Scribd
Upload
294 views1 page

Sample Digest

An unlawful detainer case was filed to evict Maricris Renomeron from a property purchased by Queen Errika Saddi. The MeTC and RTC ruled in Saddi's favor, finding Renomeron's stay was permitted initially. However, the CA dismissed the case, finding Saddi did not prove tolerance from the start of Renomeron's possession. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that for an unlawful detainer case, any acts of tolerance must be present from the very start of the defendant's possession. Here, Saddi's eviction letter showed Renomeron possessed the property prior to the alleged permission, so Saddi failed to prove tolerance from the beginning of Renomer

Uploaded by

Christopher Martin Gunsat
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
294 views1 page

Sample Digest

An unlawful detainer case was filed to evict Maricris Renomeron from a property purchased by Queen Errika Saddi. The MeTC and RTC ruled in Saddi's favor, finding Renomeron's stay was permitted initially. However, the CA dismissed the case, finding Saddi did not prove tolerance from the start of Renomeron's possession. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that for an unlawful detainer case, any acts of tolerance must be present from the very start of the defendant's possession. Here, Saddi's eviction letter showed Renomeron possessed the property prior to the alleged permission, so Saddi failed to prove tolerance from the beginning of Renomer

Uploaded by

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

COVERED CASES (JULY 1, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018)

ON REMEDIAL LAW

IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTS OF TOLERANCE MUST BE PRESENT RIGHT FROM


THE START OF THE PLAINTIFFS’ POSSESSION BY DEFENDANT

Queen Errika L. Saddi vs. Maricris Renomeron


G.R. No. 211004, August 23, 2017
Peralta, J.

FACTS:
Petitioner Queen Errika Saddi filed this Petition for Review of the CA decision dismissing
her complaint for ejectment, challenging its decision that Respondent Maricris Renomeron cannot
be evicted from the property.

The MeTC and RTC ruled in favor of Saddi finding that Renomeron's stay in the subject
property was not through strategy or stealth as Renomeron was allowed to stay in the subject
property after she purchased it. When Saddi terminated the tolerance, she extended to Renomeron
and demanded that she vacate the subject property and the latter refused, Renomeron's right to
the possession of the property had expired and she is considered to be unlawfully detaining the
property. However, the CA found that Saddi's allegations in her Complaint ran counter to the
requirements of an unlawful detainer suit that the possession of the defendant be originally legal
and his/her possession was permitted by the owner through an express or implied contract.

Petitioner claims that the tolerance or permission given to respondent was from the
beginning of her possession when she stepped into the shoes of the seller. Meanwhile, respondent
avers that she was in possession of the property long before the said sale. Renomeron’s mother
was residing in the said property with her, thus, she may not be evicted from the property as her
possession is by virtue of being a co-owner thereof.

ISSUE:
Will a complaint for unlawful detainer prosper when the plaintiff failed to prove tolerance
from the start of possession of the defendant?

RULING:
No, a complaint for unlawful detainer will not prosper when the plaintiff failed to prove
tolerance from the start of possession of the defendant.

In Spouses Golez v. Heirs of Bertulo, the Court held that to justify an action for unlawful
detainer, it is essential 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. Otherwise, if the possession
was unlawful from the start, an action for unlawful detainer would be an improper remedy.

In this case, petitioner’s Eviction Letter dated August 4, 2010, states that petitioner, as new
owner, was requesting respondent to vacate the said place and was giving her four days to transfer
or move out all her belongings in the said premises, evincing that respondent was in possession
of the property even before August 4, 2010, the date when petitioner alleged that respondent asked
her permission to stay in the property. Hence, the alleged tolerated four-day stay was actually for
Renomeron to pack up her belongings from the premises and leave. Thus, petitioner failed to
satisfy the requirement that her supposed act of tolerance was present right from the start of the
possession by defendant. It is worth noting that the absence of the first requisite is important in the
light of respondent's claim that she has been occupying the property as a co-owner thereof even
before the property was purchased by petitioner.

Therefore, as respondent's possession was unlawful from the start, an action for unlawful
detainer would be an improper remedy.

152 |

You might also like