Author: Marti

Caiza vs. CA (1997)

Petition: 45 certiorari
Petitioner: Carmen Caiza rep. by Amparo Evangelista
Respondent: CA, Pedro and Leonora Estrada
Ponente: Narvasa, C.J.
DOCTRINES:
More than once has this Court adjudged that a person who occupies
the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission without any
contract between them is necessarily bound by an implied promise
that he will vacate upon demand, failing which a summary action for
ejectment is the proper remedy against him.

The only issue that could legitimately be raised under the

circumstances was that involving the Estradas' possession by
tolerance, i.e., possession de facto, not de jure. It is therefore
incorrect to postulate that the proper remedy for Caiza is not
ejectment but accion publiciana, a plenary action in the RTC or an
action that is one for recovery of the right to possession de jure.
To be sure, an ejectment case survives the death of a party. Caiza's
demise did not extinguish the desahucio suit instituted by her through
her guardian.[41] That action, not being a purely personal one,
survived her death; her heirs have taken her place and now
represent her interests in the appeal at bar.

in the Barangay, a case for unlawful detainer was filed in the MetroTC of
QC.
4. Estradas filed answer claiming that such property has been bequeathed
to them by Caiza, giving as evidence a photocopy of Caizas holographic
will. In the will it says that the house and lot will be given to them in
consideration of their faithful service to her and because she has treated
them as her family. MetroTC ruled for Amparo.
5. On appeal to RTC, RTC reversed such decision saying that the proper
action to oust them of their possession is accion publiciana. Amparo
appealed to CA. CA affirmed RTC saying that Estradas are not there by
mere tolerance, but as family as evidenced by the holographic will, and
that such will, while not effective, shows intent to let Estadas stay on the
property. Since their possession is lawful, publiciana must be pursued
to acquire better right of possession de jure. 45 to SC.
6. Estradas argue that since no contract or deed exists with regard to their
possession of the house, unlawful detainer may not be had. Neither may
forcible entry be had since they were allowed by Caiza to stay in such
house and lot. (this is such an ungrateful argument).
7. Pending litigation in SC, Caiza died. Amparo Evangelista and Ramon
Nevado were substituted as the only surviving heirs. Estradas said that
the case should have been dismissed since the guardianship has
terminated upon the death of Caiza.
ISSUES:

FACTS:
1. When Carmen Caiza turned 96, her niece Evangelista Amparo was
appointed as her guardian by a court order evidenced by her Letters of
Guardianship.

1. WoN unlawful detainer was the proper remedy.

a. Whether the case should have been dismissed when
Caiza died.

2. Evangelista Amparo asked the Estradas to vacate a certain house and

land in Quezon City which belonged to Caiza so that it may be rented out
and the proceeds may be used by Caiza for her medicines and
maintenance of whatever life she still had. Estradas refused.

RULING + RATIO:

3. Amparo sent two demand letters, the latest being on Feb. 1990, but the
Estradas did not vacate the premises. After failed attempts of conciliation

DISPOSITION: Petition dismissed. MetroTC decision reinstated.

1. Yes, it is the proper remedy (See doctrine, bullets 1 and 2). No, it
should not have been dismissed (Bullet 3).