SUAREZ v.

EMBOY

FACTS

1. A parcel of land was partitioned into 5 among the heirs of the Carlos and Asuncion.
2. Lot A was occupied by Felix and Marilou Emboy (EMBOYS), who were claiming that they
inherited it from their mother Claudia Emboy, who inherited it from her parents Carlos and
Asuncion.
3. EMBOYS were asked to vacate by their cousins and transfer to Lot B. They refused and insisted
that they inherited Lot A.
4. In 2004, EMBOYS received a demand letter from CARMENCITA (nice to meet ya) requiring them
to vacate and informed them that she had already purchased the lot from the former's relatives
5. EMBOYS did not heed the demand, instead they examined the records of the lot and uncovered
possible anomalies (forged signatures, alterations in the deeds of partition, etc.)
6. EMBOYS filed a complaint for nullification of partition and the issuance of a new TCT for Lot A
7. CARMENCITA on the other hand, filed before the MTCC a complaint of unlawful detainer
a. She bought the land and the relatives of EMBOYS merely allowed the latter to occupy by
mere tolerance
8. EMBOYS’ counter:
a. They have been occupying the subject lot in the concept of owners for several decades
b. Carmencita was a buyer in bad faith for having purchased the property despite the
notice of lis pendens (bogo kaayo ni nga argument kay nauna naman og palit)
c. Sarmiento v. CA “even if one is the owner of the property, the possession thereof
cannot be wrested from another who had been in the physical or material possession of
the same for more than one year by resorting to a summary action of ejectment.”
d. Amagan v. Marayag “pendency of another action anchored on the issue of ownership
justifies the suspension of an ejectment suit involving the same real property. The
foregoing is especially true where the issue of possession is so interwoven with that of
ownership. Besides, the resolution of the question of ownership would necessarily
result in the disposition of the issue of possession.
e. Relatives who sold the lot to Carmencita never occupied the lot, so no basis for “mere
tolerance”
f. No specific allegation as to when and how the possession by tolerance began

ISSUE

1. WON the unlawful detainer will prosper

2. WON the pending case of nullification will abate the unlawful detainer case

HELD: (1) NO!

1. 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.
2. 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.

(2) NO. THE CASE FALLS UNDER THE EXCEPTION

1. Based on equity ni sya, kay if di nimo I suspend ang unlawful detainer, nya what if nadaog si
carmencita sa unlawful detainer – so pahawaon silang Emboy nya I demolish iya balay. NYA WHAT
AFTERWARDS MADAOG SI EMBOY SA NULLIFICATION CASE, WA NA SYAY BALAY BALIKAN KAY GI
DEMOLISH NA.

2. EMBOYS need not be exposed to the risk of having their house demolished pending the resolution of
their petition for nullification of the partition of Lot No. 1907–A, where ownership over the subject lot is
likewise presented as an issue.