Carbonilla, v. Abiera [Case Digest]

Carbonilla, v. Abiera,

G.R. No. 177637

By: G-one T. Paisones

 

 

Facts:

Petitioner, Dioscoro Carbonilla, filed a complaint for ejectment against respondents, Marcelo Abiera and Maricris Abiera Paredes, with MTCC, Maasin City. Petitioner is the registered owner of a parcel of land, covered by certificate of title.  Petitioner further claimed that he is also the owner of the residential building standing on the land, which building he acquired through a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate (Residential Building) with Waiver and Quitclaim of Ownership, executed by the heirs of Jovita Garciano.

The building was being occupied by respondents by mere tolerance of the previous owners. Petitioner asserted that he intends to use the property as his residence, thus, he sent a demand letter to respondents asking them to leave the premises.

Respondents contended that they possessed the building by mere tolerance of the previous owners. Instead, they asserted that they occupied the building as owners, having inherited the same from Alfredo Abiera and Teodorica Capistrano, respondent Marcelo’s parents and respondent Maricris’ grandparents. They maintained that they have been in possession of the building since 1960, but it has not been declared for taxation purposes. As for the subject land, respondents claimed that they inherited the same from Francisco Plasabas, grandfather of Alfredo Abiera.

The MTCC decided the case in favor of respondents. RTC held the decision of MTCC. CA reversed the RTC decision and ordered the dismissal of petitioner’s complaint.

 

Issue:

Whether or not Carbonilla has sufficiently established his ownership of the subject properties.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

Petitioner failed to prove that respondents’ possession was based on his alleged tolerance. He did 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.

A careful scrutiny of the records revealed that herein respondent miserably failed to prove his claim that petitioners’ possession of the subject building was by mere tolerance as alleged in the complaint. Tolerance must be [present] right from the start of possession sought to be recovered to be within the purview of unlawful detainer. Mere tolerance always carries with it "permission" and not merely silence or inaction for silence or inaction is negligence, not tolerance.