The Supreme Court clarified that in unlawful detainer cases based on tolerance, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s initial possession of the property was lawful, arising from the plaintiff’s explicit permission or tolerance. Absent such proof, the action for unlawful detainer fails, as mere silence or inaction does not equate to tolerance. This ruling highlights the importance of establishing consent in property disputes and clarifies the rights of both property owners and possessors.

Unlawful Detainer: Did Silence Imply Consent?

This case, Spouses Aurora Tojong Su and Amador Su v. Eda Bontilao, Pablita Bontilao, and Maricel Dayandayan, revolves around a dispute over a parcel of land in Lapu-Lapu City. The Spouses Su, claiming ownership under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 29490, filed an unlawful detainer complaint against the respondents, alleging that the respondents occupied the property by their mere tolerance and refused to vacate despite demands. The respondents countered that the Spouses Su obtained their title fraudulently and asserted their own rights as heirs of the original owner, Mariano Ybañez, arguing they were not occupying the land by mere tolerance. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) and Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of the Spouses Su, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed these decisions, dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court then reviewed the case to determine if the CA erred in its decision.

The Supreme Court (SC) addressed the procedural issues surrounding the non-appearance of the petitioners and their counsel at the preliminary conference. Section 7 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure mandates the appearance of parties at the preliminary conference, with failure to do so by the plaintiff resulting in dismissal of the complaint. However, the SC noted that Section 4, Rule 18 of the Revised Rules of Court, applicable suppletorily, allows for a representative to appear on behalf of a party if fully authorized in writing. Here, the Spouses Su had executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in favor of their former counsel, which the Court deemed sufficient authorization, excusing their non-appearance.

Furthermore, the SC clarified that the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners’ counsel was not a prohibited pleading, as it sought reconsideration of an order of dismissal based on non-appearance, not a judgment on the merits. The Court emphasized that procedural rules should be applied to secure substantial justice, not to override it. Regarding the substantive issue of unlawful detainer, the SC highlighted the critical element of proving tolerance. An action for unlawful detainer requires demonstrating that the defendant’s initial possession was lawful, based on the plaintiff’s permission or tolerance. Bare allegations of tolerance are insufficient; there must be evidence of positive acts indicating consent to the possession.

The Supreme Court in Reyes v. Heirs of Deogracias Forlales elucidates the concept of tolerance:

[. . .] acts merely tolerated are those which by reason of neighborliness or familiarity, the owner of property allows his neighbor or another person to do on the property; they are generally those particular services or benefits which one’s property can give to another without material injury or prejudice to the owner, who permits them out of friendship or courtesy. They are acts of little disturbances which a person, in the interest of neighborliness or friendly relations, permits others to do on his property, such as passing over the land, tying a horse therein, or getting some water from a well. And even though this is continued for a long time, no right will be acquired by prescription. [. . .]

There is tacit consent of the possessor to the acts which are merely tolerated. Thus, not every case of knowledge and silence on the part of the possessor can be considered mere tolerance. By virtue of tolerance that is considered as an authorization, permission or license, acts of possession are realized or performed. The question reduces itself to the existence or non-existence of the permission.

In this case, the Court found that the Spouses Su failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the respondents’ occupation of the property was based on their tolerance or permission. There was no evidence indicating how and when the respondents entered the property or how and when the permission to occupy was granted. Thus, the MTCC and RTC erred in concluding that the occupation was by mere tolerance. Moreover, the SC cautioned against relying solely on a Torrens title to wrest possession from a current possessor. While a Torrens title signifies ownership, it does not automatically grant the right to immediate possession without proving the essential requisites of an unlawful detainer claim. The Court articulated that even a legal owner must prove the initial permission or tolerance in an unlawful detainer action.

The ruling underscores that an action for unlawful detainer based on tolerance requires concrete evidence establishing how the possession began and the express permission granted by the owner. It prevents property owners from using unlawful detainer actions to dispossess occupants without demonstrating the foundation of tolerance. This decision also acknowledges the importance of due process and the need for property owners to pursue appropriate legal remedies if they cannot prove tolerance.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Spouses Su sufficiently proved that the respondents’ possession of the property was initially based on their tolerance, a necessary element for an unlawful detainer case.
What is unlawful detainer?	Unlawful detainer is a legal action to recover possession of property from someone who initially had lawful possession but whose right to possess has expired or been terminated.
What does tolerance mean in the context of unlawful detainer?	Tolerance means that the property owner gave permission or consented to the possessor’s occupation of the property; it involves a positive act of allowing the possession.
Why did the Supreme Court rule against the Spouses Su?	The Supreme Court ruled against the Spouses Su because they failed to present evidence showing that the respondents’ occupation was initially based on their tolerance or permission.
Can a Torrens title guarantee immediate possession in an unlawful detainer case?	No, a Torrens title alone is not sufficient to guarantee immediate possession in an unlawful detainer case; the owner must still prove the elements of unlawful detainer, including initial tolerance.
What kind of evidence is needed to prove tolerance?	Evidence needed to prove tolerance includes documentation or testimony demonstrating the owner’s explicit permission or consent to the possessor’s occupation of the property.
What happens if tolerance cannot be proven?	If tolerance cannot be proven, the action for unlawful detainer will fail, and the property owner may need to pursue other legal remedies to recover possession.
Is mere silence or inaction enough to establish tolerance?	No, mere silence or inaction is not enough to establish tolerance; there must be a positive act or indication of permission or consent.

This case highlights the necessity of proving tolerance in unlawful detainer actions, emphasizing that property owners must demonstrate explicit permission for initial possession. The ruling serves as a reminder that owning a title does not automatically grant the right to dispossess occupants without meeting the required legal thresholds. It also encourages both property owners and possessors to ensure clear agreements regarding property use to avoid future 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: Spouses Aurora Tojong Su and Amador Su, vs. Eda Bontilao, Pablita Bontilao, and Maricel Dayandayan, G.R. No. 238892, September 04, 2019