Dear PAO,
Our parents were the first to occupy a parcel of land which was the subject of a dispute. After our parents’ settlement, a distant relative from an island province asked our parents to be temporarily accommodated on a vacant area of the land while they were looking for a place to settle permanently. Out of pure compassion, our parents allowed them to stay. Unfortunately, after the death of our parents, we asked them to vacate because we needed it for our children, but they refused. Their refusal prompted us to file an unlawful detainer complaint. The court dismissed our complaint mainly for failure to prove prior physical possession. Is that correct?
Marlon
Dear Marlon,
In one case, the Supreme Court explained that prior physical possession is immaterial for an unlawful detainer complaint to prosper. The Court explained that nothing in Section 1 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court requires a plaintiff, in an unlawful detainer case, to be in prior physical possession of subject property. Prior physical possession by the plaintiff is not an indispensable requirement in an unlawful detainer case filed by the vendee or other person against whom the possession of the property is unlawfully withheld. (Spouses Gaela v. Spouses Tan, GR 185627, March 15, 2017, Ponente: Associate Justice Bienvenido Reyes). This is reiterated by the Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Spouses Dagode v. Tapao, GR 256851, Aug. 2, 2023, penned by Associate Justice Mario Lopez, which held:
“Under the rule, the summary action for unlawful detainer may be filed by a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the termination of the right to hold possession by virtue of any contract, express or implied. Contrary to the ruling of the MTCC and the RTC, the very nature of an action for unlawful detainer denotes that the plaintiff is not in actual physical possession of the land, as this element is only indispensable in an action for forcible entry.
“To sustain an action for unlawful detainer, the plaintiff must show the following requirements: (a) initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (b) the possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the termination of the latter’s right of possession; (c) the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and (d) within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment. x x x
“A person who occupies the land of another at the latter’s tolerance or permission is bound by an implied promise that he or she will vacate the property upon demand. In this case, respondent’s mother only allowed petitioners and their ancestors to occupy certain portions of the lot. Upon withdrawal of the tolerance, petitioners’ refusal to vacate the premises rendered their possession as unlawful.”
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that as heirs of your deceased parents, who previously held possession of the disputed property, you are not necessarily required to prove your prior physical possession in the unlawful detainer complaint that you filed to prosper. What is required is for you to prove the elements of unlawful detainer as provided above.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net
