REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

National Capital Judicial Region

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
CITY OF MANILA
Branch 2

ROBERT MONDRAGON AND

ROMINA MONDRAGON,
Plaintiff,

-versus- Civil Case No. 19-00003

For: Unlawful Detainer

DANI ECHIVERRI, JULIA ECHIVERRI

LEON ECHIVERRI AND CLAUDIA
ECHIVERRI,

Defendants.
x ------------------------------------------------------ x

DECISION
I. THE COMPLAINT

Complaint for unlawful detainer was filed by the plaintiffs against the
defendants on October 14, 2019, over a parcel of land covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 98765 of the Register of Deeds of the City of Manila.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Version of the Plaintiff:

Plaintiffs allege that they are the registered owners of a parcel of land
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 98765 of the Register of
Deeds of the City of Manila.

Sometime in 1994 “or even prior thereto”, Plaintiffs discovered

that the Defendants were occupying the above-described property without
the former’s consent. Plaintiffs offered to sell to the Defendants the
property, who allegedly “expressed their desire and willingness to enter
into such transaction”, but the same did not push through due to their
inaction. Thereafter, in January of 2008, Plaintiff informed the
 Defendants that should they fail to buy the property, the former would
require the latter to vacate and surrender the premises.

On 22 July 2013, Plaintiffs wrote a demand letter to the

Defendants informing the latter to vacate the premises. Despite said
demand, the Defendants still refused to vacate the premises.

Version of the Defense:

Defendants alleged that they are the present possessors of the

subject property. Defendants traced their possession of the property
from Spouses Pikey and Inday Baretto, grandparents of the Defendants,
who built a house therein sometime in 1941. With Marjorie, their only
child, Spouses has since then lived in the property.

Marjorie subsequently married Recom Echiverri and continued

living in their present address. They have seven children, including
“Dani”, “Julia”, “Leon” and “Claudia” all surnamed Echiverri, the
Defendants in this case.

Defendants further stated that they do not know the Plaintiffs

and that Certificate of Title No. 98765, which allegedly shows proof of
ownership by the Plaintiffs “do not specifically show that the property it
covers is the same as the property designated as No. 2715 Dimasalang
Street, Sampaloc, Manila”. Defendants further contended that the Tax
Declaration attached by the Plaintiffs in their pleading is located at Roxas
Boulevard.

Finally, Defendants denied receiving any demand, written or

otherwise, from the Plaintiffs to vacate the premises.

Upon filling of the complaint on October 14, 2019, corresponding

summons was given to the defendants. On October 18, 2019, the defendants
filed their answer, afterwards the case was set for preliminary conference.

On November 13, 2019 preliminary conference was conducted. At the

preliminary conference, no settlement was reached by the parties, after
preliminary conference the Court directed the parties to file their respective
position papers. In the Pre-Trial, the defendants admitted the existence and
due execution of Transfer Certificate Title No. 98765 (Exhibit “A”).

The plaintiffs in their memorandum asserted ownership over the parcel

of land located in 2715 Dimasalang Street, Sampaloc Manila covered by TCT
No. 98765 of the Registry of City of Manila. As evidence they presented Tax
Declarations, tax receipts and tax clearance. That the respondents were
occupying the above described property without their consents. Thereafter,
plaintiffs offered to sell the defendants the property, who express their desire
and willingness to enter into such transaction but the same did not push through
because of their in action.

By mere tolerance they allowed the defendants to occupy the property.

Plaintiffs informed the defendants that should they failed to buy the property,
the former would require the latter to vacate and surrender the premises.
Despite the letter of demand and repeated oral demands the defendants still
refused to pay and to vacate the land.

Defendants, in its memorandum alleged that they are the present

possessor of the parcel of land and through their grandparents they have been
in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession of the subject property.
They specifically avers that they did not receive any demand, written or
otherwise, from the plaintiffs to vacate the premises and that they do not
personally know the plaintiffs, so there could not have been any agreement as
to any transaction between the parties.

III. ISSUE/ISSUES

Whether or not the occupancy on the subject land constitute unlawful

detainer?

IV. DECISION/ARGUMENTS

Factual rendition of the instant case, revealed that Plaintiffs assert

ownership over the subject lot by virtue of the strength of their title, TCT No.
98768. While the defendants, claims physical possession over the subject lot by
virtue of open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession.

