SANTOS V. AYON G.R. NO. 137013.

MAY 6, 2005

DOCTRINE
Where there is possession by tolerance, such
possession becomes unlawful when the possessor by
tolerance refuses to vacate after demand is made by
the owner.
FACTS
1. Respondents owned a parcel of land adjacent to
petitioner’s 3 lots in Davao City. The previous
occupant of the property built a building between
said lots. Respondents have been using the building
as a warehouse.
2. When petitioner bought the three lots in 1985, he
informed respondents that the building occupies a
portion of his land. However, he allowed them to
continue using the building.
3. In 1996, he demanded that respondents vacate the
part of the property belonging to him but they
refused. Instead, they continued occupying the
contested portion and even made improvements on the
building.
4. Petitioner, filed with the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities (MTCC), Branch 2, Davao City a complaint for
illegal detainer against respondent spouses Ayon.
MTCC - Ruled in favor of petitioner; Respondents
should vacate the subject properties and remove the
structures found thereon.
RTC DAVAO CITY - Affirmed in toto the MTCC judgment
and upheld the finding of the MTCC that respondents’
occupation of the contested portion was by mere
tolerance. Hence, when petitioner needed the same, he
has the right to eject them through court action.
CA – Reversed and set aside RTC ruling. held that
petitioners proper remedy should have been an accion
publiciana before the RTC, not an action for unlawful
detainer,
ISSUE/S
1. WON the MTCC has jurisdiction over the complaint.
2. WON Respondents are guilty of Illegal detainer for
not vacating the property.
RULING
1. Yes. MTCC has jurisdiction over the complaint. The
action for unlawful detainer filed before it is
proper.
• Section 1, Rule 70 on forcible entry and unlawful
detainer of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provide
2 causes of action
(1) Forcible entry, where the defendant’s occupation
is illegal from the beginning as he acquired
possession by force, intimidation, threat, strategy
or stealth; and
(2) Unlawful detainer, where defendant’s possession
of the property was lawful due to a contract with the
plaintiff, but then became illegal when he continued
his possession despite the termination of his right
it.
• A complaint for unlawful detainer is sufficient if
it alleges that the withholding of the possession or
the refusal to vacate is unlawful without necessarily
employing the terminology of the law.
• Petitioners complaint stems from respondents
occupancy on the portion of his property is by virtue
of his tolerance. Petitioners cause of action
springs from respondents failure to vacate the land
after his demand.
2. Yes. Respondents illegally occupied the property.
• Possession by tolerance is lawful, but such
possession becomes unlawful when the possessor by
tolerance refuses to vacate upon demand made by the
owner.
• A person who occupies the land of another at the
latters tolerance or permission, without any contract
between them, is bound by an implied promise that he
will vacate upon demand.