The Supreme Court in Sison v. Cariaga emphasizes the necessity of proving prior tolerance to successfully pursue an action for unlawful detainer. The Court ruled that for an unlawful detainer suit to prosper, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s initial possession was lawful, based on the owner’s permission, which subsequently ceased. This case highlights the importance of clearly establishing the nature and timeline of occupancy when seeking to eject a person from a property.

Whose Land Is It Anyway? Resolving Possession Disputes Through Ejectment

The case revolves around a dispute over a parcel of land in Pangasinan. Laurence Sison, the petitioner, filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Eusebia Cariaga, the respondent, seeking to evict her from a lot he claimed she was occupying illegally. Sison argued that Cariaga’s occupation was initially tolerated but later became unlawful after demands to vacate were ignored. Cariaga, however, contended that her house stood on land owned by her deceased father and that her family had been in peaceful possession since 1940.

The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) initially ruled in favor of Sison, but the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the decision, finding that Sison failed to prove that Cariaga’s occupation was based on his tolerance. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, emphasizing that the alleged tolerance commenced only after the discovery of Cariaga’s house on Sison’s property, which did not meet the legal requirement for unlawful detainer.

The Supreme Court, however, took a different view. The Court reiterated the elements necessary for a successful unlawful detainer action: (1) the defendant initially possessed the property lawfully with the plaintiff’s permission; (2) the permission or tolerance was subsequently withdrawn; (3) the defendant remained in possession despite the termination of permission; and (4) the action was filed within one year from the last demand to vacate. The crucial element here is the demonstration of prior tolerance on the part of the landowner.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court examined Sison’s complaint and found that it adequately established the elements of unlawful detainer. Sison claimed that after a relocation survey, it was discovered that Cariaga’s house was illegally constructed on his property, and despite demands to vacate, she refused to do so. However, Cariaga’s defense of ownership did not automatically render the unlawful detainer complaint dismissible, as the issue of ownership may be resolved in an ejectment case to determine possession.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted Cariaga’s prior actions as evidence contradicting her claim of ownership. Her filing of a petition before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) to annul the sale of the land to Sison’s predecessors and to compel the Land Bank to sell the property to her, constituted an effective admission of Sison’s ownership. This acknowledgment was deemed crucial in determining the issue of possession in favor of Sison.

The Supreme Court, therefore, reversed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court, and reinstated the decision of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, ordering Cariaga to vacate the property. This ruling underscores the significance of proving prior tolerance in unlawful detainer cases and clarifies that actions demonstrating recognition of the plaintiff’s ownership can be considered against the defendant’s claim of ownership in determining the right to possess.

FAQs

What is unlawful detainer?	Unlawful detainer is a legal action to recover possession of property from someone who initially had permission to occupy it but whose right to possess has ended. It requires proving that the initial entry was lawful but the continued possession is not.
What are the key elements of an unlawful detainer case?	The key elements include initial lawful possession by the defendant, termination of the plaintiff’s permission or tolerance, the defendant’s continued possession despite the termination, and filing the action within one year from the last demand to vacate.
What does “tolerance” mean in the context of unlawful detainer?	Tolerance means the landowner allowed the occupant to enter and possess the property, not by virtue of a contract, but through the landowner’s act of forbearance or permission.
Can the issue of ownership be decided in an unlawful detainer case?	Yes, the issue of ownership can be provisionally decided in an unlawful detainer case, but only for the purpose of determining who has the right to possess the property.
What is the significance of the one-year filing period?	The one-year filing period is crucial because unlawful detainer is a summary proceeding. Failing to file within a year of the last demand typically requires resorting to a different, more complex action like accion publiciana.
How did the defendant’s actions affect the Supreme Court’s decision?	The defendant’s prior actions, specifically her petition before the DARAB to annul the sale and compel a sale to her, served as an implied admission of the plaintiff’s ownership, undermining her claim of ownership.
What happens if tolerance wasn’t present at the start of the occupation?	If tolerance wasn’t present from the beginning, the proper remedy isn’t unlawful detainer but either accion publiciana (recovery of the right to possess) or accion reinvindicatoria (recovery of ownership).
What was the final ruling in Sison v. Cariaga?	The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sison, the petitioner, reversing the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstating the MCTC’s order for Cariaga to vacate the property.

This case serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of documenting and establishing the nature of occupancy when dealing with property disputes. Demonstrating prior tolerance and acting promptly upon its termination are essential steps for landowners seeking to regain possession through unlawful detainer actions.

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: Sison v. Cariaga, G.R. No. 177847, July 31, 2009