7/23/2019 REGINA P

1/15

REGINA P. DIZON, AMPARO D. BARTOLOME, FIDELINA D. BLAZA, ESTER

ABAD DIZON and JOSEPH ANTHONY DIZON, RAYMUND A. DIZON,

GERARD A. DIZON, and JOSE A. DIZON, JR.,petitioners,vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and OVERLAND EXPRESS LINES, INC., respondents.

G.R. No. 1!"!1 Jan#a$% &, 1'''

REGINA P. DIZON, AMPARO D. BARTOLOME, FIDELINA D. BALZA, ESTER

ABAD DIZON and JOSEPH ANTHONY DIZON, RAYMUND A. DIZON,

GERARD A. DIZON, and Jo() A. DIZON, JR.,petitioners,

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, and OVERLAND

EXPRESS LINES, INC.,respondents.

MARTINEZ,J.:

Two consolidated petitions were filed before us seeking to set aside and annul thedecisions and resolutions of respondent Court of Appeals. What seemed to be a simple

ejectment suit was juxtaposed with procedural intricacies which finally found its way to

this Court.

.!. "o. #$$%&&'

(n )ay $*, #+&, private respondent (verland -xpress ines, /nc. 0lessee1 entered into a

Contract of ease with (ption to 2uy with petitioners

1

0lessors1 involving a #,%%.34s5uare meter parcel of land situated at corner )acArthur 6ighway and 7outh 868 7treet,

9iliman, :ue;on City. The term of the lease was for one 0#1 year commencing from )ay#or failure of private respondent to pay the increased rental of =3,444.44 per montheffective ?une #+

7/23/2019 REGINA P

2/15

=rivate respondent filed a certiorari petition praying for the issuance of a restraining

order enjoining the enforcement of said judgment and dismissal of the case for lack of

jurisdiction of the City Court.

(n 7eptember $

7/23/2019 REGINA P

3/15

reconsideration in Civil Case "o. &(!-, the appealed decision in Case "o. &>/!)-9. The appealed

decision in Case "o. &%% is, on the other hand, A""F-9 and 7-T A7/9-. Thedefendantsappellees are ordered to execute the deed of absolute sale of the property in

5uestion, free from any lien or encumbrance whatsoever, in favor of the plaintiff

appellant, and to deliver to the latter the said deed of sale, as well as the ownerDs duplicate

of the certificate of title to said property upon payment of the balance of the purchaseprice by the plaintiffappellant. The plaintiffappellant is ordered to pay =#,44.44 per

month from ?une #+

7/23/2019 REGINA P

4/15

$$, #+3$ which was granted in a resolution dated ?une $+, #++$. =rivate respondent filed

a motion to reconsider said resolution which was denied.

Aggrieved, private respondent filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition with preliminaryinjunction andBor restraining order with this Court 0.!. "os. #4(!-, the petition is 9-"/-9 due course and is accordingly 9/7)/77-9.

7( (!9-!-9.

1+

=etitionersD motion for reconsideration was denied in a resolution 1by the Court of

Appeals stating that'

This court in its decision in CA.!. C@ "os. $%#%*%& declared that the plaintiff

appellant 0private respondent herein1 ac5uired the rights of a vendee in a contract of sale,in effect, recogni;ing the right of the private respondent to possess the subject premises.

7/23/2019 REGINA P

5/15

Considering said decision, we should not allow ejectmentE to do so would disturb

thestatus quoof the parties since the petitioners are not in possession of the subject

property. /t would be unfair and unjust to deprive the private respondent of its possessionof the subject property after its rights have been established in a subse5uent ruling.

W6-!->(!-, the motion for reconsideration is 9-"/-9 for lack of merit.

7( (!9-!-9. 1"

6ence, this instant petition.

We find both petitions impressed with merit.

>irst. =etitioners have established a right to evict private respondent from the subjectpremises for nonpayment of rentals. The term of the Contract of ease with (ption to

2uy was for a period of one 0#1 year 0)ay #

7/23/2019 REGINA P

6/15

/n this case, there was a contract of lease for one 0#1 year with option to purchase. The

contract of lease expired without the private respondent, as lessee, purchasing the

property but remained in possession thereof. 6ence, there was an implicit renewal of thecontract of lease on a monthly basis. The other terms of the original contract of lease

which are revived in the implied new lease under Article #idela 9i;on, the payee thereof. =rivate respondent further contended thatpetitionersD filing of the ejectment case against it based on the contract of lease with

option to buy holds petitioners in estoppel to 5uestion the authority of petitioner >idela

9i;on. /t insisted that the payment of =*44,444.44 as partial payment of the purchaseprice constituted a valid exercise of the option to buy.

Fnder Article #&% of the "ew Civil Code, 8the contract of sale is perfected at the

moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and

upon the price. >rom that moment, the parties may reciprocally demand performance,subject to the provisions of the law governing the form of contracts.8 Thus, the elements

of a contract of sale are consent, object, and price in money or its e5uivalent. /t bears

stressing that the absence of any of these essential elements negates the existence of aperfected contract of sale. 7ale is a consensual contract and he who alleges it must show

its existence by competent proof. +

/n an attempt to resurrect the lapsed option, private respondent gave =*44,444.44 to

petitioners 0thru Alice A. 9i;on1 on the erroneous presumption that the said amounttendered would constitute a perfected contract of sale pursuant to the contract of lease

7/23/2019 REGINA P

7/15

with option to buy. There was no valid consent by the petitioners 0as coowners of the

leased premises1 on the supposed sale entered into by Alice A. 9i;on, as petitionersD

alleged agent, and private respondent. The basis for agency is representation and a persondealing with an agent is put upon in5uiry and must discover upon his peril the authority

of the agent. As provided in Article #3

7/23/2019 REGINA P

8/15

=etitioner,

versus

MANOTO4 SERVICES, INC., a55)6)d5%

$)$)()n/)d 0% PERPETUA BOCANEGRA

7d)3)a()d8,

!espondent.

=resent'

CA!=/(,J.,Chairperson,2!/(",

=-!-I,

7-!-"(, and!-J-7,JJ.

=romulgated'

?une $, $4#$

xx

DECISION

BRION,J.9

2efore us is the petition for review on certiorariK#Lfiled by @iegely 7amelo

0petitioner1, represented by her attorneyinfact Cristina 7amelo, to challenge the decision

dated ?une $#, $44%K$Land the resolution dated "ovember #4, $44%K*Lof the Court of

Appeals 0CA1 in CA.!. 7= "o. 3%

7/23/2019 REGINA P

9/15

Ba3:6$o#nd Fa3/(

)anotok 7ervices, /nc. 0respondent1 alleged that it is the administrator of a parcel

of land known as ot +A, 2lock $+#*, situated at $33$ 9agupan -xtension, Tondo,

)anila. (n ?anuary *#, #++, the respondent entered into a contract with the petitioner

for the lease of a portion of ot +A, 2lock $+#*, described as ot &, 2lock #% 0subjectpremises1. The lease contract was for a period of one 0#1 year, with a monthly rental

of =*,+

7/23/2019 REGINA P

10/15

$. To pay plaintiff the sum of =&4,4%.$4 as compensation for

the use and occupancy of the premises from ?anuary #, #++3 toAugust *4, #++3, plus =&,%%&.44 a month starting 7eptember #,

#++3, until defendant and all personKsL claiming rights under

her to finally vacate the premisesKEL

*. To pay plaintiff the sum of =%,444.44 for and as attorneys

feesE and

&. To pay the cost of suit.K+L

T;) RTC D)32(2on

The petitioner filed an appealK#4Lwith the !egional Trial Court 0"TC1, 2ranch %4,

)anila. The !TC, in its decisionK##L

of ?uly #, $44&, set aside the )eTCs decision, anddismissed the complaint for unlawful detainer. The !TC held, among others, that the

respondent had no right to collect rentals as it failed to show that it had authority to

administer the subject premises and to enter into a contract of lease with the petitioner. /t

also ruled that the subject premises, which were formerly owned by the ="!, are now

owned by the petitioner by virtue of her possession and stay in the premises since #+&&.

T;) CA D)32(2on

Aggrieved by the reversal, the respondent filed a petition for review with the CA,

docketed as CA.!. 7= "o. 3%

7/23/2019 REGINA P

11/15

/n presenting her case before this Court, the petitioner argued that the CA erred in

ruling that a tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord. 7he maintained that

the respondent is not the owner or administrator of the subject premises, and insisted that

she had been in possession of the land in 5uestion since #+&&. 7he further added that she

repudiated the lease contract by filing a case for fraudulent misrepresentation,

intimidation, annulment of lease contract, and 5uieting of title with injunction beforeanother court.K#%L

T;) Co#$/( R#52n6

We find the petition #n

7/23/2019 REGINA P

12/15

"espondent #as a better rig#t of possession over t#e subject premises

An action for unlawful detainer exists when a person unlawfully withholds

possession of any land or building against or from a lessor, vendor, vendee or other

persons, after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of

any contract, express or implied.K#

7/23/2019 REGINA P

13/15

Article #

7/23/2019 REGINA P

14/15

/ndeed, the relation of lessor and lessee does not depend on the

formers title but on the agreement between the parties, followed by the

possession of the premises by the lessee under such agreement. As long asthe latter remains in undisturbed possession, it is immaterial whether the

lessor has a valid title or any title at all at the time the relationship was

entered into. Kcitations omittedL

T#e issue of o$ners#ip

We are likewise unpersuaded by the petitioners claim that she has ac5uired

possessory rights leading to ownershipK$or prescription to set in, the possession must be adverse,

continuous, public, and to the exclusion of KothersL. K$L7ignificantly, the !TC decision

failed to state its basis for concluding that the petitioner stayed in the subject premises

since #+&&.

At any rate, we hold that no need exists to resolve the issue of ownership in this

case, since it is not re5uired to determine the issue of possessionE the execution of the

lease contract between the petitioner, as lessee, and the respondent, as lessor, belies the

formers claim of ownership. We reiterate that the fact of the lease and the expiration of its

term are the only elements in an action for unlawful detainer. The defense of ownership

does not change the summary nature of KthisL action. x x x. Although a wrongful

possessor may at times be upheld by the courts, this is merely temporary and solely for

the maintenance of public order. The 5uestion of ownership is to be settled in the proper

court and in a proper action.K$3L

&nterest on rentals due

Additionally, the petitioner is liable to pay interest by way of damages for her failure to

pay the rentals due for the use of the subject premises.K$+LWe reiterate that the respondents

extrajudicial demand on the petitioner was made on August %, #++3. Thus, from this date,the rentals due from the petitioner shall earn interest at HEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, we DENYthe petition. The decision and

the resolution of the Court of Appeals dated ?une $#, $44% and "ovember #4, $44%,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/170509.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/170509.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/170509.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/170509.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/170509.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/170509.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/170509.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/170509.htm#_ftn29

7/23/2019 REGINA P

15/15

respectively, in CA.!. 7= "o. 3%