Title
Ocampo vs. Tirona
Case
G.R. No. 147812
Decision Date
Apr 6, 2005
The Supreme Court upheld Ocampo's right to eject Tirona for non-payment of rent, affirming that ownership disputes must be resolved separately.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 147812)

Facts:

  • The case involves Leonardo R. Ocampo (petitioner) and Leonora Tirona (respondent).
  • The dispute is over a parcel of land on Alvarez Street, Pasay City, claimed by Ocampo based on Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 134359.
  • Ocampo purchased the land from Rosauro Breton, the heir of the original owner, Alipio Breton Cruz.
  • Although the TCT was not yet in Ocampo's name, he asserted possession and management of the property.
  • Tirona was a lessee occupying a portion of the land.
  • The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) found that Ocampo notified Tirona of his ownership on March 9, 1995, and she initially paid rent.
  • On July 5, 1995, Tirona's legal counsel informed Ocampo she would stop paying rent, claiming a right of first refusal under the Urban Land Reform Act.
  • Ocampo demanded payment of arrears and vacating the premises, but Tirona refused.
  • Ocampo filed a complaint for unlawful detainer and damages on September 11, 1995.
  • Tirona countered, claiming the true owner was Doña Lourdes Rodriguez Yaneza and asserting her right to occupy the property.
  • The MTC ruled in favor of Ocampo, ordering Tirona to vacate and pay arrears.
  • Tirona appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MTC's decision.
  • The Court of Appeals later set aside the RTC's ruling, prompting Ocampo to file a petition for review.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred regarding Ocampo's right to eject Tirona.
  • The appellate court's consideration of ownership as a primary issue in the unlawful detainer case was incorrect.
  • The Supreme Court rei...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court emphasized that unlawful detainer cases are summary proceedings focused on lease facts and the expiration or violation of its terms.
  • Ocampo properly notified Tirona of his ownership, and her continued occupancy indicated acceptance of the lease terms.
  • Tirona's refusal to pay rent constituted a violation of the lease agreement, justifying Ocampo's action for unlawful detainer.
  • The Court clarified that ownership is not essential in u...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.