In Spouses Liu v. Espinosa, the Supreme Court reiterated the requirements for a successful unlawful detainer action, emphasizing the necessity of proving prior tolerance of possession by the landowner. The Court underscored that for an ejectment suit to prosper based on unlawful detainer, it must be shown that the initial entry onto the property was lawful, occurring either through the permission of the owner or by virtue of an express or implied contract. The decision clarifies that mere tolerance, without demonstrating when and how the respondents’ possession began, is insufficient to establish unlawful detainer. This ruling is critical for property owners seeking to recover possession, as it highlights the importance of documenting the nature and duration of any permissive occupancy to successfully pursue legal remedies.

From Tolerance to Trespass: When Does Permissive Land Use Become Illegal?

Spouses Belinda and Hsi Pin Liu sought to evict Marcelina Espinosa and others from their Davao City property, claiming unlawful detainer. The Lius argued that the respondents’ occupation had been tolerated initially by their predecessor-in-interest and later by themselves, with the understanding that the occupants would vacate upon demand. After demands to vacate were ignored, the Lius filed suit. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) ruled in favor of the Lius, a decision affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). However, the Court of Appeals reversed these rulings, finding insufficient proof of tolerance at the outset of the respondents’ possession. This divergence in findings led the Supreme Court to review the case, focusing on whether the essential elements of unlawful detainer were sufficiently established.

The Supreme Court emphasized the nature of an action for unlawful detainer, explaining that it is a summary proceeding designed to recover possession of real property where the initial possession was legal but became unlawful upon the expiration or termination of the right to possess. The Court cited Estate of Soledad Manantan v. Somera, elucidating that:

Unlawful detainer is a summary action for the recovery of possession of real property. This action may be filed by a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession by virtue of any contract, express or implied.

In unlawful detainer cases, the possession of the defendant was originally legal, as his possession was permitted by the plaintiff on account of an express or implied contract between them. However, defendant’s possession became illegal when the plaintiff demanded that defendant vacate the subject property due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess under their contract, and defendant refused to heed such demand.

To succeed in an unlawful detainer action, the Supreme Court reiterated the four key requisites:

a. Initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;

b. Eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter’s right of possession;

c. Thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and

d. Within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.

The Court found that these requisites were met, noting that the Lius presented a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) proving their ownership, and that the respondents’ occupation was initially tolerated. Further, the Court noted the respondents’ offer to purchase the property suggesting recognition of the Lius’ ownership. The demand to vacate, made on February 12, 2013, preceded the filing of the complaint on August 6, 2013, satisfying the one-year requirement. The Court highlighted that the essence of unlawful detainer lies in the initially lawful possession that turns unlawful upon the termination of the right to possess and the subsequent refusal to vacate.

The Court also addressed the respondents’ claim of possessing the property as owners, stating that this issue is collateral to the main question of physical possession in an unlawful detainer case. The Court emphasized that a Torrens title is evidence of indefeasible title, entitling the holder to all ownership attributes, including possession. To further illustrate this point, consider the contrasting arguments presented by the parties in this case:

Petitioner’s Argument	Respondent’s Argument
The respondents’ occupation was by tolerance, subject to vacating upon demand.	They possessed the land in the concept of an owner, not by tolerance.
The Torrens title proves their ownership and right to possess.	OCT No. 38 and its derivative titles were declared null and void, entitling them to possession.
The offer to purchase the property indicates recognition of the petitioners’ ownership.	They had been in possession for over 20 years, introducing valuable improvements.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, weighed these competing claims and found the petitioners’ arguments more persuasive due to the evidence of ownership and the respondents’ implicit recognition of that ownership through their offer to purchase the property.

Building on this principle, the Court found that the appellate court erred in reversing the RTC’s decision. The Lius, as registered owners, possessed superior rights to the property, and the elements of unlawful detainer were sufficiently proven. This decision reinforces the importance of property rights as evidenced by a Torrens title and the legal recourse available to owners seeking to reclaim possession from occupants whose initial entry was permissive.

FAQs

What is unlawful detainer?	Unlawful detainer is a legal action to recover possession of property when the initial possession was lawful but becomes unlawful due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess.
What are the key elements of unlawful detainer?	The key elements include initial possession by contract or tolerance, subsequent illegality upon notice of termination, continued possession by the defendant, and the filing of the complaint within one year of the last demand.
What is the significance of tolerance in unlawful detainer cases?	Tolerance means the owner allowed someone to occupy the property, with or without explicit permission, and this initial tolerance is a critical element to prove unlawful detainer.
What happens if the occupant claims ownership?	The main issue in an unlawful detainer case remains physical possession, irrespective of ownership claims, which are considered collateral issues.
How does a Torrens title affect unlawful detainer cases?	A Torrens title is evidence of ownership and provides the titleholder with the right to possess the property, strengthening their case in an unlawful detainer action.
What is the one-year period for filing an unlawful detainer case?	The complaint must be filed within one year from the date of the last demand to vacate the property to comply with the procedural requirements.
What evidence is needed to prove tolerance?	Evidence can include express agreements, implied understandings, or any actions by the owner showing permission for the occupant to be on the property.
Can an offer to purchase the property affect an unlawful detainer case?	Yes, an offer to purchase can be seen as an acknowledgment of the owner’s rights, weakening the occupant’s claim of independent ownership.

In conclusion, Spouses Liu v. Espinosa serves as a reminder of the stringent requirements for proving unlawful detainer, particularly the need to establish initial tolerance. Property owners must be prepared to demonstrate the nature and duration of permissive occupancy to successfully pursue legal remedies for ejectment.

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 Liu v. Espinosa, G.R. No. 238513, July 31, 2019