G.R. No. 256851 , August 02, 2023
Spouses Marino Dagode and Julita Duero Dagode, Petitioners, vs. Elesito D. Tapao, Substituted by his children namely: Edsel L. Tapao, Emelyn T. Simpron, Elixer L. Tapao and Engelbert L. Tapao, Purita T. Anin, Marina T. Cantillas, Marites Tapao and Jesus D. Tapao, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents (the Tapao siblings) alleged they are the lawful owners of Cadastral Lot No. 6277, which they inherited from their parents. They claimed that in 1952, the ancestors of petitioners (the Dagode spouses) were temporarily allowed to reside on the property free of rent out of generosity, as they were relatives. Over time, petitioners’ descendants continued to reside on the lot. On July 31, 2009, respondents informed petitioners of their intent to use the property, but petitioners refused to vacate. Respondents thus filed an unlawful detainer case before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Naga, Cebu. Petitioners countered that there was no proof the lot they occupy is part of respondents’ land, arguing that Tax Declaration No. 033370 in respondents’ names is insufficient proof of ownership or possession and lacks a technical description, and that the allegation of tolerance is hearsay.
The MTCC dismissed the complaint, ruling the tax declaration alone was insufficient to establish respondents’ right of possession, especially absent proof of their physical possession. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTCC, noting respondents failed to present evidence of the lot’s actual location and that a mere tax declaration does not prove ownership without actual physical possession. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, ruling that prior physical possession is not indispensable in unlawful detainer, as possession is being unlawfully withheld by the occupant. The CA held the tax declaration constitutes prima facie evidence of respondents’ claim of title and right to possession, ordered petitioners to vacate, pay reasonable monthly rentals from July 31, 2009, and pay costs. The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondents have a better right of possession based on a tax declaration and allegations of tolerance, despite petitioners’ contention that the identity of the land and the fact of tolerance were not sufficiently proven.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s ruling. The Court held that the requisites for unlawful detainer were sufficiently established by respondents: (1) petitioners’ initial possession was by tolerance of respondents’ parents; (2) respondents, as heirs, became the new owners and withdrew such tolerance upon demand; (3) petitioners refused to vacate after demand; and (4) the action was filed within one year from the last demand. The Court clarified that prior physical possession by the plaintiff is not required in unlawful detainer, distinguishing it from forcible entry. The tax declaration, while not conclusive proof of ownership, is good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner and supports respondents’ claim of title. Elesito Tapao’s affidavit sufficiently established the fact of tolerance by his parents. Petitioners’ mere denial in their Answer, without substantiating their claim of ownership or presenting contrary evidence, was insufficient to overcome respondents’ evidence. Thus, respondents have a better right of possession.