Proclamation No. 518 (Proc.

518) excluded from the

operation of Proc. 423 – which established the military
reservation known as Fort Bonifacio situated in the then
municipalities of Pasig, Taguig, Pateros and Parañaque,
Province of Rizal and Pasay City – certain portions in said
reservation known and identified as Barangays Cembo,
South Cembo, West Rembo, East Rembo, Comembo,
Pembo, and Pitogo, situated in Makati, and declared the
sameopen for disposition in accordance with Republic Act ISSUE: WON the findings of facts by the denr in resolving conflicting
(RA) No. 274, and RA 730 in relation to the provisions of claims as to who has a better right of possession between petitioners and
Commonwealth Act No. 141. respondent over subject parcels of lot be nullified by the court under an
ejectment case
On May 11, 2004, respondent filed an ejectment case
#19 against Mauricio and the latter’s wife, Leoniladela Cruz
SPOUSES MAURICIO M. TABINO and (petitioners) with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati PERFECTION OF AN APPEAL
LEONILA DELA CRUZ- (MeTC).
TABINO, Petitioners, Effect of the Perfection of an Appeal
vs. The ejectment case is based on the theory that respondent
LAZARO M. TABINO, Respondent. is the true and sole owner of the 353-square meter lot; that (1)The Regional Trial Court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the
he used Mauricio only for the purpose of circumventing the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time
G.R. No. 196219 300-square meter limit set by Proc. 518 by asking the latter to appeal of the other parties.
to apply for the purchase of a portion of the lot after
July 30, 2014 subdividing the same into two smaller lots; that Mauricio’s (2)The appeal shall stay the judgment or final order unless the Court of
stay in the premises is merelyby tolerance of respondent; Appeals, the law, or these Rules shall provide otherwise
DEL CASTILLO that petitioners introduced permanent structures on the .
land; and that petitioners refused to vacate the premises As a general rule, an ejectment suit cannot be abated or suspended by
upon respondent’s formal demand. Respondent thus the mere filing before the regional trial court (R TC) of another action
prayed that petitioners be ordered to vacate Lots2 and 3 raising ownership of the property as an issue. As an exception, however,
and to pay the former rentals, attorney’s fees, and costs of unlawful detainer actions may be suspended even on appeal, on
suit. considerations of equity, such as when the demolition of petitioners'
house would result from the enforcement of the municipal circuit trial
MeTC: ruled in favour of the petitioners court (MCTC) judgement
The only issue to be resolved in this action to recover
possession of the subject property is the question on who is
entitled to the physical or material possession of the
premises. In ejectment cases, the word "possession" means
nothing more than physical possession, not legal possession,
in the sense contemplated in civil law.

RTC: affirmed MeTC’s decision in toto.


#20
RUBEN MANALANG, CARLOS
MANALANG, CONCEPCION GONZALES
AND LUIS MANALANG, Petitioners,
vs.
BIENVENIDO AND MERCEDES
BACANI, Respondents.
G.R. No. 156995
January 12, 2015
BERSAMIN
CA: Assailed RTC’s decision
In reversing the trial court, the CA held that the 1994
affidavit – which petitioners do not dispute – should be
taken as an admission by Mauricio that he was merely
appointed by respondent as the caretaker of Lot 2, and that
respondent is the true possessor and owner thereof. This
being the case, petitioners occupy the premises by mere
tolerance of respondent, and are bound to the implied
promise that they shall vacate the same upon demand.
. Petitioners were the co-owners of Lot No 4236 with an area
of 914 square meters of the Guagua Cadastre, and declared
for taxation purposes in the name of Tomasa B. Garcia. The
land was covered by approved survey plan Ap-03-004154. ISSUE: Was an action for unlawful detainer proper? NO
Adjacent to Lot 4236 was the respondents’ Lot No. 4235
covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. N-216701. RTC’s DECISION SHOULD BE BASED ON THE ENTIRE RECORD AND
THE PARTIES’ MEMORANDA.
The petitioners caused the relocation and verification survey
of Lot 4236 and the adjoining lots, and the result showed The judgment or final order shall be appealable to the appropriate
that the respondents had encroached on Lot No. 4236 to Regional Trial Court which shall decide the same on the basis of the
the extent of 405 square meters. A preliminary relocation entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such
survey conducted by the Lands Management Section of the memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or
DENR confirmed the result on the encroachment. When the required by the Regional Trial Court.
respondents refused to vacate the encroached portion and
to surrender peaceful possession thereof despite demands, The RTC violated the foregoing rule by ordering the conduct of the
the petitioners commenced this action for unlawful detainer relocation and verification survey “in aid of its appellate jurisdiction” and
in the MTC. by hearing the testimony of the surveyor, for its doing so was
tantamount to its holding of a trial de novo. The violation was accented
MTC dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. by the fact that the RTC ultimately decided the appeal based on the
RTC reversed the decision of the MTC and remanded case survey and the surveyor’s testimony instead of the record of the
on appeal. MTC ultimately dismissed case. proceedings had in the court of origin.
RTC ordered the petitioners to conduct a relocation survey
to determine their allegation of encroachment, and also CA correctly held that a boundary dispute must be resolved in the
heard the testimony of the surveyor. context of accion reivindicatoria, not an ejectment case. The boundary
The RTC then reversed the MTC’s decision. dispute is not about possession, but encroachment, that is, whether the
CA reversed RTC’s decision. property claimed by the defendant formed part of the plaintiff’s property.
A boundary dispute cannot be settled summarily under Rule 70 of the
The petitioners contend that the case, because it involved Rules of Court, the proceedings under which are limited to unlawful
encroachment into another’s property, qualified as an detainer and forcible entry.
ejectment case that was within the jurisdiction of the MTC

