Case Summary (G.R. No. 239727)
Key Dates
– October 1978: Conrado Erola acquires title to Lot 597.
– July 2, 2012: Respondents demand that petitioners vacate the lot within 30 days.
– March 31, 2015: MCTC decision granting unlawful detainer complaint.
– November 14, 2016: RTC decision affirming MCTC.
– August 7, 2017: CA decision affirming RTC.
– April 16, 2018: CA resolution denying reconsideration.
– July 24, 2019 & October 26, 2020: Supreme Court decision and entry of judgment.
Applicable Law
– 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date post-1990).
– Rule 45, Rules of Court (Petition for Review on Certiorari).
– Rule 70, Section 16, Rules of Court (Unlawful Detainer).
– RA 7160 (Local Government Code), Sections 412–415 (Katarungang Pambarangay).
– Civil Code (Articles 445, 448, 453, 546, 548).
Procedural History
- Respondents filed unlawful detainer and damages before the MCTC after barangay conciliation failed.
- MCTC ordered petitioners to vacate, pay ₱1,000/month rent from July 2, 2012, and ₱20,000 litigation expenses.
- RTC and CA denied petitioners’ appeals, finding barangay conciliation compliance and that petitioners possessed by mere tolerance, not in good faith under Article 448.
Issues Presented
- Whether respondents complied with mandatory barangay conciliation under RA 7160.
- Whether petitioners, as builders in good faith under Civil Code Article 448, have the right to retain possession until payment of improvements’ value.
Supreme Court Rationale
– Barangay Conciliation: Although respondents did not personally appear, they substantially complied with Sections 412 and 415 of RA 7160. The parties’ agreement produced a Certification to File Action; subsequent PMC mediation and JDR likewise failed. Given the case’s six-year pendency and summary nature, technical defects were relaxed to serve substantial justice.
– Builders in Good Faith: The CA and lower courts correctly held that petitioners’ initial possession was by tolerance, not in the concept of ownership. However, respondents knowingly permitted petitioners to occupy and improve the titled land for over 34 years without objection. Under Civil Code Article 453, where both builder and owner act with knowledge and without opposition, they are deemed in good faith. Consequently, Article 448 applies, entitling the landowner to either
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 239727)
Case Citation
- Supreme Court Second Division
- G.R. No. 239727, July 24, 2019
- Reported in 857 Phil. 761; 116 O.G. No. 43, 6847 (October 26, 2020)
- Decision penned by Justice Caguioa
Parties and Property Involved
- Petitioners: Five members of the Belvis family (Spouses Julian Belvis, Sr. & Cecilia; Spouses Julian E. Belvis, Jr. & Jocelyn; Spouses Julian E. Belvis III & Elsa; and Jouan E. Belvis)
- Respondents: Spouses Conrado V. Erola and Marilyn Erola, represented by their attorney-in-fact Maureen Frias
- Subject Property: Lot No. 597, a 29,772 square-meter parcel in Barangay Malag-it, Pontevedra, Capiz, covered by TCT No. T-26108 and a tax declaration in Conrado’s name
Facts and Antecedent Proceedings
- Respondents purchased the lot in October 1978; petitioners (close relatives) were permitted to occupy it on condition of vacating upon demand
- On July 2, 2012, respondents demanded vacation within 30 days; petitioners refused
- Mandatory barangay conciliation failed; Certification to File Action issued by the Punong Barangay
- Respondents filed an unlawful detainer complaint before the MCTC of Pontevedra, Capiz; petitioners answered, contesting personal appearance requirement and asserting co-ownership/trust and long-term possession with improvements
Municipal Circuit Trial Court Decision
- Granted unlawful detainer complaint; ordered petitioners to:
- Vacate Lot No. 597 and return it peacefully to respondents or their representative
- Pay nominal rent of ₱1,000.00 per month from July 2, 2012 until actual return
- Pay litigation expenses and attorney’s fees totaling ₱20,000.00
- Key Findings:
- Barangay conciliation requirement satisfied by Certification to File Action despite petitioners’ argument on personal appearance
- Petitioners failed to prove implied trust or co-ownership over the property
- Possession was by mere tolerance, terminable on demand; petitioners not builders in good faith
Regional Trial Court Decision
- Affirmed the MCTC ruling; dismissed petitioners’ appeal
- Procedural Holding:
- Although respondents did not persona