A land owner cannot use force to eject the occupant of his property. He cannot take the law into his own hands. The law requires him to file a proper action in court to recover possession [Article 433, new Civil Code]. This is so because every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession [Article 539, new Civil Code].
The owner has three legal remedies to get possession of his property: action to vindicate ownership [accion de reinvindicatoria]; action with notice to the public [accion publiciana]; and action for ejectment [accion interdictal] either for unlawful detainer [when possession is based on contract] or forcible entry [if possession was taken by force or fraud].
The first action seeks the recovery of both ownership and possession. The second seeks to recover the right to possess when dispossession lasted for more than one year. The third seeks to recover physical or actual possession to be filed within one year from dispossession.
The legal procedure is also different. The first and second actions is governed by the ordinary procedure such that the decision rendered can only be executed [implemented] after it becomes final. That is, when appeals are exhausted. The third action is governed by summary procedure such that the decision is generally immediately executory.
The fact that the owner filed a court case does not automatically follow that he will win. This is because the legal process that the owner takes must be the proper one.
There are technicalities that even some lawyers made mistakes in choosing the correct course of action and some judges made a wrong decision. A good example is the case of Nabo v. Buenviaje, G.R. No. 224906 dated 07 October 2020. In 2012, Buenviaje filed an ejectment suit based on the expiration of tolerated possession.
In the Complaint, he alleged that when the land title was issued in his name in 2004, he tolerated the possession of Nabo on his property being his niece. But, he withdrew the authority given when he sent demand letter to vacate.
In her Answer, Nabo alleged that she resided since 1950 and acquired the property in 1983.
In 2013, the Municipal Trial Court [MTC] dismissed the complaint for ejectment and denied Buenviaje’s argument that he can file an ejectment suit since a titled owner carries the right to possession.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court [RTC] reversed the MTC Decision. Nabo appealed, but the Court of Appeals [CA] affirmed the RTC Decision.
The Supreme Court ruled that a complaint for unlawful detainer is proper if it is proven that [1] possession of the property was based on a contract or by tolerance of owner, [2] possession became illegal when notice of termination is sent, [3] but the occupant continues to remain in possession depriving the owner of the enjoyment of his property and [4] the suit is filed within one year from date of last demand letter. However, Buenviaje failed to prove the possession by tolerance.
A bare allegation of tolerance will not suffice. An unlawful detainer suit must state the period when the occupation by tolerance started and the acts of tolerance.
The CA erred in ruling that Buenviaje’s suit is one for unlawful detainer and that the requisites were duly met. It is also wrong for the CA to grant possession of the subject property to Buenviaje, as a matter of right, mainly since the land title was in his name.
Well-settled is the rule that a titled owner is entitled to possession. But, an ejectment case will not necessarily be decided in favor of one who has presented proof of ownership.
Key jurisdictional facts as above stated must be alleged and proven. It is an elementary principle of civil law that the owner of real property is entitled to the possession thereof as an attribute of his ownership. But, he cannot simply wrest possession from whoever is in actual occupation of the property.
” Rather, to recover possession, the owner must first resort to the proper judicial remedy. Regardless of the title, one in possession shall not be thrown out by violence or terror. Neither is unlawful withholding of property allowed. Courts will always uphold respect for prior possession but, it does not mean that the Court favors the occupant of the property over the person claiming ownership, but rather, this ruling only emphasizes an important fact that even a legal owner of the property cannot simply oust a party who is in peaceable possession thereof through a summary action for ejectment, without proving essential requisites of the action.
It must be proven that possession of the occupant is premised on his permission or tolerance, otherwise the owner must pursue legal remedies other than the summary action for ejectment.