#21 Fairland alleged it was the owner of a condominium unit in ISSUES: (1) Whether or not Fairland’s complaint sufficiently alleges a cause
Cedar Mansion II in Pasig City. The said unit was leased by of action for unlawful detainer – Yes.
FAIRLAND KNITCRAFT Fairland to Po by verbal agreement, with a rental fee of
CORPORATION, Petitioner, P20,000 a month.
vs. Po continuously failed to pay rent. Thus, Fairland opted not
ARTURO LOO PO, Respondent. to renew the lease agreement anymore.
Fairland sent a formal letter to Po demanding he pay
G.R. No. 217694 P220,000, representing the rental arrears, and that he vacate
the leased premises within 15 days from receipt of the letter.
Despite receipt and the lapse of the said 15-day period, Po
January 27, 2016 neither tendered payment nor vacated the premises. Thus,
Fairland filed the complaint for unlawful detainer before the
MENDOZA MeTC.
Po failed to file an answer within the reglementary period
(within 10 days from service of summons). Thus, Fairland
filed a motion to render judgment and the MeTC
considered the case submitted for decision.
The MeTC dismissed the complaint for lack of merit due to
Fairland’s failure to prove its claim by preponderance of
evidence.
Fairland appealed, claiming that an unlawful detainer case
was a special civil action governed by summary procedure.
Thus, in cases where a defendant failed to file his answer,
judgment should be based on the facts alleged in the
complaint, and there was no requirement that judgment
must be based on facts proved by preponderance of
evidence.
The RTC and CA affirmed. Hence, this petition.
The present controversy stemmed from a complaint4 for
#22 Ejectment with Damages/Unlawful Detainer filed on
December 24, 2008 by petitioner Amada Zacarias thru her
son and attorney-in-fact, Cesar C. Zacarias, against the
AMADA C. ZACARIAS, Petitioner, above-named respondents, Victoria Anacay and members
vs. of her household. Said respondents are the occupants of a
VICTORIA ANACAY, EDNA ANACAY, et parcel of land with 769 square meters, situated at Silang,
al Respondents. Cavite.
G.R. No. 202354 MCTC: MCTC rendered a Decision dismissing the
complaint.
September 24, 2014
Allegations of the complaint failed to state the
essential elements of an action for unlawful detainer as
VILLARAMA, JR the claim that petitioner had permitted or tolerated
respondents’ occupation of the subject property was
(2) Whether or not the MeTC correctly rendered judgment, upon Po’s
failure to file an answer on time, based solely on the complaint without the
need to consider the weight of evidence – Yes.
WHO MAY INSTITUE PROCEEDINGS
Stated differently, unlawful detainer is a summary action for the recovery
of possession of real property. This action may be filed by a lessor,
vendor, vendee, or other person from 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. The possession of the defendant was originally legal,
as his possession was permitted by the plaintiff on account of an express
or implied contract between them. The defendant’s possession, however,
became illegal when the plaintiff demanded that the defendant vacate
the subject property due to the expiration or termination of the right to
possess under the contract, and the defendant refused to heed such
demand. A case for unlawful detainer must be instituted one year from
the unlawful withholding of possession.
ISSUE: Whether or not CA erred and committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack and/or excess of jurisdiction in nullifying the
judgment of the RTC which has long become final and executory. NO
FAILURE TO ALLEGE HOW AND WHEN ENTRY WAS EFFECTED:
EFFECT
The MCTC held that the allegations of the complaint failed to state the
essential elements of an action for unlawful detainer as the claim that
petitioner had permitted or tolerated respondents’ occupation of the
subject property was unsubstantiated.
The complaint in this case is defective as it failed to allege how and when
entry was effected. The bare allegation of petitioner xxx as correctly
found by the MCTC and CA, would show that respondents entered the
land and built their houses thereon clandestinely and without petitioner's
 unsubstantiated. It noted that the averments in the consent, which facts are constitutive of forcible entry, not unlawful
demand letter sent by petitioner’s counsel that detainer. Consequently, the MCTC has no jurisdiction over the case..
respondents entered the property through stealth and
strategy, and in petitioner’s own "Sinumpaang
Salaysay", are more consistent with an action for
forcible entry which should have been filed within one
year from the discovery of the alleged entry. Since
petitioner was deprived of the physical possession of
her property through illegal means and the complaint
was filed after the lapse of one year from her discovery
thereof, the MCTC ruled that it has no jurisdiction over
the case.

