Understanding Ejectment Actions in the Philippines

G.R. No. 110427, February 24, 1997

Imagine allowing a family to live in your spare house rent-free, only to find they refuse to leave when you need the property back. This scenario highlights the complexities of ejectment suits in the Philippines, particularly when possession is initially granted out of kindness. This case clarifies when a landowner can legally reclaim their property in such situations, emphasizing the importance of implied promises and the limits of tolerance.

Legal Context: Unlawful Detainer Explained

In the Philippines, ejectment is a legal remedy available to a landowner to recover possession of their property from someone who is unlawfully withholding it. There are two primary types of ejectment suits: forcible entry and unlawful detainer (also known as desahucio). This case focuses on unlawful detainer, which applies when the initial possession was lawful but subsequently became unlawful.

The key provision governing unlawful detainer is found in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, which states that a suit may be brought when “the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied.”

For example, if you rent an apartment under a one-year lease, your possession is lawful during that year. However, if you refuse to leave after the lease expires, your possession becomes unlawful, and the landlord can file an unlawful detainer suit to evict you.

However, in situations where there is no formal contract, the concept of “tolerance” comes into play. When a landowner allows someone to occupy their property without rent or a fixed term, this is considered possession by tolerance. This tolerance can be withdrawn at any time, and upon demand to vacate, the occupant’s possession becomes unlawful if they refuse to leave.

Case Breakdown: Cañiza vs. Estrada

This case revolves around Carmen Cañiza, an elderly woman who allowed the Estrada spouses and their family to live in her house rent-free for many years. Due to her failing health and advanced age, Cañiza, through her legal guardian Amparo Evangelista, needed to reclaim the property to generate income for her medical expenses.

Here’s a breakdown of the case’s journey:

• 1989: Carmen Cañiza is declared incompetent due to age-related health issues, and Amparo Evangelista is appointed as her legal guardian.
• 1990: Evangelista, on behalf of Cañiza, files an ejectment suit against the Estradas in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MetroTC) after they refuse to vacate the property despite repeated demands.
• 1992: The MetroTC rules in favor of Cañiza, ordering the Estradas to vacate the premises.
• 1992: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reverses the MetroTC’s decision, arguing that the proper action should have been an “accion publiciana” (a plenary action for recovery of possession) in the RTC, not an ejectment suit in the MetroTC.
• 1993: The Court of Appeals affirms the RTC’s decision, further emphasizing a holographic will allegedly bequeathing the property to the Estradas as evidence of Cañiza’s intent for them to remain.

The Supreme Court ultimately reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, holding that an ejectment suit was indeed the proper remedy. The Court emphasized that the Estradas’ initial possession was based on Cañiza’s tolerance, which she had the right to withdraw. The Court stated:

“Cañiza’s act of allowing the Estradas to occupy her house, rent-free, did not create a permanent and indefeasible right of possession in the latter’s favor. Common sense, and the most rudimentary sense of fairness clearly require that act of liberality be implicitly, but no less certainly, accompanied by the necessary burden on the Estradas of returning the house to Cañiza upon her demand.”

The Court also clarified that the alleged holographic will, which had not yet been probated, did not grant the Estradas any legal right to remain on the property. The Court noted:

“[P]rior to the probate of the will, any assertion of possession by them would be premature and inefficacious.”

Practical Implications: Protecting Your Property Rights

This case provides crucial guidance for property owners who have allowed others to occupy their property out of kindness or tolerance. It affirms that such tolerance is not indefinite and can be withdrawn when the owner needs the property back.

For example, a business owner might allow a former employee to live in a company-owned apartment temporarily. If the owner later needs the apartment for a new employee, this case confirms their right to reclaim the property through an ejectment suit, provided proper demand is made.

Key Lessons:

• Tolerance is Revocable: Allowing someone to occupy your property without a contract does not grant them permanent rights.
• Demand is Crucial: A clear and unequivocal demand to vacate is essential before filing an ejectment suit.
• Unprobated Wills Don’t Transfer Rights: An unprobated will cannot be used to claim ownership or possession of a property.
• Ejectment is a Valid Remedy: Unlawful detainer is the proper action when possession becomes unlawful after initial tolerance.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the difference between forcible entry and unlawful detainer?

A: Forcible entry involves taking possession of property through force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. Unlawful detainer, on the other hand, occurs when possession was initially lawful but becomes unlawful after the expiration or termination of the right to possess.

Q: How much time do I have to file an ejectment suit?

A: For unlawful detainer, you must file the suit within one year from the date of the last demand to vacate.

Q: What if the occupant claims they have a right to the property based on a verbal agreement?

A: Verbal agreements regarding real property are generally unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. You would still likely be able to pursue an ejectment suit based on the termination of tolerance.

Q: What evidence do I need to present in an ejectment case?

A: You’ll need to present evidence of your ownership of the property, the initial permission granted to the occupant, the demand to vacate, and the occupant’s refusal to leave.

Q: Can I file an ejectment suit even if the occupant has been living on the property for many years?

A: Yes, as long as their possession was based on your tolerance and you have made a proper demand to vacate. The length of their stay does not automatically grant them ownership rights.

Q: What happens if the property owner dies during the ejectment case?

A: The case survives the death of the property owner. Their heirs can be substituted as parties and continue the suit.

Q: What if the occupant refuses to leave even after the court orders them to?

A: You can obtain a writ of execution from the court, which authorizes law enforcement officers to forcibly evict the occupant.

ASG Law specializes in Property Law and Litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.