Suarez v. Emboy, G.R. No.

187944 (March
12, 2014) Case Digest
Ownership > Ownership in General > Recovery of Possession and/or Ownership > Actions
Available to Owner > Recovery of Real Property > Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer

Facts:

A parcel of land was partitioned into 5 among the heirs of the Carlos and Asuncion.  Lot No.
1907-A-2 was occupied by Felix and Marilou Emboy, who were claiming that they inherited it
from their mother Claudia Emboy, who inherited it from her parents Carlos and Asuncion.

Felix and Marilou were asked by their cousins to vacate Lot No. 1907-A-2 and transfer to Lot
No. 1907-A-5.  They refused to comply and insisted that Claudia's inheritance pertained to Lot
No. 1907-A-2.

In 2004, Felix and Marilou received a demand letter from Carmencita requiring them to vacate
the lot and informed them that she had already purchased the lot from the former's relatives.
Felix and Marilou did not heed the demand so Carmencita filed before the MTCC a complaint
against unlawful detainer against them.

Felix and Marilou argued that the complaint for unlawful detainer was fundamentally
inadequate.  There was practically no specific allegation as to when and how possession by
tolerance of them began.

Issue:

Whether or not the complaint for unlawful detainer was inadequate.

Held:

In a complaint for unlawful detainer, the following requisites must be alleged:

(1) initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the
plaintiff;

(2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to defendant of the
termination of the latter’s right of possession;

(3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of
the enjoyment thereof; and

(4) within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff
instituted the complaint for ejectment.
In ejectment cases, it is necessary that the complaint must sufficiently show a statement of facts
to determine the class of case and remedies available to the parties.  When the complaint fails to
state the facts constituting a forcible entry or unlawful detainer, as where it does not state how
entry was effected or how the dispossession started, the remedy should either be an accion
publiciana or accion reinvidicatoria.

In this case, the first requisite was absent.  Carmencita failed to clearly allege and prove how
Emboy entered the lot and constructed a house upon it.  She was also silent about the details on
who specifically permitted Emboy to occupy the lot, and how and when such tolerance came
about.

Hence, the complaint should not have been for unlawful detainer and the CA did not commit an
error in dismissing Carmencita's complaint.

City Government of Quezon vs. Judge Ericta GR No. L-34915 June 24, 1983

Facts:
An ordinance was promulgated in Quezon city which approved the the regulation
ofestablishment of private cemeteries in the said city. According to the ordinance, 6% of
the total area of the private memorial park shall be set aside for charity burial of
deceased persons who are paupers and have been residents of QC. Himlayang
Pilipino, a private memorial park, contends that the taking or confiscation of property
restricts the use of property such that it cannot be used for any reasonable purpose and
deprives the owner of all beneficial use of his property. It also contends that the taking is
not a valid exercise of police power, since the properties taken in the exercise of police
power are destroyed and not for the benefit of the public.

Issue:
Whether or not the ordinance made by Quezon City is a valid taking of private property

Ruling:
No, the ordinance made by Quezon City is not a valid way of taking private property.
The ordinace is actually a taking without compensation of a certain area from a private
cemetery to benefit paupers who are charges of the municipal corporation. Instead of
building or maintaing a public cemeteries. State's exercise of the power of expropriation
requires payment of just compensation. Passing the ordinance without benefiting the
owner of the property with just compensation or due process, would amount to unjust
taking of a real property. Since the property that is needed to be taken will be used for
the public's benefit, then the power of the state to expropriate will come forward and not
the police power of the state.