FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 186473. August 20, 2014.]
MARIA ROSITA G. REYES, petitioner,vs. SPS. NEPOLEON*BIACORA & TERESITA BIACORA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 20, 2014, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 186473 — MARIA ROSITA G. REYES, PETITIONER, v. SPS. NEPOLEONBIACORA & TERESITA BIACORA, RESPONDENTS.
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul and set aside the Decision dated December 5, 2008 and Resolution dated February 13, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 103282, entitled "Spouses Nepoleon Biacora and Teresita Biacora v. Maria Rosita G. Reyes," which reversed the Decision dated April 4, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 119, in Civil Case No. 07-1620-CFM. The April 4, 2008 ruling of the RTC nullified and set aside the Decision dated September 17, 2007 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Pasay City, Branch 45, in Civil Case No. 867-06-CFM.
The following are the facts of this case as culled from the assailed December 5, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals, to wit:
On 23 August 2004, respondent Maria Rosita G. Reyes entered into a conditional sale with Leticia Balgos-Matsushita. Respondent was buying from Matsushita Unit 504 of Marbella 1 Condominium located at 2223 Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City ("Unit 504") for One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00).
At the time the conditional sale was executed, the ownership of Unit 504 was the subject of an interpleader case filed before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. It appears that a certain Dr. Juana Peñamora was also claiming ownership of Unit 504. The interpleader case was terminated with the forging of a Compromise Agreement between Matsushita and Peñamora wherein Unit 504 was sold to Peñamora.
Due to this development, respondent executed another contract for the purchase of Unit 504 [with] its new owner, Peñamora. The price was fixed at Six Hundred Thousand Pesos (P600,000.00) in a contract denominated as Deed of Sale on Installment Plan. It was agreed upon by respondent and Peñamora that part of the selling price will be paid on installment basis for thirty-six (36) months.
In April 2006, petitioners, spouses Nepoleon and Teresita Biacora, met respondent. Respondent offered to sell to them Unit 504 for Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00). The offer was accepted by petitioners. However, after petitioners have initially paid Two Hundred Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P215,000.00), they discovered that the property was owned by Peñamora as stated in its title, Condominium Certificate of Title No. 13866.
With this discovery, petitioners directly dealt with Peñamora leading to the execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale between them on 1 June 2006. The deed was also signed by respondent as witness to its execution. After paying the selling price of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) to Peñamora, petitioners succeeded in transferring the title of Unit 504 [to] their name on 20 June 2006.
Thereafter, in a letter dated 4 August 2006, petitioners, through their counsel, demanded that respondent vacate the subject premises. They also asked for the return of the P215,000.00 they paid to respondent.
When respondent ignored the demand, a complaint for unlawful detainer was filed by petitioners on 28 August 2006. They alleged in the complaint that they merely tolerated respondent's possession of Unit 504. The case was assigned to Branch 45 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City ("MeTC"). 1
On September 17, 2007, the MeTC ruled in favor of the spouses Biacora and dispositively held:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against defendant, together with all persons claiming rights under her, ordering the latter to:
1. Vacate and surrender possession to the plaintiffs the premises located at Unit 504, Marbella 1 Condominium, 2223 Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City, Metro Manila;
2. Pay the plaintiffs reasonable compensation for the use and enjoyment of the premises in the amount of Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000.00) per month from the filing of the complaint until the premises is vacated;
3. Pay attorney's fees in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos P20,000.00, without costs.
The counterclaim of the defendant is dismissed. 2
Dissatisfied with the MeTC ruling, petitioner elevated her case to the RTC which took her part and set aside the MeTC decision on the ground that it was void. The RTC held that the MeTC had no jurisdiction over the case since the proper action should have been accion publiciana instead of unlawful detainer. The RTC also ruled to deny the respondents' motion to execute the MeTC decision pending appeal.
