Case Summary (G.R. No. 215014)
Petitioner
Rebecca Fullido – registered owner of the lot and cohabitant in a common-law relationship with Grilli since the mid-1990s.
Respondent
Gino Grilli – Italian national who funded acquisition and construction of the property, later asserting a long-term lease and ownership rights through several agreements.
Key Dates
• 1994–95: Relationship begins; lot procured in Fullido’s name.
• August 16, 1998: Lease contract, memorandum of agreement (MOA), and special power of attorney (SPA) executed.
• September 8, 2010: Grilli files unlawful detainer (Civil Case No. 244, MCTC Dauis).
• March 31, 2011: MCTC dismisses ejectment case.
• April 26, 2012: RTC, Branch 47, reverses MCTC.
• May 31, 2013: CA affirms RTC.
• February 29, 2016: Supreme Court decision.
Applicable Law
1987 Constitution (Art. XII, Sec. 7 – foreign ownership prohibited); PD 471 (leases to aliens limited to 25+25 years); RA 9262 (Protection Orders); Rule 70, Rules of Court (unlawful detainer procedure).
Facts of the Case
Grilli courted Fullido and financed her purchase of a Bohol lot. He funded construction of their residence thereon and lived in it during Philippine visits. In 1998, they formalized their arrangement via: (1) a 50-year renewable lease at ₱10,000; (2) an MOA vesting ownership in Grilli and restricting Fullido’s right to transfer; and (3) an SPA granting Grilli authority over the property. Relationship woes arose from infidelity allegations, leading Grilli to demand Fullido’s vacatur, then to file ejectment proceedings.
Contractual Arrangements
The 1998 lease granted Grilli exclusive use for 50 years, auto-renewable for another 50, and barred Fullido from disposing of the land without his consent. The MOA declared Grilli owner of the house and lot, prohibited transfers without him, and required Fullido to execute sale to whomever he chose upon relationship termination. The SPA authorized Grilli to manage and transfer the property.
Procedural History – MCTC
The Municipal Circuit Trial Court dismissed Grilli’s unlawful detainer suit, finding Fullido co-owner by virtue of her supervisory contribution to construction, and giving effect to a Temporary Protection Order excluding Grilli.
Procedural History – RTC
The Regional Trial Court reversed, holding the lease valid and binding until judicially nullified, making Fullido obligated to respect Grilli’s peaceful enjoyment. The TPO was deemed irrelevant to possession rights under the lease.
Procedural History – CA
The Court of Appeals upheld the RTC, emphasizing that ejectment turns solely on physical possession rights and that Fullido’s execution of the lease and MOA amounted to judicial admission of Grilli’s superior possessory right. It advised separate annulment proceedings to challenge contract validity.
Issues Presented
- Whether the CA erred in affirming ejectment based on allegedly void contracts.
- Whether the TPO/PPO should bar Grilli’s ejectment claim.
- Whether the CA improperly denied Fullido’s motion for reconsideration for procedural non-compliance.
Unlawful Detainer and Void Contracts
An unlawful detainer action addresses only physical possession by virtue of an expired or terminated contractual right. Void contracts produce no legal effect and may be declared so even in summary ejectment proceedings.
Constitutional Prohibition on Foreign Landholding
Under the 1987 Constitution, aliens may not own land. Leases transferring substantially all rights of dominion over 50–100 years and agreements depriving an owner of disposal rights contravene the constitutional ban and PD 471’s 25+25 limit, rendering them void ab initio.
Nullity of the Lease and MOA
The 50-year renewable lease and MOA deprived Fullido of her jus utendi, fru
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 215014)
Procedural History
- Petitioner Fullido and respondent Grilli engaged in a common-law relationship and executed various contracts over a residential house and lot in Dauis, Bohol.
- Grilli filed an unlawful detainer complaint (Civil Case No. 244) before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Dauis, Bohol, on September 8, 2010.
- MCTC dismissed Grilli’s complaint on March 31, 2011, finding Fullido to be co-owner and citing a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) that excluded Grilli from the premises.
- Grilli elevated the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 47, Tagbilaran City, which on April 26, 2012 reversed the MCTC decision and recognized Grilli’s right of possession under the lease contract.
- Fullido appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which on May 31, 2013 affirmed the RTC ruling, holding Grilli’s possessory right intact and treating the lease and memorandum of agreement as judicial admissions.
- Fullido’s motion for reconsideration was denied by CA on September 24, 2014 for lack of proof of service.
- Fullido filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, challenging the CA rulings as violative of constitutional and legal provisions.
Facts of the Case
- In 1994, Italian national Gino Grilli met Filipino national Rebecca Fullido in Bohol; they established a common-law relationship by 1995.
- Grilli funded the purchase of a parcel of land registered in Fullido’s name (TCT No. 30626) in Biking I, Dauis, Bohol, and financed the construction of a house thereon.
- The couple lived together on the property during Grilli’s biannual vacations to the Philippines until their relationship soured after 16 years.
- Formal letters of demand to vacate the property were sent by Grilli but unheeded by Fullido, prompting the unlawful detainer suit.
Contractual Arrangements
- A 1998 contract of lease granted Grilli a 50-year lease on Fullido’s lot, automatically renewable for another 50 years, for a total rental of ₱10,000, and prohibited Fullido from disposing or encumbering the property without Grilli’s consent.
- A memorandum of agreement (MOA) provided that ownership of the house and lot resided with Grilli; Fullido could not sell without his conformi