RTC: In reversing the MCTC, the RTC pointed out that in

her complaint, petitioner did not state that respondents
entered her property through stealth and strategy but that
petitioner was in lawful possession and acceded to the
request of respondents to stay in the premises until May
2008 but respondents’ reneged on their promise to vacate
the property by that time. It held that the suit is one for
unlawful detainer because the respondents unlawfully
withheld the property from petitioner after she allowed
them to stay there for one year.

CA: CA held that the MCTC clearly had no jurisdiction over

the case as the complaint did not satisfy the jurisdictional
requirement of a valid cause for unlawful detainer. Since
the prescriptive period for filing an action for forcible entry
has lapsed, petitioner could not convert her action into
one for unlawful detainer, reckoning the one-year period
to file her action from the time of her demand for
respondents to vacate the property.

Further, the CA said that while petitioner has shown that

she is the lawful possessor of the subject property, she
availed of the wrong remedy to recover possession but
nevertheless may still file an accion publiciana or accion
reivindicatoria with the proper regional trial court.

Petitioners alleged that their mother, Rufina Vda. de ISSUE: Whether or not the cause of action is one for unlawful detainer
#23
Catacutan, who died on November 17, 2005, had acquired and not for forcible entry. NO
a parcel of land in Mapanique, Candaba, Pampanga,
MILAGROS DIAZ, EDUARDO Q.
CATACUTAN, DANTE Q. CATACUTAN,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR COMMON
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, FERNANDO Q.
CATACUTAN, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES
GAUDENCIO PUNZALAN AND TERESITA
PUNZALAN, Respondents.
G.R. No. 203075
March 16, 2016
PERALTA
#24
BALIBAGO FAITH BAPTIST CHURCH,
INC. AND PHILIPPINE BAPTIST S.B.C.,
INC., Petitioners, v. FAITH IN CHRIST
JESUS BAPTIST CHURCH, INC. AND
REYNALDO GALVAN, Respondent.
G.R. No. 191527
consisting of 3,272 square meters. They contend that
respondents spouses Gaudencio and Teresita Punzalan
(Spouses Punzalan) constructed their house on a portion of
said lot without their consent and knowledge. But
petitioners allowed them to stay, thinking that they would
vacate once their need for the property arises. However,
when they made a demand, the Spouses Punzalan refused
to vacate. Thus; on April 9, 2008, petitioners wrote the
spouses a formal demand letter to vacate. Still, they
refused to leave the property.
Petitioners filed a Complaint for unlawful detainer with the
MCTC.
MCTC: rendered a Decision in favor of the plaintiffs.
RTC: AFFIRMS it in toto.
Aggrieved, the Spouses Punzalan elevated the case to the
CA.
CA reversed the RTC.
Hence, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but
the same was denied. Thus, the present petition.
Petitioners insist that their complaint states a cause of
action for unlawful detainer and thus, the MCTC duly
acquired jurisdiction.
The instant petition originated from a Complaint2 for
unlawful detainer and damages filed by Balibago Faith
Baptist Church, Inc. (BFBC) and Philippine Baptist S.B.C.,
Inc. (PBSBC) against Faith in Christ Jesus Baptist Church,
Inc. (FCJBC) and Reynaldo Galvan (Galvan) before the MTC.
While BFBC was still in possession of the subject property,
Galvan and his companions began attending BFBC's
religious activities at the subject property. BFBC alleged
that Galvan apparently was interested on the property
because after some time Galvan formed and incorporated
FCJBC and took control of the subject property.
WRONG REMEDY: CASE DISMISSED
The Court finds that the allegations actually make up a case of forcible
