Case Summary (G.R. No. 128338)
Petitioners
Tining Resuena, Alejandra Garay, Lorna Resuena, Eleuterio Resuena, Eutiquia Rosario, and Unisima Resuena — defendants in the ejectment proceedings and appellants in subsequent appeals.
Respondent
Juanito Borromeo, Sr. (private respondent), co-owner of Lots Nos. 2587 and 2592; after his death his heirs (Juanito Borromeo, Jr., Virginia Borromeo-Guzman, and certain Borromeo heirs) were permitted substitution in the proceedings.
Key Dates
- Complaint for ejectment filed: 16 February 1994 (MTC case no. 695).
- MTC Decision dismissing ejectment: 10 October 1994.
- RTC (Branch 18, Civil Case No. CEB-16727) reversed MTC decision (date of RTC decision referenced in appeals).
- Court of Appeals Eleventh Division decision affirming RTC: 07 October 1996 (CA-G.R. SP No. 39058).
- Supreme Court decision (G.R. No. 128338): 28 March 2005.
- Respondent’s death: 23 December 1997; substitution of heirs allowed by the Supreme Court on 06 September 1999.
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable as the decisiondate is after 1990).
- Civil Code provisions applied by the courts: Article 487 (any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment), Article 1358 (statute of frauds for real rights requiring public instrument), and Article 546 (reimbursement for necessary expenses; retention by possessor in good faith).
- Doctrine on standards of review under Rule 45 (1997 Rules of Civil Procedure): only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review before the Supreme Court; factual findings by lower courts are generally final unless contrary to or unsupported by the evidence.
Factual Background
Lots Nos. 2587 and 2592 are co-owned parcels. Respondent owned six-eighths (6/8) of Lot No. 2587; the spouses Inocencio Bascon and Basilisa Maneja owned two-eighths (2/8). Lot No. 2592 was owned in common by respondent and heirs of Nicolas Maneja, with undetermined proportions. The five Resuena petitioners occupied the upper portion of Lot No. 2587 allegedly by acquiescence of the Bascons; Eutiquia Rosario occupied a portion of Lot No. 2592 allegedly with permission of the heirs of Nicolas Maneja. Respondent maintained that petitioners occupied by his liberality and demanded vacation to expand his resort.
Procedural History
Respondent filed a complaint for ejectment in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC). The MTC found the lots to be owned in common and ruled respondent lacked a preferential right of possession over the petitioners’ portions because the property was undivided and no determinate shares had been assigned; the MTC dismissed the complaint. The Regional Trial Court reversed, invoking Article 487 to permit a co-owner to bring ejectment for the benefit of all co-owners and ordered petitioners to vacate, without prejudice to their returning to portions later adjudicated to their authorizers after partition. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. Petitioners filed a Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court challenging the CA ruling.
Issues Presented
The principal assignments of error raised by petitioners included:
- That respondent should be estopped from filing ejectment based on his alleged prior oral agreement or statements;
- That the verbal agreement between respondent and the Bascons was an executed contract and thus enforceable (invoking statute of frauds concerns);
- That Article 493 of the Civil Code and petitioners’ status as assignees of co-owners entitle them to continued occupancy;
- That, if ejectment were granted, the case should be remanded to permit reception of evidence on damages under Article 546 (reimbursement of necessary expenses).
Standard of Review Emphasized by the Court
The Supreme Court reiterated the well-settled limitation under Rule 45: only questions of law (not questions of fact) may be raised. The Court will not reweigh evidence or redetermine factual findings made by the Court of Appeals, which are final and conclusive unless they are contrary to the trial court’s findings or unsupported by the record. Because the RTC and CA rendered judgment as a matter of law applying the facts determined by the MTC, the Supreme Court proceeded on that same factual record.
Court’s Analysis: Lot No. 2592 (Eutiquia Rosario)
The Court observed that the evidence and arguments concerning Lot No. 2592 were not developed in the petition; petitioners did not adequately contest the RTC and CA findings regarding Eutiquia Rosario. Accordingly, the Supreme Court maintained the lower courts’ conclusion that respondent has the right to eject Rosario from Lot No. 2592.
