Title
Fullido vs. Grilli
Case
G.R. No. 215014
Decision Date
Feb 29, 2016
Italian national Grilli and Filipino Fullido cohabited, built a house on her lot, and signed contracts granting Grilli control. Relationship soured; Grilli sued for eviction. SC ruled contracts void, violating constitutional ban on foreign land ownership; Grilli had no right to possession.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 215014)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Relationship and Property Acquisition
    • In 1994, Italian national Gino Grilli met Rebecca Fullido in Bohol; in 1995 he financed the purchase of a lot (TCT No. 30626) in her name and funded construction of a house thereon to serve as their vacation home.
    • They lived as common-law partners, each visiting twice a year; in 1998 they executed three instruments to define their rights:
      • A 50-year lease (renewable for another 50 years at ₱10,000 total) prohibiting Fullido from disposing of the lot without Grilli’s consent.
      • A memorandum of agreement (MOA) declaring Grilli as owner of the house and lot, barring Fullido from sale except with his conformity, and obliging her to convey the property to his designate upon termination of their relationship.
      • A special power of attorney allowing Grilli to manage and transfer the property on Fullido’s behalf.
  • Breakdown of Relationship and Lower-Court Proceedings
    • After 16 years, allegations of infidelity and hostility arose; Grilli demanded Fullido’s vacatur in writing to no avail. On September 8, 2010 he filed an unlawful detainer complaint (Civ. Case No. 244) before the MCTC of Dauis, Bohol.
    • Fullido obtained a Temporary (later Permanent) Protection Order (TPO/PPO) excluding Grilli from the residence; the MCTC dismissed Grilli’s ejectment suit, and awarded damages to Fullido. The RTC (Branch 47) reversed the MCTC, ruling that the lease granted Grilli exclusive possession. The CA affirmed and denied Fullido’s motion for reconsideration.
  • Present Petition and Parties’ Contentions
    • Fullido contends the lease and MOA are null and void—contrary to the Constitution, PD 471 and public policy—and that the TPO/PPO precludes ejectment; she also challenges the denial of her motion for reconsideration on procedural grounds.
    • Grilli argues: (a) he has possessory rights under valid contracts; (b) Fullido must annul the contracts in a separate action; (c) residential buildings may be owned by foreigners; and (d) Fullido’s motion was procedurally defective.

Issues:

  • Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s ejectment order based on contracts that are allegedly null and void.
  • Whether the ejectment order violates the prior TPO/PPO excluding Grilli from the property.
  • Whether the CA improperly denied Fullido’s motion for reconsideration for lack of proof of service.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.