entry. The Spouses Punzalan constructed their dwelling house on a
portion of petitioners' lot, without the latter's prior consent and
knowledge. This clearly falls under stealth, which is defined as any secret,
sly or clandestine act to avoid discovery and to gain entrance into, or to
remain within residence of another without permission. Here, the
evidence clearly reveal that the spouses' possession was illegal at the
inception and not merely tolerated, considering that they started to
occupy the subject lot and thereafter built a house on the same without
the permission and consent of petitioners. The spouses' entry into the
land was, therefore, effected clandestinely, without the knowledge of the
owners. Consequently, it is categorized as possession by stealth which is
forcible entry.
ISSUE: Whether the instant case is one of unlawful detainer or forcible
entry.
DISTINGUISH UD and FE
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer are two distinct causes of action. In
forcible entry, one is deprived of physical possession of any land or
building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. In
unlawful detainer, one unlawfully withholds possession thereof after the
expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any
contract, express or implied. In forcible entry, the possession is illegal
from the beginning and the only issue is who has the prior possession de
August 22, 2016 FCJBC continued to occupy the subject property, thus, in a
Demand Letter5 BFBC demanded that FCJBC vacate the
PERALTA property.
Due to non-compliance with its demand, BFBC and PBSBC
filed a Complaint6 for unlawful detainer and damages
against FCJBC and Galvan.
In its Answer, FCJBC and Galvan contend that it has been
in existence since 1984. Allegedly, it was formerly known as
"Faith Baptist Church" (FBC). In 1990, some of the
members of the FBC availed of the loan for the purpose of
purchasing the subject property. This was embodied in a
Contract of Simple Loan or Mutuum.
Meanwhile, FBC continued to occupy the subject property
and, organized themselves into FCJBC.
facto. In unlawful detainer, possession was originally lawful but became
unlawful by the expiration or termination of the right to possess and the
issue of rightful possession is the one decisive, for in such action, the
defendant is the party in actual possession and the plaintiffs cause of
action is the termination of the defendant's right to continue in
possession.
(a) action to recover possession founded on illegal occupation from the
beginning - forcible entry; and (b) action founded on unlawful detention
by a person who originally acquired possession lawfully - unlawful
detainer.
This case would have to fall under the concept of forcible entry as it has
been long settled that in forcible entry cases, no force is really necessary.
The act of going on the property and excluding the lawful possessor
therefrom necessarily implies the exertion of force over the property, and
this is all that is necessary

FCJBC alleged that since June 2001, they were willing and
able to pay the installments due on the subject property,
however, PBSBC refused to accept any payment from it.

FCJBC further averred that, prior to BFBC's filing of the

present complaint, a Petition for Consignation of Payment
was already filed.

MTC rendered its Decision7 in favor of respondent BFBC.

The MTC ruled that the case was one of forcible entry and
not unlawful detainer.

Both parties filed their respective appeal memoranda with

the RTC.

RTC: affirmed the Decision of the MTC.

FCJBC moved for reconsideration, but was denied on

November 24, 2006. Thus, FCJBC filed a petition for review
on certiorari before the appellate court.

CA: granted the petition.

Undaunted, BFBC and PBSBC filed the instant petition for

 review on certiorari.

