Sps.

Llobrera v
Fernandez
[G.R. No. 142882. May 2, 2006.]
“Tolerance”
 1. Can a possessor of property, by
mere tolerance of the rightful
owner of property, be
compelled to vacate the
property?
ISSUES 2. Whether or not Sps. Llobrera’s
possession of the subject
property is founded on
contract.
3. Was there a valid consignation
of payment?
 RULES
New Civil Code
Article 537. Acts merely tolerated, and
those executed clandestinely and
without the knowledge of the possessor
of a thing, or by violence, do not affect
possession.
Roxas v CA, G.R. No. 138955, Oct. 29,
2002
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.
Rules of Court, Rule 70
Sec. 17. Judgment. — If after trial the court finds
that the allegations of the complaint are true, it
shall render judgment in favor of the plaintiff for
the restitution of the premises, the sum justly
due as arrears of rent or as reasonable
compensation for the use and occupation of the
premises, attorney's fees and costs. XXX
New Civil Code
Art. 1256. If the creditor to whom tender of
payment has been made refuses without just
cause to accept it, the debtor shall be released
from responsibility by the consignation of the
thing or sum due.
 FACTS
Fernandez sent a
Respondent
letter to Spouses
Fernandez is a co- Sps. Llborera, et al,
Llobrera, et al. to
owner of a parcel refused to vacate
vacate the
of land covered by the property.
premises within 15
TCT 9042.
days.

Fernandez filed a
The parties failed to
complaint for
reach any MCTC, RTC and CA
ejectment and
settlement. The all ruled in favor of
damages against
Barangay Captain Fernandez. Hence,
Sps. Llobrera, et al.
issued certificate to this appeal.
with the MTCC of
file action.
Dagupan City.
 ARGUMENTS
Sps. Llobrera, et al Fernandez
• They have been occupying the land since 1945. • Prayer –
• Their predecessor-in-interest, with the consent of De Petition for
Venecia (one of the co-owners), developed and occupied the ejectment
subject property in exchange for monthly rentals of P 20. should be
• They continuously paid the rental, until 1996, when De granted, plus
Venecia’s representative refused to accept payments. cost and
• They consigned payments with the bank. damages.

CA
• There is not enough evidence to support the lessor-lessee
relationship.
• No written agreement was presented.
• Receipts were not presented due to the lame excuse that
the March 19, 1996 fired burned the same.
 CONCLUSION
❖ Sps. Llobrera, et al’s possession of the property was not founded on a contract; it was by
mere tolerance only.

❖ Pursuant to the Court’s ruling in Roxas v CA, Sps. Llobrera, et al., can be compelled to
vacate the property as their possession of the property was merely by tolerance (not
based on contract), which necessarily bound them to an implied promise to vacate the
property upon demand.

❖ They refused to vacate the property, hence, the petition for ejectment filed by
Fernandez is the proper remedy, and thus, should be granted. Judgment being in favor
of Fernandez, in accordance with Sec. 17, Rule 70, Rules of Court, Fernandez is entitled
to restitution of the premises, rent or reasonable compensation for the use of the
property, plus attorney’s fees and costs.

❖ There being not enough basis for contractual relations between Fernandez and Sps.
Llobrera, Fernandez cannot be compelled to receive payment. Article 1256 only applies
when there is unjust refusal to accept payment on the part of the creditor.