The Supreme Court ruled that an action for unlawful detainer is not the proper remedy when a plaintiff fails to prove that the defendant’s possession was initially based on tolerance. This decision highlights the importance of establishing the basis of possession in ejectment cases, clarifying that mere allegations of tolerance are insufficient. The Court emphasized that if possession is deemed illegal from the start and there is no evidence of force or stealth in the entry, neither unlawful detainer nor forcible entry actions can succeed. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for property owners seeking to recover possession of their land.

From Inheritance to Ejectment: Who Has the Right to Possess?

This case, Fe U. Quijano v. Atty. Daryll A. Amante, revolves around a dispute over a parcel of land inherited by Fe U. Quijano and her siblings from their father. Prior to the formal partition of the estate, one of the siblings, Eliseo, sold portions of his share to Atty. Daryll A. Amante. However, upon the subsequent extrajudicial partition, the specific portions sold by Eliseo were adjudicated to Fe, leading to a conflict over possession. Fe filed an ejectment suit against Atty. Amante, claiming that his occupation was based on mere tolerance, which she later revoked. The central legal question is whether Atty. Amante’s possession was indeed based on tolerance or if it was based on a claim of ownership derived from the sale by Eliseo.

The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) initially ruled in favor of Fe, ordering Atty. Amante to vacate the property. The MTCC reasoned that Eliseo, as a co-owner, could only sell his undivided share, and since the specific portion was eventually allotted to Fe, she had the right to possess it. However, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed this decision, holding that the case involved a serious question of ownership that could not be resolved in a summary ejectment proceeding. The RTC suggested that Fe should have filed an accion publiciana or accion reinvindicatoria, which are actions for recovery of possession and ownership, respectively.

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, dismissing the ejectment case. The CA reasoned that Atty. Amante was either a co-owner or an assignee with the right of possession because he purchased the property from Eliseo before the partition. The appellate court emphasized that since Atty. Amante was not notified of the partition, it was not binding on him, and he retained the right to co-possess the estate.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, clarified the nature of ejectment cases. An ejectment suit can either be for forcible entry or unlawful detainer. It is a summary proceeding designed to protect the actual possession or right to possession of the property. The key issue in such cases is the physical or material possession (possession de facto), and even if ownership is claimed, the court may consider it only to determine the right to possession. The adjudication of ownership is provisional and does not bar a separate action to determine the title.

The Court then delved into the issue of co-ownership. Upon the death of Bibiano Quijano, his estate was owned in common by his heirs. In a co-ownership, each co-owner holds the property pro indiviso and can exercise rights over the whole property, subject to the limitation that they do not injure the interests of other co-owners. Article 493 of the Civil Code allows a co-owner to exercise acts of ownership over their undivided share, including the right to alienate it.

The Supreme Court cited Paulmitan v. Court of Appeals, which reinforces that a co-owner can sell their ideal share in the co-owned property, thus, Eliseo’s sale to Atty. Amante transferred his pro indiviso share to the latter, making him a co-owner until the property was partitioned. As a successor-in-interest, Atty. Amante had the right to participate in the partition and challenge any partition done without his consent, as provided under Article 497 of the Civil Code.

Article 497. The creditors or assignees of the co-owners may take part in the division of the thing owned in common and object to its being effected without their concurrence. But they cannot impugn any partition already executed, unless there has been fraud, or in case it was made notwithstanding a formal opposition presented to prevent it, without prejudice to the right of the debtor or assignor to maintain its validity.

Despite knowing about the co-ownership and the oral partition agreement, Atty. Amante did not exercise his right under Article 497 to participate in or object to the partition. The Court noted that he should have been vigilant in protecting his interests, considering his familiarity with the Quijano family. Because he remained silent and failed to assert his rights, the respondent was bound by the outcome of the extrajudicial partition executed by the Quijanos.

The Court then addressed the issue of unlawful detainer. To establish a case for unlawful detainer, it must be shown that the possession was initially lawful but became unlawful upon the expiration or termination of the right to possess. The basis of the lawful possession must be proven, and a bare allegation of tolerance is insufficient. The plaintiff must demonstrate overt acts indicative of tolerance or permission to occupy the property, as stipulated in Carbonilla v. Abiera.

In this case, Fe failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her claim that Atty. Amante’s possession was based on mere tolerance. Her statements were unclear, and she seemed uncertain about whether Eliseo had indeed tolerated Atty. Amante’s occupation. In contrast, Atty. Amante consistently maintained that his possession was as an owner, supported by the deeds of sale. Because the allegation of tolerance was not proven, the Court concluded that the possession could be deemed illegal from the beginning, thus dismissing the unlawful detainer action.

The Supreme Court emphasized that it could not treat the ejectment suit as one for forcible entry, as the complaint lacked any allegation of force, intimidation, threats, strategy, or stealth in Atty. Amante’s entry into the property. The Court ultimately affirmed the CA’s decision but modified it to explicitly dismiss the unlawful detainer action as an improper remedy, leaving the parties to pursue other legal options to resolve the issue of possession.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was determining who had the better right to possess the disputed property: Fe, based on her title after the partition, or Atty. Amante, based on his purchase from a co-owner prior to the partition.
Why was the action for unlawful detainer dismissed?	The action was dismissed because Fe failed to prove that Atty. Amante’s possession was initially based on her or her predecessor’s tolerance. The Court found no evidence of overt acts indicating permission or tolerance.
What is the significance of co-ownership in this case?	Eliseo’s sale to Atty. Amante transferred his pro indiviso share in the co-owned property, making Atty. Amante a co-owner himself. This gave him certain rights, including the right to participate in the partition of the property.
What rights did Atty. Amante have as a co-owner’s assignee?	As an assignee, Atty. Amante had the right to participate in the partition of the estate and object if it was done without his concurrence. However, he lost this right by failing to act on it in a timely manner.
What is the difference between forcible entry and unlawful detainer?	Forcible entry involves taking possession of property through force, intimidation, threats, strategy, or stealth, while unlawful detainer involves withholding possession after the right to possess has expired or terminated.
What are accion publiciana and accion reinvindicatoria?	Accion publiciana is an action for the recovery of the right to possess, filed after the one-year period for filing an ejectment suit has expired. Accion reinvindicatoria is an action for the recovery of ownership.
What was the effect of the extrajudicial partition on Atty. Amante?	Because Atty. Amante did not object to the partition, he was bound by the outcome, which adjudicated the disputed property to Fe. However, this did not automatically give Fe the right to eject him without proving the basis for unlawful detainer.
What should Fe and Atty. Amante do to resolve the issue of possession?	The Court suggested that they review their options and decide on the proper legal recourses to finally resolve the issue of possession, implying that other legal actions beyond ejectment may be necessary.

In conclusion, this case underscores the importance of understanding the nuances of property rights, co-ownership, and the specific requirements for filing ejectment suits. The failure to prove the basis of possession, particularly the element of tolerance in unlawful detainer cases, can be fatal to the action. Litigants must carefully assess the facts and circumstances of their case to determine the appropriate legal remedy.

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: FE U. QUIJANO VS. ATTY. DARYLL A. AMANTE, G.R. No. 164277, October 08, 2014