G.R. No. 177847 - LAURENCE M. SISON, VS. EUSEBIA CARIAGA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, PLAINTIFF BY PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE HAS ESTABLISHED HIS OWNERSHIP OVER THE LAND IN QUESTION HENCE, HIS RIGHT OF POSSESSION FOLLOWS TOO SOON. In consonance therewith, the Court renders judgment in favor of plaintiff Laurence M. Sison as against defendant Eusebia Cariaga. As prayed for, defendant and all persons claiming right are ordered to vacate the said property. But as to the demand of civil liabilities the Court so orders: Prayer No. 2-A for the demand of P112,500.00 as unpaid rental is not granted. There is no proof on record that plaintiff had demanded payment of rental since April 2000, when he came to know that defendant's possession of the lot is illegal, hence, her stay is by tolerance. Defendant was not informed of his rent prior to the filing of this case; As to prayer No. 2-B, defendant shall pay the amount of P2,500.00 per month beginning January, 2004 as rental until defendant shall have vacated the lot she now unlawfully withheld possession; As to the twelve percent (12%) interest per annum is granted until defendant shall have fully paid her rental; As to moral damage, defendant is to pay plaintiff the amount of P25,000.00; As to the attorney's fee and appearance fee the defendant be ordered to pay P25,000.00 as attorney's fee and P4,000.00 as appearance fee; and To pay the cost of suit. No other fees are ordered for the defendant to pay. [3] The MCTC took respondent's statement in her Position Paper [4] that "it may be true that [petitioner et al.'s] TCT No. 245861 issued on April 13, 2003 supposedly covering [respondent's] lot where her house is constructed exist[s]]" as respondent's conceding that her house is constructed on the subject lot. And the MCTC took note of respondent's claim that her house is constructed on Lot 23-D, which claim contradicts her earlier averment in "a former [ sic ] Civil Case 794" that it is her sister Virginia Cariaga who occupies said lot. [5] The MCTC thus concluded that given respondent's virtual admission of occupancy of the subject lot and of her failure to substantiate her claim of ownership, the nature of her possession is possession without title, while petitioner has the title but without possession. On appeal by respondent, the RTC reversed the MCTC decision and dismissed petitioner's complaint by Decision dated February 9, 2005. The RTC held that petitioner failed to substantiate his allegation that respondent's occupation of the subject lot was merely tolerated, hence, the complaint did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement to constitute a valid cause of action for unlawful detainer. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration having been denied by Order dated April 8, 2005, petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. By the assailed Decision dated October 3, 2006, [6] the appellate court affirmed the RTC decision, holding that the tolerance which petitioner claimed was not present from the inception of respondent's possession of the su