Eddie and Verona Juana Pascua-Dizon (Verona)

(collectively, the Spouses Dizon) got married on March 8,
1995.[7] Verona was a housewife.[8] She and her mother,
together with Bryan and James, resided in the house erected
on a 240-square-meter lot (disputed property) at No. 42
Mahogany Street, Nova Tierra Subdivision, Lanang, Davao
City.[9] The disputed property was covered by Transfer ISSUE: (1)WON MTCC should have dismisses Vida’s complaint for unlawful
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-351707.[10] issued in 2002. detainer for lack of basis as the Deed she relied upon is falsified and void.
The registered owners were "[Verona], married to [Eddie]." Yes

#25
EDDIE E. DIZON and BRYAN R.
DIZON, Petitioners,
vs.
YOLANDA VIDA P. BELTRAN,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 221071
January 18, 2017
REYES
In 2008, Verona filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Davao City a petition for the issuance of Temporary and
Permanent Protection Orders against Eddie and James.[11]
It took a while before Eddie's employer finally permitted him
to go home. Verona was already buried before Eddie's
arrival on December 21, 2009
Thereafter, a copy of a Deed of Absolute Sale (Deed),[18]
dated December 1, 2009, was shown to Eddie. Its subject
was the disputed property conveyed to herein respondent,
Yolanda Vida P. Beltran (Vida), for P1,500,000.00. Eddie
alleged that the Deed was falsified, and his and Verona's
signatures thereat were forgeries.
In January of 2010, Eddie filed two complaints against Vida.
One was a civil case for nullification of the Deed, and for
payment of damages and attorney's fees. The other was a
criminal complaint for falsification of public document.[22]
He also caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens
upon TCT No. T-351707.[23]
On April 6, 2010, TCT No. T-351707 was cancelled, and in its
place, TCT No. T-146-2010002236 was issued in Vida's
name.[24] Eddie belatedly discovered about the foregoing
fact sometime in May 2010 after Davao Light and Power
Company cut off the electrical connection purportedly upon
the advice of the new owner of the disputed property.[25]
(2) WON CA erred in not upholding the RTC’s ruling that the latter take
cognizance of the issue of ownership in an unlawful detainer case. Yes
DECISION AS TO OWNERSHIP
Insofar as a person who fraudulently obtained a property is concerned,
the registration of the property in said person's name would not be
sufficient to vest in him or her the title to the property. The legal
principle is that if the registration of the land is fraudulent, the
person in whose name the land is registered holds it as a mere
trustee.
Since respondent acquired no right over the subject property, the same
remained in the name of the original registered owners. As such,
petitioners may exercise all attributes of ownership over the same,
including possession - whether de facto or dejure; respondent thus has
no right to exclude them from this right through an action for ejectment.
With the Court's determination that respondent's title is null and void,
the matter of direct or collateral attack is a foregone conclusion as well.
"An action to declare the nullity of a void title does not prescribe and is
susceptible to direct, as well as to collateral, attack;" petitioners were not
precluded from questioning the validity of respondent's title in the
ejectment case.

