FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246054. August 7, 2019.]
GLICERIA D. GENSON AND MA. CLARENCE O. JIMENEZ, petitioners, vs.ROMULO PON-AN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 7, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246054 (Gliceria D. Genson and Ma. Clarence O. Jimenez vs. Romulo Pon-an)
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision 1 dated November 14, 2018 and Resolution 2 dated March 8, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 154563 which reversed and set aside the Judgment 3 and Order 4 dated October 23, 2017 and December 22, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch 18 in SCA Case No. TG-17-099.
Records show that Gliceria D. Genson (Genson) and Ma. Clarence O. Jimenez (Jimenez; collectively petitioners) filed a Complaint 5 for ejectment (unlawful detainer) against Romulo Pon-an (Pon-an) over a parcel of land in Brgy. Biga, Silang Cavite known as Lot 4-B-B-2-D registered in their names and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 076-2016002412. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 16-029. They acquired the property through sale from Maximino Toledo. Petitioners alleged that Pon-an is occupying a portion thereof by their mere tolerance and without paying any rent such use and occupation, although the reasonable fee would be Eight Thousand Pesos (P8,000.00) a month. Since they needed the property, they requested Pon-an to vacate, the last of which was via a demand letter dated May 18, 2016 sent by their counsel, which he received on May 30, 2016. However, Pon-an refused to vacate, Hence, they filed the complaint praying that Pon-an be ordered to vacate the subject premises and to pay reasonable rentals for the use and occupation in an amount not lower than P8,000.00 a month and attorney's fee.
In his Answer, Pon-an averred that he inherited the property in issue from his parents, Santiago and Dorotea Pon-an, who, over the years, already paid the whole amount of the purchase price for such 5,000-square meter lot from the previous owner, Maximino Toledo and Ligaya Toledo (Sps. Toledo). Thus, for such portion allotted to him, he constructed his house where he and his family dwelt since 1954. 6
In a Decision 7 dated May 31, 2017, the 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Silang-Amadeo, Silang, Cavite, dismissed the complaint and counterclaims for lack of merit. The trial court held that Genson and Jimenez failed to prove that Pon-an's occupation on the subject premises was by mere tolerance. Also, they never mentioned in the complaint that their predecessors-in-interest tolerated Pon-an's occupation of their property. 8
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cavite, Branch 18 reversed and set aside the decision of the MCTC and ordered Pon-an and all persons claiming rights under him to vacate the subject premises and to pay monthly rent of P8,000.00 for the use and occupation of the property from the receipt of the demand letter on May 30, 2016 until Pon-an has vacated and returned the possession of the same. The RTC held that, as between the petitioners and Pon-an, it is the petitioners who have the right of possession over the subject property as they are the registered owners of the same and who paid the real taxes. On the other hand, while Pon-an presented several acknowledgement receipts from the previous owner, there is no Deed of Conveyance to support his claim that his predecessors-in-interest acquired the subject property by virtue of a sale.
In a Decision dated November 14, 2018, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC and dismissed the complaint filed by petitioners. The CA held that an ejectment case will not necessarily be decided in favor of one who has presented proof of the ownership of the subject property. The CA noted the petitioners failed to prove that Pon-an's possession of the property was by mere tolerance and that such possession became illegal upon notice of termination of the latter's right of possession.
Also, the appellate court did not believe petitioners' claim that they tolerated Pon-an's possession, since according to their demand letter, Pon-an erected a house thereon without their permission. Thus, having failed to prove tolerance, the CA ruled that there can be no basis for the action of unlawful detainer. The CA likewise denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
Hence, this petition which hinges on the issues of whether petitioners were able to prove the existence of tolerance as a jurisdictional requirement for ejectment.
After a judicious study of the case, this Court denies the instant petition for the failure of petitioners to show any reversible error on the part of the CA in issuing the assailed Decision and Resolution. A case of unlawful detainer must state the period when the occupation by tolerance started and the acts of tolerance exercised by the party with the right of possession. 9 As correctly ruled by the CA, aside from their bare allegation, petitioners failed to substantiate their claim that they merely tolerated respondent's possession of the subject property and they never mentioned in their complaint that their predecessors-in-interest have tolerated respondent's occupation therein. In the present case, at the time petitioners purchased the subject property from Sps. Toledo, Pon-an was already occupying the property and had constructed his house thereon. Petitioners failed to present evidence of the circumstances or nature of tolerance by the previous owners or when such alleged tolerance commenced. Hence, for the failure of petitioners to establish that Pon-an's possession was by mere tolerance, the CA rightfully denied their petition.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioners is DENIED and the Decision dated November 14, 2018 and Resolution dated March 8, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 154563 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz, with Associate Justices Maria Filomena D. Singh and Gabriel T. Robeniol, concurring; rollo, pp. 135-146.
2.Id. at 186-188.
3. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Jaime B. Santiago; id. at 75-79.
4.Id. at 81-83.
5.Id. at 23-26.
6.Id. at 61-62.
7. Penned by Presiding Judge May Hazel M. Tagupa; id. at 57-74.
8.Id. at 71.
9. See Everly Childs Sanitarium v. Spouses Barbarona, G.R. No. 195814, April 4, 2018.