Lila Gail Corpuz-Alfiler v. Spouses Cayabyab
G.R. No. 217111
March 13, 2023
FACTS:
In
March 2010, respondent-spouses John and Geraldine Cayabyab (respondents),
represent by their attorney-in-fact, Jose Vasallo, filed with the Metropolitan
Trial Court (MeTC) a complaint for ejectment against the petitioner (Lilah) and
all persons claiming rights under them (Garduce, et al.) alleging that they are
the owners of the property having acquired it through a Deed of Absolute Sale
(DOAS) executed by Quintin on August 20, 1997 through his attorney-in-fact,
Norman Santiago (Norman). Respondents further claimed that Garduce, et al. have
in possession of the property, illegally building their houses without paying
rent since 1997. They issued their final demand on May 8, 2009 for Garduce, et
al. to vacate the premises, but to no avail. In their Answer, petitioner Lilah
and Meda (sister of petitioner) denied respondents’ claim of ownership and
possession over the property alleging that the DOAS is null and void because
Norman was not authorized by an SPA to sell the property; and that Garduce, et
al. have a better right to possess the property by virtue of the contract of
sale between Linglingay, et al. and Quintin. Furthermore, that MeTC has no jurisdiction
over the case because it was filed one year from the time respondents were
dispossessed of the property, hence, the action must be one for accion
publiciana, to be filed with the RTC. The MeTC ruled in favor of the
respondents stating that Garduce, et al. were not able to prove their right
over the property. On appeal, the RTC affirmed in toto the decision of the
MeTC. The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari by the petitioner on the
ground that it was the wrong mode of judicial review. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not the respondents have established their right of possession.
HELD:
No, the
respondents have not established their right of possession over the subject
property because they have no right of ownership in the first place. In
ejectment cases, it is the plaintiff who has the burden of proof to establish
by preponderance of evidence that he or she is entitled to the de facto
possession. In the case at bar, it was the respondents who filed the complaint
for unlawful detainer before the MeTC, and thus, they have the burden to
establish that they have a right of possession over the subject property. There
are several legal infirmities in their claim. First, a cursory reading of the
DOAS shows that it was executed on August 20, 1997 by respondents and Quintin,
through an SPA, but Quintin already died in March of the same year. Thus,
Quintin does not have any legal personality to transfer any property rights
after his death. Moreover, respondents could not produce the mandatory requirement
of a written SPA authorizing Norman to sell the land of Quintin rendering their
claim of ownership and possession doubtful.
The
cause of action for an action for unlawful detainer is the act or omission by
which a party violates the legal right of the other. Meanwhile, the real party
in interest as a complainant thereto is the landlord, vendor, vendee, or other
person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully
withheld after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession,
by virtue of a contract, express or implied. In other words; the plaintiff
should have a right of possession over the property. Not having acquired any
right over the property in question, no right of respondents' could have been
violated. Thus, respondents' evidence failed to prove their cause of action
alleged in their pleadings. Due to the insufficiency of factual or legal basis
to grant the complaint and the failure to establish their burden of proof,
respondents' complaint should be dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment