Spouses Sambrano et al. vs. Spouses Bernabe

In an unlawful detainer case based on tolerance, the plaintiff must prove by preponderance of evidence that the defendant's possession was by the plaintiff's permission or tolerance from the very start of possession; bare allegations and proof of ownership do not suffice, because ejectment protects only de facto possession and not de jure possession. The period to appeal may be relaxed where the lower courts' manifest error on the merits would otherwise frustrate substantial justice.

Respondents spouses Bernabe trace their claim to the subject 1,871-square-meter parcel in Barangay Tugatog, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija to Josephine's father, Rafael Jacinto, and a donation in her favor, with the property covered by TCT No. 041-2019004589. Petitioners spouses Sambrano et al. are the occupants of the property, some of whom claim possession since 1970 and payment of "buwis" to Zosimo Alivia. The controversy arises under the summary remedy of unlawful detainer, which protects actual or de facto possession and does not ordinarily resolve ownership de jure.

Josephine Bernabe's grandparents originally owned the 1,871-square-meter parcel in Barangay Tugatog, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija; it was later transferred to her father, Rafael Jacinto, who donated it to Josephine. The property is covered by TCT No. 041-2019004589 in Josephine's name. Petitioners, the spouses Sambrano et al., occupied portions of the property; some claimed their possession began as early as 1970, and some paid "buwis" to Zosimo Alivia while others were allowed to occupy for free.

According to respondents, Josephine's parents permitted petitioners to temporarily use the property out of generosity and mercy, on the condition that they would return it when needed. After the donation to Josephine, she reminded petitioners that their possession was by mere tolerance and "pakikisama." After several years, respondents were surprised to find petitioners building concrete houses. Because respondents needed the property for their own house, they orally demanded that petitioners vacate and offered to sell the property to them, but no agreement was reached.

The matter was referred to the barangay captain of Barangay Tugatog for mediation and conciliation, but no amicable settlement was reached, and a Certificate to File Action dated October 26, 2019 was issued. On October 28, 2019, respondents sent final demand letters to petitioners; the registered mails were returned with the annotation "RTS Refused to receive 11-7-19." Copies were then furnished through the barangay chief of police, and petitioners personally received them except spouses Romeo Manapol and Olimpia Manapol. Despite the lapse of 15 days, petitioners refused to vacate, leading respondents to file the unlawful detainer complaint on January 10, 2020. Respondents sought removal of structures, moral and exemplary damages of PHP 100,000.00, and attorney's fees of PHP 80,000.00.

Petitioners countered that the complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action and for prematurity because no conciliation and mediation was conducted before the barangay lupon tagapamayapa; only three of them participated in conciliation. They alleged that their possession and that of their predecessors began lawfully with the consent of the registered owner Zosimo Alivia. Some were obligated by Zosimo to pay "buwis," while others were allowed to occupy for free, and they attached handwritten receipts of rents showing payment to Zosimo. They maintained that respondents' claim of tolerance had no basis. They further contended that the Deed of Donation in Josephine's favor was executed on July 15, 2019, while the donor, Ruperto, had already died on October 30, 1998, so respondents acquired no right or title. Petitioners prayed for dismissal and moral and exemplary damages of PHP 200,000.00 and PHP 100,000.00, respectively.

The MTC found that the complaint sufficiently alleged unlawful detainer: respondents' grandfather Zosimo tolerated petitioners' possession, demand letters were sent, and the case was filed within one year from final demand. It noted that petitioners admitted their possession was due to Zosimo's consent and treated the receipts paid to Zosimo as accrued rentals. The MTC also stated that the barangay tanod chief personally delivered the final written demand and that petitioners' possession became unlawful from then. It found respondents to be the registered owners and considered their title not subject to collateral attack in the ejectment suit. The RTC and CA relied on these findings in ruling that tolerance was established.

• Gross Negligence of Former Counsel: Petitioners argued that Atty. Johndy Roxas's gross negligence deprived them of their right to appeal; he withdrew on May 12, 2022, three days before the May 15, 2022 deadline, did not ensure the new lawyer's name was recorded, did not inform them to secure another counsel, did not explain that failure to appeal would make the RTC Decision final, and did not provide them a copy of the RTC Decision.
• Failure to Prove Tolerance: Petitioners maintained that respondents failed to establish their cause of action by a preponderance of evidence; respondents did not state when the alleged occupation by tolerance started and presented no documentary or other evidence of the alleged acts of tolerance.
• Invalid Deed of Donation: Petitioners contended that respondents' ownership emanated from a fraudulent Deed of Donation executed on July 15, 2019, while the donor, Ruperto, had already died on October 30, 1998; thus, respondents acquired no right or title, and the Deed should be declared null and void.
• Substantial Justice: Petitioners asserted that dismissal of their appeal would result in grave injustice and irreparable injury, as they risked eviction from the subject property.

• No Gross Negligence: Respondents argued that the withdrawal of petitioners' previous counsel three days before the deadline to file a petition for review did not amount to gross negligence.
• Tolerance Established: Respondents echoed the CA's finding that they sufficiently established that petitioners' possession of the property was by mere tolerance.
• Title Not Collaterally Attackable: Respondents argued that their title over the property cannot be attacked in an unlawful detainer suit.

• Relaxation of Rules / Timeliness of Appeal: Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for review for being filed out of time.
• Tolerance in Unlawful Detainer: Whether spouses Bernabe established by a preponderance of evidence that spouses Sambrano et al.'s possession of the property is by mere tolerance.

• Relaxation of Rules / Timeliness of Appeal: Yes. Although the petition was filed 16 days late and the withdrawal of counsel bore Romelita's conformity, the Court relaxed the rules because the lower courts manifestly erred on the merits and substantial justice required resolution on the merits.
• Tolerance in Unlawful Detainer: No. The complaint failed to state and prove the jurisdictional fact of tolerance from the start of possession; bare allegations and proof of ownership do not suffice, and ownership is immaterial in ejectment.

• Relaxation of Rules / Timeliness of Appeal: The petition before the CA was undisputed filed 16 days late. Petitioners claimed Atty. Roxas's withdrawal on May 12, 2022, three days before the May 15, 2022 deadline, deprived them of time to secure new counsel and amounted to gross negligence. The Court was not persuaded: the Notice of Withdrawal bore Romelita's written conformity, and under Mercado vs. Commission on Higher Education, withdrawal with client's written conformity takes effect upon filing; petitioners were bound by their attorney-in-fact's conformity and should have secured another lawyer first. Nonetheless, the CA erred in dismissing the appeal solely on technicality. While appeal is a statutory privilege, the rules are not iron-clad; in special instances the Court balances strict procedure with equity and substantial justice and may relax the period for perfecting an appeal. Orata vs. Intermediate Appellate Court disregarded a nine-day delay after finding a good cause of action. Sarmiento vs. Dizon overlooked a 14-day delay because the ejectment complaint was manifestly erroneous for failure to prove tolerance. The present case is analogous to Sarmiento: the MTC, RTC, and CA manifestly erred in finding tolerance, so the Court considered the case on the merits despite the 16-day delay.
• Tolerance in Unlawful Detainer: Although a Rule 45 petition is generally limited to questions of law, the issue of whether tolerance was proven is a question of fact that the Court may review when the lower courts' judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. Unlawful detainer is a summary action for recovery of possession, and its requisites are: (1) initial possession by the defendant was by contract with or tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) possession became illegal upon notice of termination of the right; (3) the defendant remained in possession and deprived the plaintiff of enjoyment; and (4) the complaint was filed within one year from the last demand. Tolerance, as defined in Sarona vs. Villegas and reiterated in Dayandayan vs. Rojas, consists of acts allowed out of neighborliness, friendship, or courtesy, and the plaintiff's supposed acts of tolerance must be present from the very start of the possession sought to be recovered. The complaint alleged only that Josephine's parents permitted petitioners to use the property out of generosity and mercy, but it did not show how and when petitioners entered, who granted entry, or the specific overt acts of tolerance. Bare allegations are insufficient under Sarmiento vs. Dizon. Under Nabo vs. Buenviaje, failure to show overt acts of tolerance means the defendant's possession is illegal from the beginning and the ejectment action fails. The MTC erroneously declared Zosimo as Josephine's grandfather and relied on petitioners' admission of Zosimo's consent; the complaint did not state that Zosimo was Josephine's grandfather, and respondents themselves mentioned Ruperto as Josephine's grandfather. Respondents neither alleged nor proved any relation with Zosimo, so petitioners' admission did not establish tolerance. Since respondents claimed the better right to possess, they bore the burden of proving the jurisdictional facts, which they failed to discharge. The complaint was therefore dismissible for lack of cause of action. Ownership is immaterial in ejectment: under Pajuyo vs. Court of Appeals, only de facto possession, not de jure possession, is at issue, and even a registered owner cannot simply wrest possession from a party in peaceable quiet possession through a summary action without proving the essential requisites. The Court noted that some petitioners claimed possession since 1970, or about 50 years before the 2020 ejectment suit, and that it would be dangerous to deprive them of possession merely because respondents used the word "tolerance" without sufficient allegations or evidence. The alleged nullity of the Deed of Donation need not be discussed. Respondents are not without remedy; they may avail of other appropriate legal remedies before the proper Regional Trial Court.

