Suarez v. Emboy, G.R. No.

187944 (March 12, 2014) Case Digest

Ownership > Ownership in General > Recovery of Possession and/or Ownership > Actions Available to
Owner > Recovery of Real Property > Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

Facts:

A parcel of land was partitioned into 5 among the heirs of the Carlos and Asuncion. Lot No. 1907-A-2
was occupied by Felix and Marilou Emboy, who were claiming that they inherited it from their mother
Claudia Emboy, who inherited it from her parents Carlos and Asuncion.

Felix and Marilou were asked by their cousins to vacate Lot No. 1907-A-2 and transfer to Lot No. 1907-
A-5. They refused to comply and insisted that Claudia's inheritance pertained to Lot No. 1907-A-2.

In 2004, Felix and Marilou received a demand letter from Carmencita requiring them to vacate the lot and
informed them that she had already purchased the lot from the former's relatives. Felix and Marilou did
not heed the demand so Carmencita filed before the MTCC a complaint against unlawful detainer against
them.

Felix and Marilou argued that the complaint for unlawful detainer was fundamentally inadequate. There
was practically no specific allegation as to when and how possession by tolerance of them began.

Issue:

Whether or not the complaint for unlawful detainer was inadequate.

Held:

In a complaint for unlawful detainer, the following requisites must be alleged:

(1) initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;

(2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the termination of
the latters 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 year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the
complaint for ejectment.

In ejectment cases, it is necessary that the complaint must sufficiently show a statement of facts to
determine the class of case and remedies available to the parties. When the complaint fails to state the
facts constituting a forcible entry or unlawful detainer, as where it does not state how entry was effected
or how the dispossession started, the remedy should either be an accion publiciana or accion
reinvidicatoria.

In this case, the first requisite was absent. Carmencita failed to clearly allege and prove how Emboy
entered the lot and constructed a house upon it. She was also silent about the details on who specifically
permitted Emboy to occupy the lot, and how and when such tolerance came about.
Hence, the complaint should not have been for unlawful detainer and the CA did not commit an error in
dismissing Carmencita's complaint.
Posted 8th July 2016 by AJ Solbrilla