In an unlawful detainer case, the defendant's possession of a property

becomes illegal when he is demanded by the plaintiff to vacate therefrom due
to the expiration or termination of his right to possess the same under the
contract but the defendant refuses to heed such demand. Thus, the sole issue
to be resolved is who between the parties have a right to the physical or material
possession of the property involved, independently of any claim of ownership
by any of the parties.1

However, where the issue of ownership is raised by any of the parties,

the rule in Sec. 16, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court is explicit:

Section 16. Resolving defense of ownership. - When the defendant

raises the defense of ownership in his pleadings and the question of
possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the

1
G.R. No. 200969, August 03, 2015,
CONSOLACION D. ROMERO AND ROSARIO S.D. DOMINGO, v. ENGRACIA D. SINGSON.
 issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of
possession.

In other words, while only possession de facto is the issue to be

determined in an ejectment case, the issue of ownership may be tackled if raised
by any of the parties and only for the purpose of reaching a conclusion on the
issue of possession.

In the instant case, it must be noted that during the pre-trial conference,
the issue of the existence and execution of the Plaintiffs Title (TCT No. 98765)
was resolved when it was admitted by the Defendants. A Torrens Certificate is
evidence of the indefeasibility of the title to the property and the person whose
name appears therein is entitled to the possession of the property unless and
until his title is nullified. Hence, as to the issue of ownership it is well established
that the plaintiffs is the registered owner of the land also such ownership was
also corroborated by the Registrar’s Certificate (Exhibit “H”).

With regard to the issue of jurisdiction and lack of cause of action raised
by the defendants, pursuant to Section 1 of the Rules of Court, it provides:

“Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, 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, 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 or 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.”

It is settled that a complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for

unlawful detainer if it states the following:

(a) Initially, the possession of the property by the defendant was by

contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff;

(b) Eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by the plaintiff
to the defendant about the termination of the latter's right of possession;

(c) Thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and

deprived the plaintiff of its enjoyment; and
 (d) Within one year from the making of the last demand to vacate the
property on the defendant, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.2

A review of the plaintiff’s position papers, the latter was able to establish
through preponderance of evidence that they were the registered owner of the
subject lot and that the possession by the defendants were by virtue of tolerance
by the Plaintiffs. As evidence of the demand letters sent to the defendants,
copies of the Registry Return Receipt (Exhibit “B-2”) were attached to
substantiate that there is indeed demand letters that were sent to the addresses
of the defendants. By these preponderance of evidence, it is proven that there
is act of tolerance or permission to occupy the disputed property.

The Supreme Court held elucidated the concept of possession by mere

tolerance in Calubayan, et al. v. Pascual,3 thus:

x x x In allowing several years to pass without requiring the occupant to vacate

the premises nor filing action to eject him, plaintiffs have acquiesced to
defendant's possession and use of the premises. It has been held that a person
who occupies the land of another at the latter's 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 them. x x x.

xxxx

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the various notifications for
defendant to see the plaintiffs could be construed as demands upon the
defendant to vacate, the length of time that defendant detained the premises is
to be reckoned with from the date of the last demand. Plaintiffs' failure to file
an action in court shortly after defendant had ignored their previous notices is
to be considered as a waiver on their part to eject the defendant in the
meantime.

x x x.4

In the instant case, it is to be noted that the defendant in their answer to

the complaint only stated that their possession is through their grandparents
without alleging how their grandparents acquired or come into the possession
of the land.

Thus, in light of the foregoing circumstances, the prayer of the plaintiff

is given consideration because the arguments and evidence of the defendants
did not by clear and convincingly by preponderance of evidence their right of
possession to the subject lot.

2
Macaslang v. Spouses Zamora, 664 Phil. 337, 351 (2011)
3
128 Phil. 160 (1967)
4
Calubayan, et al. v. Pascual, supra, at 163-164. (Emphases supplied)
 WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs
and against defendants, ordering defendants, their heirs and assigns and all
persons acting in their behalves to vacate the premises and to surrender
possession thereof to the plaintiff.

December 15, 2019, Pasay City, Philippines.

SO ORDERED.

Hon. Primo A. Ramos III

Presiding Judge
MeTC – PASAY
Branch 2