Title
Supreme Court
Midway Maritime and Technological Foundation vs. Castro
Case
G.R. No. 189061
Decision Date
Aug 6, 2014
Midway, lessee of land owned by Adoracion Cloma, contested respondents' ownership of a residential building on the property. SC upheld CA/RTC rulings: lease agreement existed, Midway estopped from denying respondents' ownership, and *Castro, Jr. v. CA* established building ownership as final.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 187872)

Construction and Lease of Residential Building

Respondents built the house on CCC-leased premises (15-year term). They occupied it until 1985, then appointed their uncle Josefino as caretaker. In June 1993, petitioner’s president, Dr. Manglicmot, leased the building (excluding Josefino’s portion) from Lourdes Castro, paying ₱6,000/month, later increased to ₱10,000 when full possession was obtained.

Transfer and Acquisition by Adoracion Cloma

Tomas Cloma bought only the land parcels (exclusive of improvements) at Union Bank’s auction (July 1993) and leased them to petitioner. He later sold the parcels to his daughter, Adoracion. Petitioner maintains this chain included the residential building, a contention challenged by respondents.

Civil Case No. 3700: Claims and Defenses

Respondents filed for ownership declaration, recovery of possession, unpaid rents (from August 1995), and damages. Petitioner denied respondents’ ownership, asserting Adoracion held title over both land and building through prior purchases.

RTC Ruling and Disposition

The RTC of Cabanatuan City (Branch 28) declared respondents absolute owners of the building and ordered petitioner to pay ₱672,000 in unpaid rentals. Claims for moral damages and attorney’s fees were dismissed.

CA Decision and Final Petition to the Supreme Court

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. Petitioner then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, contesting the award of rentals and challenging respondents’ ownership of the building.

Existence of Lease and Estoppel Principle

The Supreme Court recognized the lease’s existence (supported by petitioner’s cash vouchers) and applied Rule 131, Sec. 2(b): a tenant may not deny the landlord’s title at lease commencement. Having leased the building from respondents’ mother with full knowledge of their claim, petitioner is estopped from disputing respondents’ ownership.

Effect of Mortgage and Accessibility of Improvements

Under Civil Code Art. 2127, only improvements owned by the mortgagor form part of a mortgage. In Castro, Jr. v. CA (1995), the Court held that the residential building was not CCC’s property and thus not subject to foreclosure. That final judgment binds parties and successors.

Binding Effect of Final Judgment in Castro, Jr. v. CA

The holding in Castro, Jr. established respondents’ ownership of the building as final. Petitioner cannot relitigate this issue, as Nemo dat quod non habet prohi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.