1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
the tolerance was deemed withdrawn and the former's continued stay on the property made them
deforciants unlawfully withholding possession from respondent.11
The MeTC ordered petitioners to vacate the subject lots and to pay P1,000.00 per month from
May 2008 until the subject property is vacated, as well as P5,000.00 as attorneys' fees and the costs of
suit.12
Aggrieved, petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 70 (RTC).13
Ruling of the RTC
In a Joint Decision dated February 13, 201314 the RTC dismissed the appeal for utter lack of
merit. (NOTE: There is no RTC decision appended to the Petition)
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the RTC.15
Undeterred, petitioners elevated the case to the CA via Petition for Review under Rule 42.
Ruling of the CA
In a Decision16 dated September 8, 2014, the CA affirmed the RTC decision. It ruled that the
action filed by respondent was one for unlawful detainer and the complaint contained sufficient
allegations for a cause of action. It further declared that inasmuch as petitioners' possession of the
subject lots was by mere tolerance, they cannot be considered as builders in good faith.
Dissatisfied, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA, however, denied in a
Resolution17 dated January 21, 2015.
ISSUES: 1) Whether respondent has a valid cause of action; 2) whether Salvacion Poras has authority
to lodge the complaint for ejectment and 3) whether petitioners are builders in good faith.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: DY PET. NRE. (See Res)
RESOLUTION
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and
AFFIRM the Decision dated September 8, 2014 and Resolution dated January 21, 2015 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 131488 for failure to show that the latter committed any reversible
error in upholding the ejectment of petitioners Constantino Morallo and Lilia Gil.
As correctly found by the CA, petitioners' possession of the subject lots was by mere tolerance
of respondent or its predecessor, which became illegal when respondent demanded on April 16, 2008
that they vacate the same and refused to do so. In Esmaquel v. Coprada,18 the Court ruled that persons
whose occupation of a realty is by sheer tolerance of its owners are not possessors in good faith. They
are aware that their possession may be terminated any time and they cannot be considered as builders in
good faith,19 as in this case.
SO ORDERED.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Id. at 47.
Id. at 47-48.
Id. at 30.
Id. at 30 & 129.
Id. at 49-50
Id. at 26-35. Penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Pedro
B. Corales concurring.
Id. at 52-53.
Esmaquel v. Coprada, G.R. No. 152423, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 428, 442.
Id.