Title
Tan Siok Kuan vs. Ho
Case
G.R. No. 175085
Decision Date
Jun 1, 2016
Chinese nationals claim land ownership in Quezon City, demand unpaid rentals from defendants. Defendants deny leases, citing nationality and prior possession. Courts rule no lessor-lessee relationship exists, affirming CA decision. Petition dismissed.
unlawful detainer
ownership
parcel of land
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 175085)

Factual Background

The case originated from seven distinct unlawful detainer complaints filed by petitioners against seven defendants: Avelino Bombita, Felix Gagarin, Bernardo Napolitano, Felicisimo “Boy” Ho, Rodolfo C. Returta, Vicente Salas, and Lolita Malonzo. Petitioners asserted ownership of the land and improvements covered by TCT Nos. 279014 and 279015. They further claimed that they had been leasing portions of the property since 1972 to the defendants, and that on February 7, 2003 they notified each defendant in writing of failure to pay rentals. The notices specified the alleged unpaid rental periods and corresponding sums as of December 2002, and each letter demanded payment within ten days or otherwise required the defendants to vacate and turn over possession. Petitioners alleged that the defendants ignored the demand, and they thus filed the unlawful detainer complaints.

The defendants raised separate defenses. Bombita, Gagarin, and Napolitano argued that the lease agreements were void ab initio because petitioners were Chinese nationals allegedly not entitled to own real property in the Philippines. They also asserted that they had been in possession since 1968 and that the proper action should have been accion publiciana, not unlawful detainer.

Respondents—Ho, Returta, Salas, and Malonzo—maintained that they had been in possession for about thirty-seven years, that they had not paid rentals to any landlord or his agents, and that there were no existing lease contracts between them and petitioners. In separate letters, they categorically denied being tenants of petitioners. They added that they had started occupying the property in 1966 by building residential houses and had remained in continuous possession since then. They also challenged petitioners’ title proof, alleging that when the alleged TCTs were presented for verification, the Register of Deeds informed them that no transaction was recorded in the mother titles from which the claimed transfers supposedly emanated. Finally, even assuming the authenticity of petitioners’ titles, respondents contended that petitioners’ cause of action should have been accion publiciana because respondents were in possession and no lease contract existed.

MeTC Proceedings and Ruling

After trial, the MeTC-Branch 40, Quezon City ruled in favor of petitioners. As to Bombita, Gagarin, and Napolitano, the MeTC reasoned that their defenses implied recognition of lease contracts. It applied the rule that a tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord, and thus treated the lessor-lessee relationship as established.

As to respondents (Ho, Returta, Salas, and Malonzo), the MeTC held that petitioners had shown that the property was registered in their name. It then treated respondents’ mere denial of a lessor-lessee relationship as insufficient, invoking the principle that greater weight generally belongs to positive testimony when faced with contradictory statements. On this basis, the MeTC ordered each respondent defendant to vacate and surrender possession to petitioners, and it further ordered monthly payments as rentals from February 7, 2003 until complete vacation, together with attorney’s fees and costs, as reflected in the individual civil case dispositions.

RTC Proceedings and Affirmance

On appeal, the RTC-Branch 87, Quezon City affirmed the MeTC. The RTC treated defendants’ common defenses as consisting of: (1) petitioners’ alleged incapacity as Chinese nationals to own real property in the Philippines; (2) defendants’ claimed long occupancy since 1968, which respondents argued rendered the action one for accion publiciana; and (3) the alleged absence of a lessor-lessee relationship. The RTC found that these matters had been thoroughly and judiciously passed upon by the MeTC and found no reversible error. It accordingly affirmed the MeTC’s judgment en toto and issued a writ of execution, with the premises eventually being turned over to petitioners on February 24, 2006.

Appeals before the Court of Appeals

In the course of execution, respondents timely filed an appeal before the CA on November 18, 2005. They raised issues that included the MeTC’s jurisdiction, the allegedly erroneous finding of a lessor-lessee relationship in violation of res inter alios acta, and the non-dismissal of the case despite petitioners and their counsel allegedly failing to attend a pre-trial conference. Petitioners, for their part, argued that the RTC decision had become final and executory due to respondents’ alleged failure to file a joint motion for reconsideration within the prescribed fifteen (15) days. They also alternatively contended that respondents’ refusal to pay rentals supported ejectment because non-payment of rent was a valid ground for ejectment.

CA Ruling Reversing and Dismissing

The CA reversed the RTC. While the CA upheld the jurisdiction of the MeTC, it agreed with respondents that petitioners had materially failed to prove the right to eject respondents on the strength of being lessors. The CA also sustained respondents’ invocation of res inter alios acta. It thus held that the complaints for unlawful detainer lacked merit and it reversed and set aside the RTC decision, entering a new decision dismissing the unlawful detainer actions.

Supreme Court Review: Issues and Disposition

Petitioners elevated the case by Petition for Review on Certiorari, raising two principal issues. First, petitioners argued that the RTC decision had become final and executory because respondents allegedly failed to file their Joint Motion for Reconsideration within the fifteen (15) day regulatory period. Second, petitioners asserted that the tenancy relationship between petitioners and respondents had been properly established.

The Supreme Court ruled against petitioners. On the issue of timeliness, the Court found that respondents’ joint motion for reconsideration was timely. Although petitioners relied on respondents’ statement that they received the RTC decision on May 15, 2005, the Court explained that the statement was inadvertent and erroneous. The Court found, based on the certified true copies of the RTC registry return slips, that the RTC decision had been mailed simultaneously to the parties only on June 7, 2005. Since respondents could not have received the decision prior to its mailing, respondents clarified that they actually received it on June 15, 2005. The Court thus held that the joint motion filed on June 29, 2005 was within the allowable time, so the RTC decision was not final and executory.

The Merits: Failure to Prove Lessor-Lessee Relationship and Application of Res Inter Alios Acta

On the merits, the Court held that the evidence did not support the establishment of a lessor-lessee relationship. The Court observed that, aside from petitioners’ bare claims, petitioners failed to show any evidence of a lease between them and respondents, whether express or implied. The Court highlighted that there was no mention of when or how the alleged lease began, and petitioners offered no proof of prior payment of rentals. It also noted the lack of prior demand for rental payment in light of petitioners’ assertion that respondents failed to pay rentals only from 1997 and that the cases were instituted in 2003.

The Court further held that respondents properly invoked res inter alios acta. It discussed the principle as one stating that a party’s right cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except under recognized exceptions such as admission by a third party, admission by co-partner or agent, admission by conspirator, or admission by privies. The Court cited Tamargo v. Awingan, where it had explained, citing People v. vda. De Ramos, that it would be manifestly unjust to bind a party by the acts or conduct of mere unauthorized strangers and, correspondingly, to use such strangers’ acts as evidence against a party who ought not to be prejudiced by them.

Applying the doctrine, the Court found that petitioners failed to establish that any “implied admission” by the defendants below, other than respondents, fell within the exceptions that would make such admission binding upon respondents. Although respondents and certain other defendants were all named defendants in the unlawful detainer complaints,

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms