CORAZON D.

SARMIENTA, JOSE DERAMA, CATES RAMA, JOSIE MIWA, TOTO NOLASCO, JESUS OLIQUINO, NORBERTO LOPEZ, RUBEN ESPOSO, BERNARDO FLORESCA, MARINA DIMATALO, ROBLE DIMANDAKO, RICARDO PEA, EDUARDO ESPINO, ANTONIO GALLEGOS, VICTOR SANDOVAL, FELICITAS ABRANTES, MERCY CRUZ, ROSENDO ORGANO, RICKY BARENO, ANITA TAKSAGON, JOSIE RAMA and PABLO DIMANDAKO, Petitioners, vs. MANALITE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (MAHA), Respondent. G.R. No. 182953 October 11, 2010 FACTS: Respondent Manalite Homeowners Association, Inc. (MAHA) was the registered owner of the lot in dispute which was placed under community mortgage program (CMP). Through force, intimidation, threat, strategy and stealth, petitioners entered the premises and constructed their temporary houses and an office building. Sometime in 1992, petitioners sought for the annulment of respondents title but it was dismissed by the RTC. Upon dismissal, respondent demanded petitioners to vacate the premises. Petitioners asked for a one-year extension for them to look for a place to transfer. However, it was repeatedly extended due to respondents tolerance. Petitioners even propose to become members of MAHA so that they can be qualified to acquire portions of the lot but they failed to comply with the requirements despite repeated demands. MAHA then sent formal demand letters to petitioners to vacate the lot. Unheeded, MAHA filed the complaint for "Forcible Entry/Unlawful Detainer." In their answer, petitioners averred that they are the owners of the subject lot, having been in actual physical possession thereof for more than thirty (30) years before MAHA intruded into the land. They likewise argued that the complaint was irregular and defective because its caption states that it was for "Forcible Entry/Unlawful Detainer." The MTCC dismissed the case for lack of cause of action for failure by the respondent to prove prior physical possession which is required in a complaint for forcible entry. On appeal, RTC reversed the MTCC decision stating that MAHA was able to prove by preponderance of evidence that petitioners occupation was by mere tolerance and their occupation became illegal after MAHA demanded that they vacate the property. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC ruling that the cause of action was an unlawful detainer case. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners have a superior right of possession over the property in question. HELD: No. The evidence proves that after MAHA acquired the property, MAHA tolerated petitioners stay and gave them the option to acquire portions of the property by becoming members of MAHA. But when they failed to fulfill their obligations, MAHA had the right to demand for them to vacate the property as their right of possession had already expired or had been terminated. Well settled is the rule that a person who occupies the land of another at the latters tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing which, a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against him which in the present case is an unlawful detainer case.