Case Digest (G.R. No. 239727)
Facts:
Spouses Julian Belvis, Sr., and Cecilia Belvis, Spouses Julian E. Belvis, Jr., and Jocelyn Belvis, Spouses Julian E. Belvis III and Elsa Belvis, and Jouan E. Belvis v. Spouses Conrado V. Erola and Marilyn Erola, G.R. No. 239727, July 24, 2019, Supreme Court Second Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court.
Respondents Conrado V. Erola and Marilyn Erola (represented by attorney‑in‑fact Maureen Frias) filed a complaint for unlawful detainer and damages against petitioners (various members of the Belvis family) over Lot No. 597, a titled parcel (TCT No. T‑26108) in Barangay Malag‑it, Pontevedra, Capiz allegedly purchased by Conrado in October 1978. Respondents alleged they allowed petitioners to possess the lot on the condition that petitioners would vacate it upon demand; on July 2, 2012 respondents demanded possession and petitioners refused.
Petitioners countered that the parcel had been purchased in 1979 by their late mother Rosario V. Erola and that Conrado merely registered it in his name, creating an implied trust and a hereditary co‑ownership in favor of petitioner Cecilia; petitioners further asserted longstanding (over 34 years) possession and the construction of improvements in the concept of an owner. Petitioners also contested respondents’ representation during barangay conciliation.
After barangay proceedings (with a Certification to File Action issued) and failed mediation attempts, respondents filed in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), which, on March 31, 2015, granted the unlawful detainer complaint, ordered petitioners to vacate Lot 597, awarded nominal rental (P1,000/month from date of demand), and P20,000 litigation expenses and attorney’s fees. The MCTC found petitioners’ possession to be by mere tolerance and that they failed to prove an implied trust or co‑ownership.
Petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which on November 14, 2016 denied the appeal and affirmed the MCTC: it held that barangay conciliation and subsequent settlement efforts occurred and that petitioners failed to show title or that they built in the concept of an owner. Petitioners then sought relief from the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. CEB‑SP No. 10632; the CA, in its August 7, 2017 Decision (and April...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondents comply with the mandatory barangay conciliation proceedings required by R.A. 7160?
- Are petitioners builders in good faith under Article 448 of the Civil Code and thus entitled to retain possession of the subject lot until reimbursement for necessary, useful an...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)