G.R. No. 252834 - Spouses Robles et al. vs. Mario S. Timario, Jr. et al.

The subject property is located at 1381 Palm Avenue, Dasmariñas Village, Makati City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 217361.
Initially owned by Ma. Dulce C. Fernandez (Dulce) and her late husband, Jose B. Fernandez.
Jose sold his 50% share in the property via a Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 28, 1993, to his children Enrique C. Fernandez (Enrique), Roberto C. Fernandez (Roberto), Jaime C. Fernandez (Jaime), and Ma. Elena C. Fernandez (Ma. Elena).
After Jose’s death in 1994, Enrique asked Dulce’s permission to stay in the property with his family, which she granted.

On October 14, 1999, Dulce's children executed a Contract of Usufruct granting Dulce lifetime usufructuary rights with unlimited use and access to the property, including the right to make repairs and improvements, with the usufruct extinguishing upon Dulce’s death.
On September 18, 2000, Dulce sold her 50% share equally to her children, making them each 25% owners.
The siblings also executed a Memorandum of Agreement dated December 18, 2000, which conferred upon Dulce full control and possession of the property during her lifetime, provided for conditions on co-owner occupancy (limited to 24 months unless majority consented), payment of rent and maintenance costs by co-owners staying on the property, and prescribed the property’s disposition after Dulce’s lifetime.

Despite the contracts, Enrique and his family stayed in the property continuously; he contributed minimally to household expenses.
In 2016, Dulce suffered a stroke; her other children found the property in disarray and took steps to restore it, assuming maintenance costs Enrique had neglected.
Multiple house rules were imposed to protect Dulce’s well-being; Enrique violated them, causing further conflict and deterioration of Dulce’s health.
Roberto and Ma. Elena installed CCTVs for monitoring; Enrique removed the cameras and controlled property access.

Dulce executed an irrevocable special power of attorney (April 12, 2018) authorizing Roberto, Jaime, and Ma. Elena to manage the property and enforce rights.
A formal demand to vacate was sent to Enrique on May 21, 2018.
Dulce officially moved out in February 2019.
Enrique answered, denying unlawful detainer claims, asserting his co-ownership rights and continuous possession predating usufruct and memorandum.

Metropolitan Trial Court (January 14, 2020) ruled in favor of Dulce, ordering Enrique to vacate and pay attorney’s fees, holding Dulce’s possession was exclusive by contract.
Regional Trial Court (July 7, 2021) affirmed the Metropolitan Trial Court but modified the award, fixing reasonable rent at PHP 325,000.00 per month from May 21, 2018.

Reversed lower courts’ rulings, reinstating Enrique in the property and ordering Dulce to refund PHP 14,473,374.50 with interest.
Held that Enrique’s possession was by right as co-owner predating the usufruct and memorandum.
Found that Dulce failed to establish that Enrique’s possession was by tolerance.
Also questioned the legal effect of the special power of attorney due to a pending case for its annulment.
Vacated awards for reasonable compensation and attorney’s fees.

Dulce pleaded that the Court of Appeals ignored the exclusivity and control granted in the usufruct and memorandum.
Argued that Enrique’s right to stay was by tolerance, not ownership, after the contracts.
Observed that the absence of "exclusive" in the contracts does not negate exclusivity.
Contended the Court of Appeals erred in applying Family Code provisions and the Moralidad case.
Reasserted the validity of demand and power of attorney to file the unlawful detainer action.

Reiterated co-ownership and continuous possession rights.
Disputed exclusivity; construed "unlimited" and "full" possession as non-exclusive.
Maintained that occupancy limits and rent payments in the memorandum only pertain when Dulce has left the property.
Claimed Dulce waived exclusivity by long tolerance.
Argued the demand letter was defective and lacked authority.
Denied obligation to pay rent as co-owner.

Whether a usufructuary may eject a co-owner from a property during the effective period of the usufruct.
Whether the elements for unlawful detainer are sufficiently alleged and established in the complaint.
Whether Enrique's possession was by tolerance of Dulce or by right as co-owner.
Whether the absence of the word "exclusive" in the contracts negates the exclusivity of Dulce's right of possession.
Whether the demand to vacate was valid and properly served.
Whether Enrique is liable to pay reasonable rental for his continued occupancy after the demand.