REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

First Judicial Region

Municipal Trial Court in Cities
Branch I
San Fernando City, La Union

LITO T. TOLENTINO
Plaintiff, CIVIL CASE NO.:1234

-versus- FOR:

ROCCO TOCINO UNLAWFUL DETAINER

Defendants.

X-----------------------------------X

DECISION

The Case

Plaintiff instituted this action for Unlawful Detainer against the

defendants in a Complaint filed on June 5, 2020.

The complaint alleges, among others, that the plaintiff is owner of a real
property including the building erected therein, J&J building, a commercial
building, situated at Lingsat, San Fernando City, La Union by virtue of a Deed of
Absolute Sale executed between him and the former owner, Marion Maroon
January 4, 2019 from Mario Maroon as evidenced by the Deed of Absolute Sale
acknowledged before Notary Public Atty. Rosario Ramsey.

Defendants are the lessees of the former owner, Mario Maroon, and are
currently occupying the same. As a result of the sale between herein plaintiff and
Mario Maroon, the former, now being the lawful owner of the property asked the
lessees to pay to him the accrued rentals from February to May 2019 or vacate
the said building.
Being the lawful owner of the property and with a questionable lease
contract, plaintiff demanded from the defendant to respect his rights of
ownership over the property in question and to pay rentals as shown by Letter of
Demand dated May 15, 2019. And on December 15, 2019, herein plaintiff, thru
his counsel, sent a final demand letter to both defendants to vacate the leased
premises.

1
 Defendants relying on the validity of the Lease of Contract with Mario
Maroon and being in good faith and for paying rents to Lito, herein plaintiff,
refused to leave the premises.

Defendant filed his Answer, alleging that he had been paying the monthly
rents to Mario Maroon as the owner of the building and because he has no idea
of any transfer of ownership thereof. Had he known the same, defendant is
willing to pay the paid rentals to Lito instead of Mario and in fact the plaintiff
received rents from the defendant for the months of June to December of 2019
until it refused to receive rents for the succeeding months thus, the defendant
deposited such payment to the account of Mario since there was still no
confirmation of transfer of ownership.
As Counterclaim defendant claims that this case groundless and
malicious hence he seeks to be paid the P30,000.00 Attorney’s fees and
appearance fee of P2,000.00 per hearing. He likewise seeks for the payment
of moral damages for sleepless nights and moral anxiety. He likewise sought
for Nominal damages because Plaintiff violated the rights of the defendant. He
further prays that this case be dismissed due to lack of cause of action.
Considering that both parties were not able to enter into amicable
Settlement after the same was referred to Court Annex Mediation this case
was set for Pre-Trial on August 3, 2020.
During the Pre—Trial both parties, assisted by their respective counsel.
agreed to the following:
1. Contract of Lease executed by Rocco Tocino and Mario Maroon, the
former owner of the property in favour of the defendant;
2. That a letter of demand was made by the plaintiff on May 15, 2019
informing the defendant of its ownership;
3. The defendant admit as to the existence of another demand letter dated
December 15, 2019;
4. That in response to the letter of the plaintiff’s counsel, defendant signified
his willingness to pay the plaintiff;
5. That the defendant stopped paying rentals to plaintiff beginning January
2020 up to the present in favour of the plaintiff rather continued paying
the same to Mario Maroon;
6. The Contract of lease is valid for a period of 5 years from date of
execution.

ISSUES

2
 1. Whether or not the defendant may now be ejected from the premises for
non-payment of rentals;and
2. Whether or not the Court have jurisdiction over the case.

Both parties were then required to file their respective Position paper
Within 30 days from receipt of the Pre—Trial Order. Upon the filing of their
respective Position paper, the case was submitted for Decision.

VERSION OF PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff is the lawful owner of the land including the building erected therein
subject matter of the instant complaint by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale
between the Plaintiff and Mario Maroon, in favor of the former. Although at the
time of the execution of the contract of sale, there are subsisting lease contracts
between Mario with defendants, nevertheless, the plaintiff, being the new owner
is not precluded to exercise his rights over the building as provided for by the
law.
On May 15, 2019, a demand letter was sent to the defendants directing
them to vacate the building for their failure to pay their rent for the months of
February to May 2019 . Although, it is admitted that the plaintiff has received
several payments from the defendants, such payments do not avoid the demand
to vacate the building, being an act of empathy of the plaintiff to the defendants.
The plaintiff merely tolerates their temporary possession of their respective stall
units until they were able to vacate the building.
On December 15, 2019 a final letter of demand was sent to the defendants
reiterating its previous demand letter and to pay their outstanding dues. In
response thereto, defendant Rocco Tocino manifested his willingness to pay the
plaintiff, however, he refuse to vacate the building due to the subsisting Lease
contract which is valid for a period of 5 years from the date of execution thereof.

