Title
Altizo vs. BRYC-V Development Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 143530
Decision Date
Sep 26, 2006
SFC sold Lot 300-C to BRYC-V after a Letter of Intent with UMCUPAI. Petitioners, occupants since the 1960s, claimed rights but were denied by courts, affirming BRYC-V's ownership and right to possession.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 195466)

Facts of the Case

SFC was the registered owner of Lot 300, which has an area of 61,736 square meters and was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-3182. In the early 1960s, the petitioners began occupying a portion of this lot. By 1989, they organized the United Muslim Christian Urban Poor Association, Inc. (UMCUPAI) to negotiate for the acquisition of the land. An agreement was made between SFC and UMCUPAI, documented as a Letter of Intent to Sell, outlining SFC's intention to sell Lot 300 to UMCUPAI at a specified price.

Sales Transactions and Disputes

SFC subdivided Lot 300 into three lots—Lot 300-A, Lot 300-B, and Lot 300-C. Lot 300-A was sold to UMCUPAI in January 1995. In July 1995, SFC sold Lot 300-C, where the petitioners had constructed their houses, to BRYC-V Development Corporation, despite objections from UMCUPAI. As a result, BRYC-V was issued a Transfer Certificate of Title for Lot 300-C and subsequently requested the petitioners to vacate the premises.

Municipal and Regional Court Proceedings

The respondent initiated a complaint for unlawful detainer against the petitioners before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). The MTC ruled in favor of BRYC-V, but this decision was later reversed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which asserted that the Letter of Intent effectively granted UMCUPAI and its members a preferential right to buy the lot, changing their status from mere toleration to rightful claimants.

Court of Appeals Decision

BRYC-V appealed the RTC ruling to the Court of Appeals, which found in favor of BRYC-V. The appellate court held that BRYC-V, as the legal owner of Lot 300-C, had the right to possess the property, given that the petitioners' claim was only based on the former owner's allowance. The Letter of Intent was deemed insufficient to confer ownership or possession rights to the petitioners.

Petitioners’ Claims and Supreme Court Ruling

In their petition for review, the petitioners argued that the Letter of Intent obligated SFC to convey Lot 300 to UMCUPAI, thus securing their right to remain on the property. However, the Supreme Court concluded that the petitioners' occupation was based solely on the tole

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.