Court’s Analysis: Lot No. 2587 (Other Five Petitioners) — Article 487 and Ejectment
For the five petitioners occupying Lot No. 2587, the Court found that Article 487 of the Civil Code plainly authorizes any one co-owner to bring an action in ejectment. The Court treated the action as being brought for the benefit of all co-owners; while a favorable judgment would benefit all, an adverse judgment cannot prejudice others’ rights. Because petitioners failed to prove they were authorized to occupy the property (the courts below had found their occupation to be by mere tolerance), respondent’s right under Article 487 to eject the petitioners was affirmed. The Court reiterated the principle that persons occupying another’s land by permission or tolerance, absent any contractual or possessory right, are bound to vacate upon demand, and ejectment is the proper summary remedy.
Court’s Analysis: Estoppel, Verbal Agreement, and Statute of Frauds
Petitioners argued estoppel based on respondent’s testimony in another case that he had agreed with Basilisa Maneja on which portions each would occupy. The Court held that such testimony, even if indicating a verbal understanding between co-owners, did not establish a definitive partition or any legal right of petitioners to occupy. Estoppel operates only between parties to the transaction or their successors in interest; petitioners (strangers to any alleged agreement between Borromeo and the Bascons) could neither be bound by nor take advantage of that estoppel. Likewise, any alleged verbal agreement between respondent and the Bascons did not change the undivided common ownership status of Lot No. 2587 and did not constitute a valid conveyance of real rights under Article 1358 (the statute of frauds requires a public instrument for transactions creating or transmitting real rights in immovables). The Court noted that pe
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 128338)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 filed in the Supreme Court from the Decision of the Court of Appeals (Eleventh Division) in CA-G.R. SP No. 39058 dated 07 October 1996, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (Branch 18, Civil Case No. CEB-16727, Judge Galicano C. Arriesgado) decision reversing the Metropolitan Trial Court (Branch 01, Civil Case No. 695, Judge Mario V. Manayon).
- The case before the Supreme Court is G.R. No. 128338, decided March 28, 2005, authored by Justice Tinga; concurrence by Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Chico-Nazario, JJ.
- Petitioners asserted assignments of error enumerated in their Petition dated 26 February 1997, challenging the Court of Appeals’ affirmation of the RTC decision ordering ejectment.
- Due to the death of private respondent Juanito Borromeo, Sr. on 23 December 1997, his heirs (Juanito Borromeo, Jr.; Virginia Borromeo-Guzman; and heirs of Andres Borromeo, Sr.: Jacqueline, John, and Andres Jr., all surnamed Borromeo) were substituted by the Supreme Court resolution dated 06 September 1999.
Factual Background
- Subject properties: Lots Nos. 2587 and 2592 of the Talisay-Manglanilla Estate in Pooc, Talisay, Cebu.
- Ownership:
- Lot No. 2587: Juanito Borromeo, Sr. owned six-eighths (6/8); the late spouses Inocencio Bascon and Basilisa Maneja (Spouses Bascon) owned two-eighths (2/8).
- Lot No. 2592: Owned in common by respondent and the heirs of Nicolas Maneja; proportion of undivided shares not determined in the record.
- Occupancy:
- Petitioners Tining Resuena, Alejandra Garay, Lorna Resuena, Eleuterio Resuena, and Unisima Resuena resided in the upper portion of Lot No. 2587, allegedly under the acquiescence/tolerance of the Spouses Bascon and their heir Andres Bascon.
- Petitioner Eutiquia Rosario occupied a portion of Lot No. 2592, allegedly with permission of the heirs of Nicolas Maneja.
- Respondent claimed petitioners occupied portions by virtue of his liberality.
- Development: Respondent developed parts of Lots Nos. 2587 and 2592 into Borromeo Beach Resort and sought expansion, prompting demand that petitioners vacate.