• Tolerance in Unlawful Detainer — Tolerance consists of acts allowed by the owner out of neighborliness, friendship, or courtesy, without material injury or prejudice; it is a permission or license, not mere knowledge and silence. In ejectment based on tolerance, the plaintiff's acts of tolerance must exist from the very start of the defendant's possession, and the plaintiff must prove them by preponderance of evidence. Bare allegations are insufficient. Applied: respondents failed to show how, when, or by whose permission petitioners entered, so the jurisdictional fact of tolerance was missing.
• Requisites of Unlawful Detainer — The action requires: (1) initial possession by the defendant by contract with or tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) illegal possession upon notice of termination of the right; (3) continued possession depriving the plaintiff of enjoyment; and (4) filing of the complaint within one year from the last demand. Applied: the first requisite failed because tolerance was not proven from the start.
• Ownership Immaterial in Ejectment — Ejectment resolves only physical possession de facto, not ownership or possession de jure. A party who can prove prior possession may recover even against the owner, and a registered owner cannot oust a peaceable possessor through summary ejectment without proving the essential requisites. Applied: respondents' title did not automatically entitle them to eject petitioners.
• Relaxation of Rules on Appeal — Although appeal is a statutory privilege and must be exercised according to the rules, the period may be relaxed on grounds of substantial justice or special and meritorious circumstances, especially where the lower courts' judgment is manifestly erroneous. Applied: the Court overlooked the 16-day delay because the lower courts manifestly erred on tolerance.
• Withdrawal of Counsel with Client's Conformity — Withdrawal of counsel with the client's written conformity takes effect upon filing with the court, and the client is bound by the conformity given by an attorney-in-fact. Applied: Romelita's conformity bound petitioners, and the withdrawal did not amount to gross negligence, although the Court still relaxed the appeal period.
• Burden of Proof in Ejectment — The plaintiff who claims a better right to possess must prove the jurisdictional facts of unlawful detainer by preponderance of evidence. Applied: respondents failed to discharge this burden.

• "For a complaint for unlawful detainer to prosper, the following requisites must be established: Initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by the plaintiff to the defendant of the termination of the right of possession; thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and within one year from the last demand on the defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment." — States the four requisites of unlawful detainer that the Court applied in dismissing the complaint.
• "However, it is essential in ejectment cases of this kind that the plaintiffs supposed acts of tolerance must have been present right from the start of the possession which is later sought to be recovered." — Articulates the key jurisdictional requirement of tolerance in ejectment.
• "The Court finds that the Complaint of spouses Bernabe does not make a case for unlawful detainer. The key jurisdictional fact of tolerance is missing." — States the ratio decidendi for dismissing the complaint.
• "The only question that the courts must resolve in ejectment proceedings is — who is entitled to the physical possession of the premises, that is, to the possession de facto and not to the possession de jure." — Defines the limited issue in ejectment and supports the ruling that ownership is immaterial.

• Orata vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 263 Phil. 846 (1990) — The Court disregarded a nine-day delay in filing a petition for review before the CA after finding a good cause of action; cited to support relaxation of the appeal period.
• Sarmiento vs. Dizon, 895 Phil. 506 (2021) — The Court overlooked a 14-day delay and resolved the ejectment case on the merits because the complaint failed to prove the basic element of tolerance; the Court found the present case analogous.
• Dayandayan vs. Spouses Rojas, 877 Phil. 628 (2020) — Reiterated the definition of tolerance from Sarona vs. Villegas; cited in the Court's analysis of tolerance.
• Sarona, et al. vs. Villegas, et al., 131 Phil. 365 (1968) — Landmark case defining acts merely tolerated as those allowed out of neighborliness, friendship, or courtesy; cited as the canonical formulation of tolerance.
• Nabo vs. Buenviaje, 887 Phil. 678 (2020) — Held that failure to show the plaintiff's overt acts of tolerance means the defendant's possession is illegal from the beginning and the unlawful detainer action fails; applied to respondents.
• Pajuyo vs. Court of Appeals, 474 Phil. 557 (2004) — Held that ownership or right to possess arising from ownership is not at issue in ejectment; only physical possession de facto is resolved; cited to support the ruling that ownership is immaterial.
• Galacgac vs. Bautista, 889 Phil. 379 (2020) — Held that even a registered owner cannot simply wrest possession from one in actual possession and that the purpose of ejectment is to protect actual possession; cited in the ownership discussion.
• Mercado vs. Commission on Higher Education, 699 Phil. 419 (2012) — Held that withdrawal of counsel with the client's written conformity takes effect upon filing; cited in rejecting the gross negligence claim.
• Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs. Subic Bay Marine Exploratorium, Inc., 914 Phil. 200 (2021) — Cited for the principle that rules on appeal are not iron-clad and may be relaxed in special instances.
• Eversley Childs Sanitarium vs. Spouses Barbarona, 829 Phil. 111 (2018) — Cited for the rule that ejectment cases are not automatically decided in favor of the party presenting proof of ownership.
• Fernandez vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. 266145, August 19, 2024, citing Chansuyco vs. Spouses Paltep, 860 Phil. 13 (2019) — Cited for the requisites of unlawful detainer.

• Rule 42, Rules of Court — Governs the petition for review from the RTC to the CA. The CA dismissed the petition because it was filed 16 days after the reglementary period; the Supreme Court relaxed the period in the interest of substantial justice.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs the petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court and limits review to questions of law. The Court applied the exception allowing review of factual findings where the lower courts' judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.

Justice Caguioa (Chairperson), Justice Inting, and Justice Dimaampao concurred. Justice Singh was on leave.