Santiago vs. Northbay Knitting, Inc., 842 SCRA 502, October 11, 2017
Uploaded by
Rizchelle Sampang-ManaogSantiago vs. Northbay Knitting, Inc., 842 SCRA 502, October 11, 2017
Uploaded by
Rizchelle Sampang-ManaogSantiago vs. Northbay Knitting, Inc.
, 842 SCRA 502, October 11, 2017
Doctrine: Unlawful detainer involves the person’s withholding from another of the possession of the real
property to which the latter is entitled, after the expiration or termination of the former’s right to hold
possession under the contract, either expressed or implied.
Facts: NKI alleged that it owns the subject property, a parcel of land in Phase I, North Side of the Dagat-
Dagatan Project in Navotas covered by TCT No. M-38092. All petitioners were simply allowed to occupy said
property by NKI and they were not paying any rent. On March 5, 2009, NKI sent demand letters to petitioners
asking them to vacate the property within five (5) days from receipt and to pay rent in the event that they
refuse to vacate within the grace period given. Despite receipt of said letters, petitioners refused to vacate or
pay the necessary rent. Thus, on April 14, 2009, NKI filed an ejectment complaint against petitioners.
Petitioners averred that NKI merely exists on paper as its certificate of registration had already been revoked
the SEC for failure to operate. NKI came into possession of the property through their predecessor-in-interest,
Hermeginildo Odan. Odan leased the property from the family of late Francisco Felipe Gonzales who later
subleased to petitioners. The government expropriated and declared it as an area of priority development.
Petitioners could not be evicted. A conditional contract to sell was entered between NKI and NHA but NKI
violated its terms causing its cancellation. Petitioners filed a case questioning said sale. They contended that
this case must be resolved first before the MeTC can take cognizance of the ejectment case.
MeTC rendered a decision in favor of NKI ordering petitioners to remove improvements, to peacefully vacate
and voluntarily surrender the possession of the property, and to pay NKI the amount of Php2,000 per month
for the use and occupation of the property. Malabon RTC set aside the MeTC’s decision for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeals granted the instant petition for review and the assailed decision of Malabon RTC was
reversed and set aside. Hence, the petition.
Issue: Whether or not the complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer.
Ruling: Yes, NKI’s complaint sufficiently shows all the allegations required to support a case for unlawful
detainer. NKI stated that it is the absolute owner of the subject property, as evidenced by TCT No. M-38092,
and supported by Tax Declaration No. C-002- 08822-C and real property tax receipt for the tax due in 2008.
Unlawful detainer involves the person’s withholding from another of the possession of the real property to
which the latter is entitled, after the expiration or termination of the former’s right to hold possession under
the contract, either expressed or implied. A requisite for a valid cause of action in an unlawful detainer case is
that possession must be originally lawful, and such possession must have turned unlawful only upon the
expiration of the right to possess. It must be shown that the possession was initially lawful; hence, the basis of
such lawful possession must be established. If, as in the instant case, the claim is that such possession is by
mere tolerance of the plaintiff, the acts of tolerance must be proved.
From that time when the title to the disputed property was registered in NKI’s name on June 16, 2008 until
the time when it sent the demand letters to vacate on March 5, 2009, petitioners’ possession had certainly
been one upon mere tolerance of the owner. NKI demanded that they leave the premises and petitioners
refused to do so, their possession had already become unlawful. As the registered owner, NKI had a right to
the possession of the property, which is one of the attributes of its ownership.
Where the parties to an ejectment case raise the issue of ownership, the courts may pass upon that issue to
determine who between the parties has the better right to possess the property. However, where the issue of
ownership is inseparably linked to that of possession, as in this case, adjudication of the ownership issue is not
final and binding, but merely for the purpose of resolving the issue of possession. The adjudication of the issue
of ownership is only provisional, and not a bar to an action between the same parties involving title to the
property.
Premises considered, the Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals.
