SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252656. September 7, 2020.]
REVELINA LIMSON, petitioner, vs.HEIRS OF MAURICIO LAYCO, RUBEN LAYCO, JOSEPHINE LAYCO, ROSITA LAYCO, ROGER MERCEDES DIGGLE, AND ALL PERSONS CLAIMING UNDER THEM, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated07 September 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252656 (Revelina Limson v. Heirs of Mauricio Layco, Ruben Layco, Josephine Layco, Rosita Layco, Roger Mercedes Diggle, and all persons claiming under them). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the July 25, 2019 2 and June 11, 2020 3 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 161142 for failure of petitioner Revelina Limson (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in dismissing her complaint 4 for unlawful detainer.
As correctly ruled by the CA, there is no reason to disturb the trial court's findings that petitioner failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish her allegation of tolerance, 5 which is necessary for a complaint for unlawful detainer to prosper. 6 Mere allegation of tolerance does not constitute sufficient proof to maintain petitioner's cause of action. 7 Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of trial courts, especially when affirmed by the appellate court and supported by evidence on record, deserve respect and finality by this Court, 8 as in this case.
SO ORDERED. (Inting, J., on official leave. Baltazar-Padilla, J., on leave.)"
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Titled "Petition for Review on Certiorari (with Manifestation); rollo, pp. 33-59.
2.Id. at 9-13. Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Perpetua Susana T. Atal-Paño, concurring.
3.Id. at 86.
4. See Amended Complaint; id. at 105-109.
5. See id. at 12.
6. "A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it recites the following: (1) initially, possession of the property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by the plaintiff to the 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 (1) year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment." (See Zacarias v. Anacay, 744 Phil. 201, 208-209 [2014].)
7. See Javelosa v. Tapus, G.R. No. 204361, July 4, 2018.
8. See Pacific Airways Corporation v. Tonda, 441 Phil. 156, 162 (2002).