G.R. No.

182953 October 11, 2010

CORAZON D. SARMIENTA, JOSE DERAMA, CATES RAMA, JOSIE MIWA, TOTO NOLASCO, JESUS OLIQUINO, NORBERTO LOPEZ, RUBEN ESPOSO,
BERNARDO FLORESCA, MARINA DIMATALO, ROBLE DIMANDAKO, RICARDO PEA, EDUARDO ESPINO, ANTONIO GALLEGOS, VICTOR
SANDOVAL, FELICITAS ABRANTES, MERCY CRUZ, ROSENDO ORGANO, RICKY BARENO, ANITA TAKSAGON, JOSIE RAMA and PABLO
DIMANDAKO, Petitioners,
vs.
MANALITE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (MAHA), Respondent.

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

FACTS: Respondent Manalite Homeowners Association, Inc. (MAHA) was the registered owner of the lot in dispute which was placed under community
mortgage program (CMP). Through force, intimidation, threat, strategy and stealth, petitioners entered the premises and constructed their temporary
houses and an office building. Sometime in 1992, petitioners sought for the annulment of respondents title but it was dismissed by the RTC. Upon
dismissal, respondent demanded petitioners to vacate the premises. Petitioners asked for a one-year extension for them to look for a place to transfer.
However, it was repeatedly extended due to respondents tolerance. Petitioners even propose to become members of MAHA so that they can be
qualified to acquire portions of the lot but they failed to comply with the requirements despite repeated demands. MAHA then sent formal demand
letters to petitioners to vacate the lot. Unheeded, MAHA filed the complaint for "Forcible Entry/Unlawful Detainer."

In their answer, petitioners averred that they are the owners of the subject lot, having been in actual physical possession thereof for more than
thirty (30) years before MAHA intruded into the land. They likewise argued that the complaint was irregular and defective because its caption states that
it was for "Forcible Entry/Unlawful Detainer."

The MTCC dismissed the case for lack of cause of action for failure by the respondent to prove prior physical possession which is required in a
complaint for forcible entry. On appeal, RTC reversed the MTCC decision stating that MAHA was able to prove by preponderance of evidence that
petitioners occupation was by mere tolerance and their occupation became illegal after MAHA demanded that they vacate the property. The CA
affirmed the decision of the RTC ruling that the cause of action was an unlawful detainer case.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners have a superior right of possession over the property in question.

HELD: No. The evidence proves that after MAHA acquired the property, MAHA tolerated petitioners stay and gave them the option to acquire portions
of the property by becoming members of MAHA. But when they failed to fulfill their obligations, MAHA had the right to demand for them to vacate the
property as their right of possession had already expired or had been terminated. Well settled is the rule that a person who occupies the land of another
at the latters 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 which in the present case is an unlawful detainer case.