Case no.

85
Suarez vs. Emboy, G.R. No. 187944, March 12, 2014

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 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. 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.

Hence, the complaint should not have been for unlawful detainer and the CA did not commit an
error in dismissing Carmencita's complaint.