VALENTIN CABRERA, MANUEL CABRERA, and REBECCA LESLIE CABRAS,
petitioners, vs. ELIZABETH GATERUELA, EULOGIO ABABON, LEONIDA LIGAN, MARIETTO
ABABON, GLORIA PANAL, LEONORA OZARIZA, SOTERO ABABON, JR., and JOSEPH ABABON,
respondents
G.R. No. 164213 | April 21, 2009
FACTS:
The heirs of Arcadio JJaca executed a notarized document
known as “Kasabutan nga Hinigala” which stipulate that all inherited properties
of Arcadio would go to Peregrina Jaca Cabrera. However in a Repartition Project
approved by Judge Mendoza of the CFI of Cebu, Lot Nos. 3635-CC and 3635-Y were
given to Urbana Jaca Ababon, mother of the respondents. Upon Urbana’s death in
1997, respondents inherited the lots.
Valentin Cabrera, Manuel Cabrera, and Rebecca Leslie Cabras
occupied the lots with the knowledge and consent of respondents.
Respondents alleged petitioners were occupying portions of
the lots without paying any rentals, but with an agreement that they would
vacate the premises and demolish their houses at their expense should respondents
need the property. In 2001, respondents personally notified petitioners that
they would repossess the property. Respondents asked petitioners to vacate the
premises and remove the houses they built on the lots. However, despite
repeated demands, petitioners refused to vacate the premises.
Petitioners assailed the Project of Partition as incredible because
its first page was missing and it lacked the signatures of the parties who
executed it. Petitioners asserted the validity of the “Kasabutan nga Hinigala.”
Cabras alleged that as owner of Lot No. 3635 upon Peregrina’s death, she could
not be ejected from the premises. Valentin and Manuel alleged that they could
not be ejected because they built their houses with Peregrina’s knowledge and
consent.
ISSUE:
Whether tolerance as a ground for ejectment is tenable in
this case
RULING:
It is settled that a complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of
action for unlawful detainer if it recites the following:
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;
4.
within one year from the last demand on
defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.
In this case, the complaint alleged that petitioners were occupying
the property, with agreement that should respondents need the property, petitioners
would relinquish possession of the lots and demolish their houses at their
expense. Respondents personally notified petitioners to vacate the premises and
to demolish their houses but petitioners refused to vacate the lots. The complaint
established that petitioners’ possession was by tolerance of respondents, and
their possession became illegal when they refused to vacate the premises upon demand
by respondents. Here, the possession became illegal not from the time petitioners
started occupying the property but from the time demand was made for them to vacate
the premises. In short, the complaint sufficiently established a case for
unlawful detainer.
“In an unlawful detainer case, the sole issue for resolution
is physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any
claim of ownership by any of the parties. However, where the issue of ownership
is raised, the courts may pass upon the issue of ownership in order to
determine who has the right to possess the property. However, this adjudication
is only an initial determination of ownership for the purpose of settling the
issue of possession, the issue of ownership being inseparably linked thereto.
The lower court’s adjudication of ownership in the ejectment case is merely
provisional and would not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties
involving title to the property. It is, therefore, not conclusive as to the
issue of ownership.
Comments
Post a Comment