The Importance of Proving Tolerance in Unlawful Detainer Cases: A Lesson from the Supreme Court

Sally Sarmiento v. Edita A. Dizon, G.R. No. 235424, February 03, 2021

Imagine waking up to find a notice to vacate taped to your door, demanding you leave the home you’ve lived in for years. This is the reality faced by many Filipinos caught in property disputes. In the case of Sally Sarmiento, the Supreme Court’s decision not only resolved her conflict but also set a precedent on the critical role of proving tolerance in unlawful detainer cases. This ruling underscores the need for property owners to substantiate claims of tolerance when seeking to evict occupants, a common issue in the Philippines where informal settlements are prevalent.

The case revolved around a dispute over a property in Quezon City, where Edita Dizon claimed that Sally Sarmiento was occupying her land by mere tolerance. The central legal question was whether Dizon could prove that Sarmiento’s possession was initially by tolerance, a key element in unlawful detainer actions. The Supreme Court’s decision to reverse lower court rulings in favor of Sarmiento highlights the importance of evidence in such disputes and the protection of occupants’ rights.

Understanding Unlawful Detainer and the Concept of Tolerance

Unlawful detainer is a legal action aimed at recovering possession of property from someone who unlawfully withholds it after their right to possess has ended. Under Philippine law, specifically Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s initial possession was by contract or tolerance, and that this possession became illegal upon the termination of such right.

Tolerance in this context means the owner allowed the occupant to stay on the property without any formal agreement. This is different from a lease, where there’s a contract specifying terms of occupancy. The challenge lies in proving tolerance, as it often relies on oral agreements or informal arrangements.

For example, if a homeowner allows a relative to stay in a vacant house temporarily without any written agreement, and later wants them to leave, they must prove this initial tolerance to file an unlawful detainer case successfully.

The relevant legal provision states: “If the defendant refuses or fails to pay rent due or to comply with the conditions of his lease or to vacate the property after the termination of his right to possess, the plaintiff may, at any time after such demand, bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the defendant to recover possession of the property.”

The Journey of Sally Sarmiento’s Case

Sally Sarmiento found herself at the center of a property dispute with Edita Dizon, who claimed ownership of the land Sarmiento was living on. Dizon alleged that Sarmiento’s father, Paquito Ang, had allowed her to stay on the property out of compassion in 1989. After Ang’s death in 1993, Dizon demanded Sarmiento vacate, but she refused, leading to a legal battle that spanned over two decades.

The case began in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), where Dizon filed a complaint for unlawful detainer. The MeTC ruled in favor of Dizon, ordering Sarmiento to vacate the property and pay back rentals. Sarmiento appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing that Dizon failed to prove tolerance and that the property in question was different from the one she occupied.

The RTC affirmed the MeTC’s decision, leading Sarmiento to appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the CA dismissed her petition for being filed out of time and for lack of merit. Sarmiento then escalated the case to the Supreme Court, which granted her petition, reversing the lower courts’ decisions.

The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on the lack of evidence proving tolerance. The Court noted that Dizon’s only evidence was the testimony of her attorney-in-fact, Roberto Talaue, who admitted he had no personal knowledge of the alleged tolerance arrangement. The Court emphasized that “A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules.”

The Court further stated, “The plaintiff must rely on the strength of his or her own evidence and not on the weakness of that of his or her opponent.” This ruling underscores the necessity for property owners to have concrete evidence when claiming tolerance in unlawful detainer cases.

Implications and Practical Advice

This landmark decision reinforces the principle that property owners cannot simply rely on their title to evict occupants without proving the essential elements of unlawful detainer. It highlights the importance of maintaining records or agreements, even in informal arrangements, to substantiate claims of tolerance.

For property owners, this ruling suggests the need to document any agreements, even if they are informal, to avoid disputes over tolerance. For occupants, it offers protection against arbitrary evictions, emphasizing that they cannot be summarily removed without proper evidence of tolerance.

Key Lessons:

• Property owners must have concrete evidence to prove tolerance in unlawful detainer cases.
• Occupants can challenge eviction if the owner fails to prove initial tolerance.
• Documentation of any informal arrangements can be crucial in property disputes.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is unlawful detainer?

Unlawful detainer is a legal action to recover possession of property from someone who unlawfully withholds it after their right to possess has ended.

What does tolerance mean in property law?

Tolerance refers to the owner allowing someone to stay on the property without a formal agreement, which is a key element in unlawful detainer cases.

Can a property owner evict someone based solely on their title?

No, a property owner must prove that the occupant’s initial possession was by tolerance or contract and that it became illegal upon termination of that right.

What should property owners do to avoid disputes over tolerance?

Property owners should document any informal arrangements or agreements to provide evidence of tolerance if needed in legal disputes.

What protections do occupants have against unlawful detainer?

Occupants can challenge eviction if the owner fails to prove initial tolerance or if the evidence presented is hearsay or insufficient.

ASG Law specializes in property law and unlawful detainer cases. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation and protect your rights in property disputes.