Case Digest (G.R. No. 215014)
Facts:
Rebecca Fullido v. Gino Grilli, G.R. No. 215014, February 29, 2016, Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Rebecca Fullido (Fullido) and respondent Gino Grilli (Grilli), an Italian national, lived as common-law partners for many years in a house built on a lot originally registered in Fullido’s name (TCT No. 30626) in Biking I, Dauis, Bohol. Grilli financed construction of the residence and, in 1998, the parties executed three instruments: a lease contract (50 years renewable for another 50 years for P10,000), a memorandum of agreement (MOA) that purported to vest ownership rights in Grilli and restrict Fullido’s ability to dispose of the property, and a special power of attorney (SPA) authorizing Grilli to manage and transfer the property.
Relations soured after about 16–18 years. Grilli alleged infidelity and deterioration of the household; Fullido alleged threats and physical abuse and later obtained a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) from the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Bohol (TPO granted February 23, 2011 and later made permanent by decision dated July 5, 2011). On September 8, 2010 Grilli filed a complaint for unlawful detainer with prayer for preliminary injunction in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Dauis (Civil Case No. 244), seeking possession of the house and lot.
The MCTC (Acting Presiding Judge Jorge D. Cabalit) dismissed Grilli’s ejectment complaint in a March 31, 2011 decision, finding Fullido to be co-owner and awarding damages to her. Grilli appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 47, Tagbilaran City (Civil Case No. 7895). The RTC (Presiding Judge Suceso A. Arcamo) reversed the MCTC in an April 26, 2012 decision, holding that the lease gave Grilli the exclusive right to possession and that the TPO had no bearing on the ejectment case. Fullido then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. CEB‑SP No. 06946. The CA (May 31, 2013 Decision by Hernando, J., with Abarintos and Delos Santos, JJ., concurring) affirmed the RTC, treating the issue in ejectment as strictly one of physical possession and regarding Fullido’s challenge to the contracts as the proper subject of a separate annulment action; the CA denied Fullido’s motion for reconsideration by its September 24, 2014 Resolution for failure to attach proofs of service.
Fullido filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 45, challenging (1) the CA’s affirmation of the RTC ejecting her based on allegedly null and void contracts, (2) the CA’s disposition notwithstanding the earlier TPO/PPO directing Grilli’s exclusion from the residence, and (3) the CA’s denial of her mo...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the RTC’s ejectment order based on the lease and MOA when those contracts are alleged to be null and void as contrary to the Constitution and law?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the ejectment despite the existence of a Temporary Protection Order/Permanent Protection Order that had earlier directed respondent to vacate the residence?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration for lack of compliance with Rule 52, Section 1 vis‑à‑vis Rule 13...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)