Scribd
Upload
158 views

Tolerance

1) Unlawful detainer cases involve defendants who originally possessed property legally but whose possession became illegal after the plaintiff terminated the defendant's right to possess through a demand to vacate. 2) For a complaint of unlawful detainer to be sufficient, it must allege that the defendant's possession was originally with the plaintiff's permission but became illegal after the plaintiff notified the defendant to end their possession. 3) Possession by tolerance, or permission, is lawful but becomes unlawful if the possessor refuses to vacate after being demanded to do so by the property owner.

Uploaded by

swityiorax
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
158 views

Tolerance

1) Unlawful detainer cases involve defendants who originally possessed property legally but whose possession became illegal after the plaintiff terminated the defendant's right to possess through a demand to vacate. 2) For a complaint of unlawful detainer to be sufficient, it must allege that the defendant's possession was originally with the plaintiff's permission but became illegal after the plaintiff notified the defendant to end their possession. 3) Possession by tolerance, or permission, is lawful but becomes unlawful if the possessor refuses to vacate after being demanded to do so by the property owner.

Uploaded by

swityiorax
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Tolerance:

It is an elementary rule that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter is determined by the
allegations of the complaint and cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the
answer or pleadings filed by the defendant. This rule is no different in an action for forcible entry
or unlawful detainer.
RUBEN SANTOS vs. SPOUSES TONY AYON and MERCY AYON, G. R. No.
137013, May 6, 2005

Unlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real property from one who illegally
withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any
contract, express or implied. The possession by the defendant in unlawful detainer is originally
legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess. The
proceeding is summary in nature, jurisdiction over which lies with the proper MTC or
metropolitan trial court. The action must be brought up within one year from the date of last
demand, and the issue in the case must be the right to physical possession.
A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it recites the following:
1. initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance
of the plaintiff;
2. eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the
termination of the latter's right of possession;
3. thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the
plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and
4. within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff
instituted the complaint for ejectment.
ROSA DELOS REYES vs. SPOUSES FRANCISCO ODONES and ARWENIA ODONES,
NOEMI OTALES, and GREGORIO RAMIREZ, G. R. No. 178096, March 23, 2011

It bears stressing that possession by tolerance is lawful, but such possession becomes unlawful
when the possessor by tolerance refuses to vacate upon demand made by the owner. Our ruling
in Roxas vs. Court of Appeals is applicable in this case: "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 him."
RUBEN SANTOS vs. SPOUSES TONY AYON and MERCY AYON, G. R. No.
137013, May 6, 2005

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.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

In Rodriguez v. Rodriguez,16 citing the case of Co v. Militar,17 the Court held that:


[T]he Torrens System was adopted in this country because it was believed to be the most effective
measure to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to protect their indefeasibility once the claim of
ownership is established and recognized.

It is settled that a Torrens Certificate of title is indefeasible and binding upon the whole world unless
and until it has been nullified by a court of competent jurisdiction. Under existing statutory and
decisional law, the power to pass upon the validity of such certificate of title at the first instance
properly belongs to the Regional Trial Courts in a direct proceeding for cancellation of title.

As the registered owner, petitioner had a right to the possession of the property, which is one of the
attributes of ownership. x x x

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx


In contrast, respondent, who is claiming that a portion of the property was sold to her in 1962, has
herself failed within a long period of time to have that portion transferred in her name. Respondent
had to wait for almost 35 years since 1962, and were it not for the filing of the ejectment suit in 1997,
she would not have bothered to assert her rights under the alleged sale. Respondent's failure to
assert that right only goes to prove that no sale ever transpired between the parties.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
Respondent's argument does not hold water. Since respondent's occupation of the subject property
was by mere tolerance, she has no right to retain its possession under Article 448 of the Civil Code.
She is aware that her tolerated possession may be terminated any time and she cannot be
considered as builder in good faith. 22 It is well settled that both Article 448 23 and Article 54624 of the
New Civil Code, which allow full reimbursement of useful improvements and retention of the
premises until reimbursement is made, apply only to a possessor in good faith, i.e., one who builds
on land with the belief that he is the owner thereof. Verily, persons whose occupation of a realty is by
sheer tolerance of its owners are not possessors in good faith. 25 At the time respondent built the
improvements on the premises in 1945, she knew that her possession was by mere permission and
tolerance of the petitioners; hence, she cannot be said to be a person who builds on land with the
belief that she is the owner thereof.

SPOUSES MARCOS R. ESMAQUEL and VICTORIA SORDEVILLA vs. MARIA COPRADA, G. R.


No. 152423, December 15, 2010

You might also like