Case Digest (G.R. No. 243368)
Facts:
Paranaque Industry Owners Association, Inc., represented by Patricia Sy and Rosalinda Escobilla v. James Paul G. Recio, Daryl Tancinco, and Marizene R. Tancinco, G.R. No. 243368, March 27, 2023, Supreme Court Second Division, Kho, Jr., J., writing for the Court.On November 15, 2012, petitioner Paranaque Industry Owners Association, Inc. (petitioner), a nonstock corporation incorporated on March 6, 2012, filed a complaint for unlawful detainer before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Paranaque City against respondents James Paul G. Recio, Daryl Tancinco, and Marizene Tancinco (respondents). Petitioner alleged it was the registered owner of a 200 sqm parcel described in TCT No. (70115) 123145 and that respondents, as successors of the late Mario Recio who had been tolerated to remain as caretaker, were illegally occupying the subject property. Petitioner asserted demands to vacate were ignored and that a municipal building official had ordered vacation for demolition of a dangerous water tank.
Respondents answered, contending improper service, disputing that the parcel was included in the TCT in petitioner’s name, and asserting that the original registered owner was Paranaque Industry Owners Association (PIOA) (SEC Reg. No. 0109189), whose registration was revoked by the SEC on August 11, 2003. They further maintained that respondents were possessors and builders in good faith based on an alleged permission from PIOA representatives and relied on Article 546 of the Civil Code. Respondents also later manifested to the MeTC that they had vacated the premises prior to the MeTC decision and presented barangay certifications and Meralco bills as proof; petitioner countered they had in fact padlocked and not surrendered the property and had not complied with Rule 70’s monthly deposit requirement.
The MeTC, in a Decision dated November 8, 2013, ruled for petitioner, finding respondents’ possession was by mere tolerance, ordering respondents to vacate, pay reasonable compensation of PHP10,000 monthly from July 30, 2012 until surrender, attorney’s fees, and costs. Respondents appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC, in a Decision dated June 13, 2014, affirmed the MeTC, holding respondents failed to prove permission to occupy and that petitioner, as registered owner, had the better right to possession. Respondents’ motion for reconsideration at the RTC was denied, and they filed a petition for review under Rule 42 before the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA, however, reversed in a Decision dated May 11, 2018 and dismissed the unlawful detainer complaint, concluding petitioner was not the registered owner of the subject property because PIOA (SEC Reg. No. 0109189) remained the owner whose SEC registration had been revoked and which had not undergone liquidation; petitioner’s subsequent re-registration (SEC Reg. No. CN201204425) created a ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is petitioner a real party in interest and thus properly entitled to prosecute the unlawful detainer action?
- Did petitioner establish a better right to possession over the subject property so as to prevail in an ejectment (unlawful d...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)