Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Cause of Action Unlawful Detainer

In Cabrera v. Getaruela, 604 Phil. 59, 66 (2009), the Court held that a complaint sufficiently
alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it recites the following:

(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 latter’s 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. 16

Tolerance must be present from the start of the possession

To justify an action for unlawful detainer, it is essential that the plaintiff’s supposed acts 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 from the start, an action for unlawful detainer would be an
improper remedy. [Valdez v. Court of Appeals, 523 Phil. 39, 46 (2006).]

A requisite for a valid cause of action in an unlawful detainer case is that possession must be
originally lawful, and such possession must have turned unlawful only upon the expiration of
the right to possess. It must be shown that the possession was initially lawful; hence, the basis of
such lawful possession must be established. If, as in this case, the claim is that such possession is
by mere tolerance of the plaintiff, the acts of tolerance must be proved. [Carbonilla v. Abiera, 639
Phil. 473 (2010)]

Burden of Proof on Tolerance


Petitioner failed to prove that respondents' possession was based on his alleged tolerance.  He did1âwphi1

not offer any evidence or even only an affidavit of the Garcianos attesting that they tolerated
respondents' entry to and occupation of the subject properties. A bare allegation of tolerance will not
suffice. Plaintiff must, at least, show overt acts indicative of his or his predecessor's permission to
occupy the subject property . . . .

In addition, plaintiff must also show that the supposed acts of tolerance have been present right from
the very start of the possession - from entry to the property. Otherwise, if the possession was
unlawful from the start, an action for unlawful detainer would be an improper remedy. Notably, no
mention was made in the complaint of how entry by respondents was effected or how and when
dispossession started. Neither was there any evidence showing such details.

In any event, petitioner has some other recourse. He may pursue recovering possession of his
property by filing an accion publiciana, which is a plenary action intended to recover the better right
to possess; or an accion reivindicatoria, a suit to recover ownership of real property. We stress,
however, that the pronouncement in this case as to the ownership of the land should be regarded as
merely provisional and, therefore, would not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties
involving title to the land.  [Carbonilla v. Abiera, 639 Phil. 473 (2010)]
78

Unlawful Detainer Cause of Action

In unlawful detainer, the complaint must allege the cause of action according to
the manner set forth in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, to wit:

Section 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when. – 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 or building is
unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the rightto hold
possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal
representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, 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.

The complaint must further allege the plaintiff’s compliance with the
jurisdictional requirement of demand as prescribed by Section 2, Rule 70 of
the Rules of Court, viz:

Section 2. Lessor to proceed against lessee only after demand. — Unless


otherwise stipulated, such action by the lessor shall be commenced only after
demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate is
made upon the lessee, or by serving written notice of such demand upon the
person found on the premises, or by posting such notice on the premises if no
person be found thereon, and the lessee fails to comply therewith after fifteen
(15) days in the case of land or five (5) days in the case of buildings.

For the action to come under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC,
therefore, the complaint must allege that: (a) the defendant originally had lawful
possession of the property, either by virtue of a contract or by tolerance of the
plaintiff; (b) the defendant’s possession of the property eventually became
illegal or unlawful upon notice by the plaintiff to the defendant of the
expiration or the termination of the defendant’s right of possession; (c) the
defendant thereafter remained in possession of the property and thereby
deprived the plaintiff the enjoyment thereof; and (d) the plaintiff instituted the
action within one year from the unlawful deprivation or withholding of
possession.
One year period

Cabrera v. Getaruela, 604 Phil. 59, 66 (2009).

the Court held that a complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it recites the
following:

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

(2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the termination
ofthe latter’s 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.