ISSUES
1. Whether or not the defendants may be ejected from the premises for non-
payment of rentals.
2. Whether or not the Court have jurisdiction over the case.

The issues were discussed jointly by the Plaintiff.

3
 To begin with, Article 1657 of the New Civil Code states:

“Article 1657. The lessee is obliged:

(1) To pay the price of the lease according to the terms
stipulated;”

The defendant did not pay any rentals since February to May 2019.
Although he admitted that the payments of rentals were made to
Mario, no payment was made to the plaintiff until a final demand
letter was issued by the plaintiff on December 15, 2019. Clearly, the
plaintiff has no intention to lift the demand to vacate the building
even though payment was tendered thereafter.

VERSION OF THE DEFENDANT

Culled from the affidavit of the defendant hereto attached, the

facts of the case are as follows:

Mario Maroon was the declared owner of the subject building

and lot covered by Tax Declaration No. 11-0287104 located at Brgy.
Lingsat, City of San Fernando, La Union.

Sometime in November 2018, defendant Rocco Tocino entered

into a Contract of Lease over unit B of the J&J building with Mario
Maroon.

During the validity of the contract of lease, the Defendant have

been diligently paying rentals to Mario Maroon as evidenced by a
series of deposit slip depositing the rents to the account of the latter.

However, on May 5, 2019, the Defendant was surprised when

he received a demand letter dated May 19, 2019 from the Plaintiff
informing him of his ownership over the subject property which he
allegedly acquired by virtue of a Deed of Absolute of Sale. On the
same letter, the Plaintiff asked the Defendant to pay rentals from
February 2019, the month wherein he allegedly acquired the
property.

In response to the letter dated May 29, 2019, defendant sent a

reply letter to the plaintiff signifying his willingness to pay rental
starting June 1, 2019 but he will first talk to Mario Maroon to assure
the validity of Lito’s claim.

4
 That while waiting for Mario’s confirmation, defendant paid the
rents for the months of June and July to both Mario and Lito in order
to avoid late payments to Mario and to meet the request of Lito in
case the latter’s allegations are correct.

Regardless of defendant’s willingness to pay, plaintiff refused

and ignored to receive the monthly rentals from August 2019 alleging
that the defendant should pay to him all the rents from February
2019 up to present, otherwise leave the premises.

The Defendant refused to pay to plaintiff the monthly rents

from February to May 2019 since the former already paid the same
to Mario, moreover, it was only on May 15, 2019 when defendant
was informed of the alleged transfer of ownership.

But the Defendant was able to pay monthly rents from August
2019 to December 20191 since the plaintiff accepted the same.

On December 27, 2019, Defendant was shocked to receive a

demand letter dated December 15, 2019 as a final demand to vacate
the property by reason that defendant has been staying therein by
mere tolerance of Lito.

Due to the refusal of the plaintiff to receive the monthly rents

from January 2020, he stopped paying to him and while awaiting
Mario’s confirmation, he continued tendering the payments to the
latter’s bank account.

Assuming that there is indeed a valid transfer of ownership,

defendant is not in any position to know the same as he is not privy
thereto and that he was not informed by Mario of the fact, and if Lito
is indeed the new owner, defendant is willing to pay the latter the
rents instead of paying to Mario.

Nevertheless, relying on the validity of the Contract of Lease

and since no confirmation yet from Mario, defendant refused to leave
the premises since he has the right to stay therein.

Despite signifying the Defendant’s intent to pay rentals, the

Plaintiff filed the instant case.

ISSUES

1
5
 1. Whether or not the defendant may be ejected from the premises for on
the ground of tolerance; and

2. Whether or not the defendant is entitled to be reimbursed for costs of

litigation and attorney’s fees.

The foregoing issues shall be discussed jointly.

The defendant avers that in this case , plaintiff anchored his right of
possession over the disputed property on the Deed of Sale executed by him and
the former owner, Mario Maroon and that the possession of the defendant is by
mere tolerance. It is true that a registered owner has a right of possession over
the property as this is one of the attributes of ownership. Ejectment cases,
however, are not automatically decided in favor of the party who presents proof
of ownership.