- Pre-litigation indication: Respondent’s testimony in Civil Case No. R-14600 indicated a verbal understanding with Basilisa Maneja as to portions each would occupy in Lot No. 2587; respondent acknowledged the parcel was “not yet partitioned” and referenced a verbal agreement that “portion of the land towards the sea-shore it will be my share and that portion of the land towards the upper part will be theirs.”
Lower Court Findings and Decisions
- Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), Decision dated 10 October 1994:
- Found Lots Nos. 2587 and 2592 were owned in common by respondent and others.
- Held respondent lacked preferential right of possession over portions occupied by petitioners because the properties were undivided and not partitioned; therefore respondent could not evict petitioners.
- Dismissed respondent’s ejectment complaint.
- Relied in part on respondent’s testimony in Civil Case No. R-14600 indicating lack of partition and a verbal agreement as to occupancy.
- Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18, Civil Case No. CEB-16727:
- Reversed the MTC decision.
- Relied on Article 487 of the Civil Code, concluding that “any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment,” reasoning a co-owner is owner and possessor of the whole and an ejectment suit by one co-owner is for the benefit of all.
- Ordered the defendants (petitioners) to vacate the premises, but allowed their return only after partition and only to portions adjudicated to those who allegedly authorized their occupancy.
- Quoted disposition: defendants directed to vacate without prejudice to returning after partition to the specific portion(s) adjudicated to the person(s) who allegedly authorized them to occupy by tolerance.
- Court of Appeals (Eleventh Division), CA-G.R. SP No. 39058, Decision dated 07 October 1996:
- Affirmed the RTC judgment; affirmed reversal of MTC and ejectment order with costs against petitioners.
- Decision penned by Justice Ramon Mabutas Jr., concurred in by Justices Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes and Salvador J. Valdez, Jr.
Issues Presented by Petitioners (Assignments of Error)
- Petitioners contended, among other claims:
- Court of Appeals erred in not applying/declaring respondent estopped from filing ejectment against petitioners based on respondent’s testimony and alleged prior conduct.
- Court of Appeals incorrectly applied the Statute of Frauds, arguing the verbal agreement between Spouses Bascon and respondent more than twenty years prior constituted an executed contract.
- Court of Appeals ignored Article 493 of the Civil Code, asserting the six petitioners were assignees of co-owners Spouses Bascon or their heir Andres Bascon and thus entitled to possessory rights.
- If ejected, petitioners argued the case should have been remanded to receive evidence for damages pursuant to Article 546 of the Civil Code.
Parties’ Contentions as Presented in the Record
- Petitioners:
- Claimed right to occupy based on alleged assignment by Spouses Bascon and alleged verbal agreement between respondent and Basilisa Maneja concerning allocation of Lot No. 2587 prior to partition.
- Asserted respondent was estopped from seeking ejectment due to respondent’s prior testimony and alleged waivers.
- Claimed entitlement to reimbursement for necessary expenses (costs of constructing houses) under Article 546.
- Respondent:
- Claimed petitioners occupied by his liberality and that he had the right to expand resort and demand vacation.
- Relied on Article 487 to bring ejectment action as co-owner.
Legal Questions Raised
- Whether Article 487 of the Civil Code permits a single co-owner to bring an ejectment action against occupants of undivided common property.
- Whether respondent’s prior testimony or alleged verbal agreement estopped him from bringing ejectment against petitioners who were strangers to the respondent–Bascon transaction.
- Whether alleged verbal agreements or alleged assignments by co-owners to petitioners are enforceable against the co-owner and sufficient to defeat an ejectment action absent written instrument complying with the Statute of Frauds / Article 1358.
- Whether petitioners, by virtue of alleged permission or assignment and by having constructed houses, are entitled to reimbursement for necessary expenses under Article 546 of the Civil Code.
- Procedural question under Rule 45: whether petitioners raised merely factual questions precluding Supreme Court review.