#26
TERESITA BUGAYONG-SANTIAGO,
EARL EUGENE SANTIAGO, EDWARD
SANTIAGO, and EDGARDO SANTIAGO,
JR, Petitioners
vs.
TEOFILO BUGAYONG, Respondent
In June of 2010, Vida filed before the Municipal Trial Court
in Cities (MTCC) of Davao City an action for unlawful
detainer against the petitioners, James and their unnamed
relatives, house helpers and acquaintances residing in the
disputed property.[27]Vida alleged that she is the registered
owner of the disputed property. While the Deed evidencing
the conveyance in her favor was executed on December 1,
2009, Eddie pre-signed the same on April 9, 2008 before he
left to work :abroad. The Spouses Dizon's respective lawyers
witnessed the signing. After Verona's death, Vida tolerated
the petitioners' stay in the disputed property. On May 18,
2010, Vida sent a formal letter requiring the petitioners to
vacate the disputed property, but to no avail.[28]
On November 11, 2011, the MTCC rendered a Decision[30]
directing the petitioners and their co-defendants to turn
over to Vida the possession of the disputed property, and
pay P1,000.00 monthly rent from July 12, 2010 until the said
property is vacated, P20,000.00 as attorney's fees and cost
of suit. Vida was, however, ordered to pay therein
defendants P414,459.78 as remaining balance relative to the
sale.[31]
The petitioners filed an appea1[33] before the RTC. During
its pendency, Vida filed a motion for the issuance of a writ
of execution. On June 13, 2012, the RTC reversed the MTCC
ruling, dismissed the complaint for unlawful detainer and
denied Vida's motion for the issuance of a writ of execution
Vida assailed the foregoing via a petition for review, which
the CA granted in the herein assailed decision and
resolution.
Petitioners, Teresita, and her deceased husband, Edgardo,
purchase a 169 sq meters lot with a commercial building
constructed upon it from the late parents of Teresita. Her Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the decision of the RTC
co-petitioners, Earl Eugene, and Edward are petitioners’ which dismissed the unlawful detainer case against respondent. NO
children. Respondent, Teofilo, on the other hand, is the
brother of Teresita.
Held: The Rules are clear that if the entry into the property is
illegal, the action which may be filed against the intruder is forcible
 Petitioners alleged that respondent unlawfully entered the
G.R. No. 220389 disputed property without their knowledge and consent.
December 6, 2017 According to petitioners, he has been staying in the
property without paying lease rentals. Respondent refused
CARPIO to vacate the property when he was requested to through a
demand letter.
Respondent answered that he is one of the co-owners of
the property as he is a forced heir being petitioner’s brother
to the disputed property which was owned by their parents.
That he is the one paying its real property taxes. He also
contended that he had been in actual possession and
enjoyment of the subject property long before the
execution of the assailed Deed of Absolute Sale between his
parents and Teresita and Edgardo.
MCTC: Thus, petitioners filed a Complaint for Unlawful
Detainer dated 15 March 2008 with the MCTC which ruled
in their favor and ordered respondent to vacate the
premises.
RTC: Teofilo filed an appeal with the RTC. Teofilo averred
that petitioners had failed to establish a cause of action for
unlawful detainer against him such that the MCTC had no
jurisdiction over the complaint.
In a Decision dated 11 December 2009, the RTC reversed
the decision of the MCTC. The RTC stated that tolerance
must be present right from the start of possession to bring
the action within the ambit of unlawful detainer. In this case,
there was forcible entry at the beginning and tolerance
thereafter; thus, there can be no basis for the action for
unlawful detainer.
The RTC declared that the remedy of the petitioners was
either accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria.
CA: Petitioners filed a petition for review with the CA. In a
Decision dated 29 September 2014, the CA denied the
petition for lack of merit.
entry and this action must be brought within one (1) year from the
illegal entry. But if the entry is originally legal then became illegal due
to the expiration or termination of the right to possess, an unlawful
detainer case may be brought within one (1) year from the date of the
last demand. This action will only prosper in a case where the plaintiff
allows the defendant to use the property by tolerance without any
contract, and the defendant is necessarily bound by an implied
promise that he will vacate on demand.
However, based on the records, petitioners claimed that respondent
entered the property "without their knowledge and consent" on one hand,
and by mere "tolerance" on the other. It can be concluded then that
respondent occupied the subject property without petitioners' knowledge
and consent and thereafter petitioners tolerated respondent's stay in the
property for many years. Thus, there was illegal entry into the property at
the start.
As correctly observed by the RTC, since there was forcible entry at the
beginning and tolerance thereafter, an action for unlawful detainer cannot
prosper since a requisite for an action for unlawful detainer is that the
possession was originally lawful, but turned unlawful only upon the
expiration of the right to possess. In Spouses Valdez v. Court of Appeals, we
held that to justify an action for unlawful detainer, it is essential that the
plaintiffs supposed act of tolerance must have been present right from the
start of the possession which is later 'sought to be recovered. Otherwise, if
the possession was unlawful at the start, an action for unlawful detainer
would be an improper remedy.
The complaint was not clear on how entry into the subject property was
effected and how or when dispossession started. The complaint merely
states that "since 2002, plaintiff Teresita B. Santiago and her late husband
have been tolerating the stay and occupation of the defendant, brother of
plaintiff Teresita B. Santiago, over the two-third (2/3) eastern portion of
the lot and portion of the commercial house thereon, without paying [any]
lease rental."However, in succeeding, pleadings, petitioners insisted that
respondent entered the property without their knowledge and consent.
Also, no contract, whether express or implied, existed between the parties
and there were no other details submitted 'or evidence presented by
petitioners to show how respondent exactly entered the property and
when petitioners were dispossessed of such.
Hence, the instant petition .

Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the decision

of the RTC which dismissed the unlawful detainer case
against respondent. NO