Without a doubt, the registered owner of real property is entitled to its

possession. However, the owner cannot simply wrest possession thereof from
whoever is in actual occupation of the property. To recover possession, he must
resort to the proper judicial remedy and, once he chooses what action to file, he
is required to satisfy the conditions necessary for such action to prosper.

In Ejectment cases - forcible entry and unlawful detainer - are summary

proceedings designed to provide expeditious means to protect actual possession
or the right to possession of the property involved. The only question that the
courts resolve in ejectment proceedings is: who is entitled to the physical
possession of the premises, that is, to the possession de facto  and not to the
possession de Jure.  It does not even matter if a party's title to the property is
questionable. For this reason, an ejectment case will not necessarily be decided
in favor of one who has presented proof of ownership of the subject
property.  Key jurisdictional facts constitutive of the particular ejectment case
filed must be averred in the complaint and sufficiently proven.

The defendant quotes EVERSLEY CHILDS SANITARIUM vs. Sps.

Perlabarbarona,G.R. No. 195814, April 4, 2018, wherein the court pronounced
that a requisite for a valid cause of action in an unlawful detainer case is that
possession must be originally lawful, and such possession must have turned
unlawful only upon the expiration of the right to possess. It must be shown that
the possession was initially lawful; hence, the basis of such lawful possession
must be established. If, as in this case, the claim is that such possession is by
mere tolerance of the plaintiff, the acts of tolerance must be proved.

Petitioner failed to prove that respondents' possession was based on his

alleged tolerance. He did not offer any evidence to show that he tolerated
respondents' entry to and occupation of the subject properties. A bare allegation
of tolerance will not suffice. Plaintiff must, at least, show overt acts indicative of
his permission to occupy the subject property .

Furthermore, the defendant cited the case of Delos Reyes v. Spouses

Odenes,G.R. No. 178096, 23 March 2011, the Court recently defined the nature
and scope of an unlawful detainer suit, as follows:

Unlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real property from

one who illegally withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his

6
right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied. The possession
by the defendant in unlawful detainer is originally legal but became illegal due to
the expiration or termination of the right to possess. The proceeding is summary
in nature, jurisdiction over which lies with the proper MTC or metropolitan trial
court. The action must be brought up within one year from the date of last
demand, and the issue in the case must be the right to physical possession.

Hence, a complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful

detainer if it states the following elements:

1. Initially, the possession of the property by the defendant was by

contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff.

2. Eventually, the possession became illegal upon the plaintiff’s notice 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 latter’s enjoyment.

4. Within one year from the making of the last demand on the defendant
to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the Complaint for Ejectment.

The plaintiff must show that the supposed acts of tolerance have been
present right from the very start of the possession - from entry to the property.

In the present case, the plaintiff failed to establish that the possession of
the defendant is by mere tolerance, because in truth and if fact, the possession
of the defendant of the property is by virtue of a valid and existing Contract of
Lease between him and the previous owner which was subrogated to the plaintiff
from the moment of Sale.

Furthermore, Article 1673 of the Civil Code provides that :

The lessor may judicially eject the lessee for any of the following
causes:

(1) When the period agreed upon, or that which is fixed for the
duration of leases under articles 1682 and 1687, has expired;

(2) Lack of payment of the price stipulated;

(3) Violation of any of the conditions agreed upon in the contract;

(4) When the lessee devotes the thing leased to any use or service
not stipulated which causes the deterioration thereof; or if he does not observe
the requirement in No. 2 of article 1657, as regards the use thereof.

In the case at bar, the period of the Contract of Lease is valid and has not
yet expired.

The defendant has been faithfully and diligently paying his monthly rents
to Mario, the former owner, and even to Lito, the plaintiff in the case at bar,
from the moment he was informed of the fact of transfer of ownership even
pending the validation from Mario, until Lito refused to receive his monthly

7
rentals hence forcing the defendant to tender the same to the account of the
former lessor Mario, since he has not yet confirmed the transfer of ownership.

The defendant, has been very vocal of his willingness to pay the monthly
rentals to Lito, which he did for five months until the latter refused to receive the
same.

That the defendant, as the lessor, never violated any of the conditions
agreed upon in the contract of lease nor did any act that would impair or destroy
the property involved and but rather has been improving the property.

EVALUATION OF THE COURT

The Decision of the Court is based on the evidence attached to the Position
paper of both parties and that of their respective Complaint and Answer.

ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED

WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT MAY NOW BE EJECTED FROM THE

PREMISES FOR NON-PAYMENT OFRENTALS.

Section 1, Rule 70 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court, it is provided that:

“xxx a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other
person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully
withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by
virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives or assigns
of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person, may at any time within one
(1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an
action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons
unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or persons
claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession, together with
damages and costs.”

UNLAWFUL DETAINER has been defined as the act of withholding the

possession of the land or building against or from a landlord, vendor., vendee, or
other persons after the expiration or termination of the detainer's right to hold
possession by virtue of o contract. express or implied.

The elements of unlawful detainer are as follows:

1. Possession of the defendant is inceptively lawful. but It becomes illegal by

reason of the termination of his right to the possession of the property
under his contract with the plaintiff

2. The Plaintiff should first make a demand which is jurisdictional in nature

3. The Plaintiff need not be in prior physical possession of the property

4. In unlawful detainer the period of one year counted from the date of
last demand
8
 Without a doubt, the registered owner of real property is entitled to its
possession. However, the owner cannot simply wrest possession thereof from
whoever is in actual occupation of the property. To recover possession, he must
resort to the proper judicial remedy and, once he chooses what action to file, he
is required to satisfy the conditions necessary for such action to prosper.

In Ejectment cases - forcible entry and unlawful detainer - are summary

proceedings designed to provide expeditious means to protect actual possession
or the right to possession of the property involved. The only question that the
courts resolve in ejectment proceedings is: who is entitled to the physical
possession of the premises, that is, to the possession de facto  and not to the
possession de Jure.  It does not even matter if a party's title to the property is
questionable. For this reason, an ejectment case will not necessarily be decided
in favor of one who has presented proof of ownership of the subject
property.  Key jurisdictional facts constitutive of the particular ejectment case
filed must be averred in the complaint and sufficiently proven.

In EVERSLEY CHILDS SANITARIUM vs. Sps. Perlabarbarona, G.R.

No. 195814, April 4, 2018, the court pronounced that a requisite for a valid
cause of action in an unlawful detainer case is that possession must be originally
lawful, and such possession must have turned unlawful only upon the expiration
of the right to possess. It must be shown that the possession was initially lawful;
hence, the basis of such lawful possession must be established. If, as in this
case, the claim is that such possession is by mere tolerance of the plaintiff, the
acts of tolerance must be proved.

Petitioner failed to prove that respondents' possession was based on his

alleged tolerance. He did not offer any evidence to show that he tolerated
respondents' entry to and occupation of the subject properties. A bare allegation
of tolerance will not suffice. Plaintiff must, at least, show overt acts indicative of
his permission to occupy the subject property .

Furthermore, from the facts of the case the plaintiff considers that it has a
cause of action as against the Defendant on the ground that the possession of
the latter over the disputed property is by mere tolerance.

This was disputed by the defendant alleging that he is occupying the

property by virtue of a Contract of Lease to which he paid diligently all the rents.

Under Article 1673 of the Civil Code it states that:

The lessor may judicially eject the lessee for any of the following
causes:

(1) When the period agreed upon, or that which is fixed for the
duration of leases under articles 1682 and 1687, has expired;

(2) Lack of payment of the price stipulated;

(3) Violation of any of the conditions agreed upon in the contract;

(4) When the lessee devotes the thing leased to any use or service
not stipulated which causes the deterioration thereof; or if he does not observe
the requirement in No. 2 of article 1657, as regards the use thereof.

9
 In the case at bar, the period of the Contract of Lease is valid and has not
yet expired.

The defendant has been faithfully and diligently paying his monthly rents
to Mario, the former owner, and even to Lito, the plaintiff in the case at bar,
from the moment he was informed of the fact of transfer of ownership even
pending the validation from Mario, until Lito refused to receive his monthly
rentals hence forcing the defendant to tender the same to the account of the
former lessor Mario, since he has not yet confirmed the transfer of ownership.

The defendant, has been very vocal of his willingness to pay the monthly
rentals to Lito, which he did for five months until the latter refused to receive the
same.

That the defendant, as the lessor, never violated any of the conditions
agreed upon in the contract of lease nor did any act that would impair or destroy
the property involved and but rather has been improving the property.

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, this case is ordered dismissed

for lack of merit. Herein plaintiff is ordered to :
1. Pay Defendant P30, 000.00 as attorney’s fees and an
appearance fee of P2,000.00 for every hearing attended
by counsel; and

2. To pay defendant the amount of Php 50,000.00 by way of

Damages.

SO ORDERED.

Done in Chambers this 28th day of September 2020 at San Fernando City.
La Union.

ALONA FABON
Judge

10