Respondents, in turn, appealed the RTC ruling before the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, in its assailed Decision dated December 5, 2008, reversed the April 4, 2008 RTC Decision. It also ordered the reinstatement of the previously nullified September 17, 2007 Decision of the MeTC, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the decision of Branch 119 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City in Civil Case No. 07-1620-CFM is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The decision of Branch 45 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City in Civil Case No. 867-06-CFM is REINSTATED and is deemed immediately executory. 3
Thus, petitioner filed the present action before this Court questioning the December 5, 2008 ruling of the Court of Appeals.
We rule to deny the petition. aScITE
Petitioner maintains that respondents failed to establish with preponderance of evidence that the basis of her possession of Unit 504 of Marbella I Condominium was merely by tolerance of respondents who claim to be the owners of the said property. With that being the case, petitioner insists that the action for unlawful detainer filed in the MeTC was not proper for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and that the proper action instituted should have been accion publiciana as decreed by the RTC.
As reiterated in jurisprudence, unlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real property from one who unlawfully withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied. 4
In an unlawful detainer, the defendant's possession of the plaintiff's property is based on the plaintiff's permission expressed through an express or implied contract between them. The defendant's possession becomes illegal only when the plaintiff demands the return of the property, either because of the expiration of the right to possess it or the termination of their contract, and the defendant refuses to heed the demand. 5
To be precise, as restated in Macaslang v. Zamora, 6 a complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it states the following elements: (1) initially, the possession of the property by the defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by the plaintiff to the defendant of the termination of the latter's right of possession; (3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff of its enjoyment; and (4) within one year from the making of the last demand to vacate the property, the plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment.
In the case at bar, all the foregoing elements are clearly present.
Respondents' ownership of the condominium unit was never placed in serious doubt by petitioner as demonstrated by the evidence on record, specifically, that of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 1, 2006 executed between respondents and Dr. Juana Peñamora. Not only did petitioner admit its existence, she likewise did not refute her signature on the same document as a witness to the sale of said property. We agree with the appellate court that petitioner's right to possess the premises was contractual (i.e., by virtue of petitioner's contracts with Matsushita and Peñamora). However, said right of possession was terminated when the property was sold by Peñamora to respondents with the apparent acquiescence of petitioner.
In other words, petitioner's possession of the property was originally lawful while the contracts in her favor were subsisting. Thus, the first element for an action for unlawful detainer was satisfied. After the execution of the deed of sale between Peñamora and respondents, petitioner's continued possession of the property was now only on mere tolerance of respondents. When respondents served upon petitioner a letter dated August 4, 2006 demanding the latter to surrender the subject premises, petitioner's possession became illegal or no longer tolerated. Coupled with petitioner's refusal to vacate the property despite written notice, the second and third elements have indubitably been established.
Lastly, the record indicates that the complaint for unlawful detainer was filed with the MeTC on August 28, 2006 which is clearly within one year from the date of last demand to vacate the subject property made by respondents which was in the form of the aforementioned August 4, 2006 eviction letter that was received by petitioner on August 9, 2006.
Anent petitioner's claim that the parties had an agreement that she was to receive a portion of the selling price for the condominium unit sold by Peñamora to the respondents, contrary to the express terms of the deed of sale, the same should be ventilated and resolved in a separate court proceeding. The sole issue determinative of this case is whether the MeTC had jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case filed by respondents against petitioner.
From the foregoing disquisition, we have reached the conclusion that the complaint for unlawful detainer was properly taken cognizance of by the MeTC. In all, we find no reversible error in the assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present petition for review on certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED."VILLARAMA, Jr., J., took no part; LEONEN, J., acting member per S.O. No. 1758 dated August 20, 2014.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Also referred as "Napoleon" in some parts of the record.
1. Rollo, pp. 218-219.
2. Id. at 66.
3. Id. at 225-226.
4. Union Bank of the Philippines v. Maunlad Homes, Inc., G.R. No. 190071, August 15, 2012, 678 SCRA 539, 545.
5. Zosima, Incorporated v. Salimbagat, G.R. No. 174376, September 12, 2012, 680 SCRA 497, 503.
6. G.R. No. 156375, May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 92, 104.