For property owners, understanding the nuances of possession is critical. The Supreme Court, in this case, clarifies the rights of a property owner to eject occupants whose initial possession was based on tolerance by the previous owner. This decision emphasizes the importance of establishing a clear basis for possession and the legal remedies available when that possession becomes unlawful.

When Tolerance Ends: Examining Unlawful Detainer in Manila

This case revolves around a property dispute in Manila, where Thamerlane M. Perez sought to eject Dominador Priscilla Rasaceña, Navarro, and Adelfa Lim from a property he acquired. The central legal question is whether Perez sufficiently proved that the respondents’ possession was initially based on the tolerance of his predecessor-in-interest, LNC Asset Management, Inc., thereby entitling him to file an unlawful detainer case.

The heart of the matter lies in the concept of “possession by tolerance.” This legal principle acknowledges that a property owner may allow another person to occupy their property without any formal agreement. However, this tolerance does not grant the occupant any legal right to the property. The Supreme Court has consistently held that such permissive occupancy is subject to the implied understanding that the occupant will vacate the premises upon demand.

In this case, Perez argued that LNC Asset Management, the previous owner, had tolerated the respondents’ occupancy. To support this claim, he presented evidence indicating that LNC’s predecessor, Metrobank, had previously demanded that the respondents vacate the property, but did not pursue legal action at the time. The Court found that this inaction constituted tolerance, which was then passed on to LNC and subsequently to Perez when he acquired the property.

The Court emphasized that to establish a case of unlawful detainer based on tolerance, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s initial possession was lawful, arising from the owner’s permission or tolerance. Furthermore, the plaintiff must prove that this permission was subsequently withdrawn, and the defendant refused to vacate the property despite a formal demand. The Court found that Perez had met these requirements, thus establishing his right to eject the respondents.

The decision also addressed the validity of the Deed of Absolute Sale presented by Perez. The Court of Appeals had questioned the authenticity of the deed because it was not registered and lacked certain supporting documents. However, the Supreme Court reversed this finding, reaffirming the presumption of regularity afforded to notarized documents. According to the Court, unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, a notarized deed is presumed to be valid and duly executed. This presumption is a cornerstone of Philippine law, ensuring the reliability and enforceability of public documents. As the High Court stated,

There is no rule which requires a party, who relies on a notarized deed of sale for establishing his ownership, to present further evidence of such deed’s genuineness lest the presumption of its due execution be for naught. Regarded as evidence of the facts therein expressed in a clear, unequivocal manner, public documents enjoy a presumption of regularity which may only be rebutted by evidence so clear, strong and convincing as to exclude all controversy as to falsity. The burden of proof to overcome said presumptions lies with the party contesting the notarial document.

The respondents raised several defenses, including claims that they were qualified beneficiaries under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1517, also known as the Urban Land Reform Law, and that there was a pending expropriation case filed by the City Government of Manila. However, the Court dismissed these arguments, noting that the respondents had failed to prove that the property was located in an area declared for priority development and urban land reform. Moreover, the Court emphasized that the issue in the case was the respondents’ refusal to vacate the property, not their right of first refusal under P.D. No. 1517. On the concept of tolerance, the Court emphasized that:

In allowing several years to pass without requiring the occupant to vacate the premises nor filing action to eject him, plaintiffs have acquiesced to defendant’s possession and use of the premises. It has been held that a person who occupies the land of another at the latter’s tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against them.

Concerning the pending expropriation case, the Court noted that this issue was raised for the first time on appeal and was therefore proscribed. Even if the Court were to consider the issue, the respondents had not presented sufficient evidence to establish that the subject property was included in the expropriation proceedings. The Court underscored that the ruling in this case was limited to the issue of possession and did not preclude either party from filing a separate action to resolve the issue of ownership.

Respondents’ Arguments	Court’s Rebuttal
The deed of absolute sale was dubious.	Notarized documents carry a presumption of regularity unless proven otherwise.
Respondents are qualified beneficiaries under P.D. No. 1517.	The property was not proven to be in an area declared for priority development and urban land reform.
A pending expropriation case existed.	This issue was raised late in the proceedings and lacked sufficient evidence.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case reaffirms the importance of establishing a clear basis for possession and the legal remedies available to property owners when that possession becomes unlawful. It underscores the principle that tolerance, while initially permissive, does not create any legal right to the property and can be withdrawn at any time by the owner.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the petitioner sufficiently proved that the respondents’ possession of the property was based on the tolerance of his predecessor-in-interest, entitling him to file an unlawful detainer case.
What is “possession by tolerance”?	“Possession by tolerance” refers to a situation where a property owner allows another person to occupy their property without any formal agreement, but this permission can be withdrawn at any time.
What must a plaintiff prove in an unlawful detainer case based on tolerance?	The plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s initial possession was lawful due to the owner’s permission, that this permission was subsequently withdrawn, and that the defendant refused to vacate despite a formal demand.
What is the legal effect of a notarized deed of sale?	A notarized deed of sale enjoys a presumption of regularity and is considered evidence of the facts stated therein, unless proven otherwise by clear and convincing evidence.
What is P.D. No. 1517?	P.D. No. 1517, also known as the Urban Land Reform Law, protects the rights of legitimate tenants who have resided for 10 years or more on specific parcels of land in declared Urban Land Reform Zones.
How does P.D. No. 1517 affect ejectment cases?	To qualify under P.D. No. 1517 and prevent ejectment, the tenant must prove that the property is located in an area declared for priority development and urban land reform.
Can issues be raised for the first time on appeal?	Generally, issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, as this violates the principle of due process.
What is the scope of the court’s ruling in an ejectment case?	The court’s ruling in an ejectment case is limited to determining who has the better right to possession and does not preclude either party from filing a separate action to resolve the issue of ownership.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of documenting property agreements and understanding the legal implications of permissive occupancy. It highlights the need for property owners to take timely action to protect their rights and prevent unauthorized occupation. Any inaction may be construed as tolerance, which could affect their ability to recover possession of the property in the future.

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: Perez v. Rasaceña, G.R. No. 211539, October 17, 2016