Case Summary (G.R. No. 128338)
Properties in Dispute
Two adjacent parcels in Pooc, Talisay, Cebu: Lot No. 2587 (owned 6/8 by Borromeo, 2/8 by Spouses Inocencio Bascon and Basilisa Maneja) and Lot No. 2592 (co-owned by Borromeo and heirs of Nicolas Maneja; undetermined shares). Petitioners resided on these parcels under alleged acquiescence or verbal permission from co-owners.
Trial Court Proceedings (MTC)
Borromeo filed an ejectment complaint in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Talisay. In its October 10, 1994 Decision, the MTC found the lots undivided and held that Borromeo had no superior possessory right, dismissing his complaint for lack of preferential title.
Regional Trial Court’s Decision
On appeal, Branch 18, RTC of Cebu reversed. Citing Civil Code Article 487, the RTC held that any co-owner may bring ejectment for the benefit of all co-owners. It ordered petitioners to vacate but allowed them to return to portions allocated after formal partition.
Court of Appeals’ Affirmation
The Eleventh Division of the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s ruling on October 7, 1996, rejecting petitioners’ contentions on estoppel, statute of frauds, and their status as assignees under Article 493, and denying remand for damages under Article 546.
Issues on Review
- Whether Borromeo is estopped from filing ejectment for portions he allegedly waived.
- Whether the verbal agreement matured into an executed contract beyond the Statute of Frauds.
- Whether petitioners, as assignees of co-owners, enjoy occupancy rights under Article 493.
- Whether the case must be remanded to assess damages under Article 546.
Rights Under Article 487 of the Civil Code
The Supreme Court held that Article 487 unambiguously permits any co-owner to institute ejectment to protect the rights of all co-owners. Petitioners failed to establish authorization to occupy; mere tolerance does not vest possessory rights.
Estoppel and Statute of Frauds Claims
Borromeo’s testimony about a verbal understanding with Basilisa Maneja does not estop him in relation to petitioners, who are strangers to that agreement. Under Article 1358, verbal agreements affecting immovable property are unenforceable absent a public instrument; petitioners presented no such document.
Partition Requirement and Verbal Agreement
Undivided common ownership remained inchoate; no definitive partition or legal capacity existed for co-owners to assign specific
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 128338)
Facts of the Case
- Juanito Borromeo, Sr. (respondent) was co-owner and overseer of Lots Nos. 2587 and 2592 in Pooc, Talisay, Cebu
- Ownership in Lot No. 2587: respondent held 6/8; spouses Inocencio Bascon and Basilisa Maneja held 2/8
- Ownership in Lot No. 2592 shared by respondent and heirs of Nicolas Maneja (undetermined proportions)
- 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 of the Spouses Bascon
- Petitioner Eutiquia Rosario occupied a portion of Lot No. 2592 with purported permission from the heirs of Nicolas Maneja
- Respondent developed his portions into Borromeo Beach Resort and demanded petitioners vacate to expand resort facilities
Procedural History
- February 16, 1994: respondent filed ejectment Complaint before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Talisay, Cebu (Civil Case No. 695)
- October 10, 1994: MTC dismissed the Complaint, ruling no preferential right to possession by respondent as lots were undivided
- RTC, Branch 18 (Civil Case No. CEB-16727), on April 28, 1995, reversed MTC, holding co-owner may sue for ejectment under Article 487, Civil Code
- October 7, 1996: Court of Appeals (Eleventh Division, CA-G.R. SP No. 39058) affirmed RTC decision
- February 26, 1997: petitioners filed Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 128338)
Issues on Petition for Review
- Whether private respondent Juanito Borromeo is estopped from suing for ejectment by prior testimony in Civil Case No. R-14600
- Whether the Statute of Frauds invalidates the alleged verbal agreement assigning portions of Lot No. 2587
- Whether petitioners, as mere assignees of Spouses Bascon, acquire rights under Article 493, Civil Code
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not remand