SPOUSES RENATO R. CO AND VIVIAN CO REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT BELEN CO, PETITIONERS, VS. LIBERTY LOCSIN, RESPONDENT.
VILLON, J.:
In the complaint for unlawful detainer, plaintiffs (herein petitioners) averred: that they are the registered owners of a certain commercial building situated at A-17 Soriano Hi-way, Tanza, Cavite and erected on a lot covered by TCT No. T-792865 wherein respondent is a lessee paying P15,000.00 a month as rental; that the contract of lease had already expired in l996 and respondent incurred arrearages in the amount of P47,000.00, exclusive of interest; that respondent violated the parties’ agreement by having a portion of the building subleased without the petitioners’ written consent; that demands made by petitioners upon respondent to pay their rental arrears remained unheeded; and that on December 9, 2002, petitioners, thru counsel, sent a demand letter to respondent for payment of rental arrears but despite receipt of said letter, respondent failed to do so.
In her answer, defendant (herein respondent) averred by way of special and affirmative defenses that: the court a quo has no jurisdiction over the case; that she is the owner of subject commercial building as evidenced by Tax Declaration and Tax receipt in her name; that petitioners have no cause of action against her; that the construction of subject commercial building was completed in November 2000; that she did not receive any demand letter for her to vacate the premises and to pay rental arrears; that sometime in November 2000, there was an old house on the subject property, the frontal portion of which was cut off due to road widening; that petitioners requested her to help them construct a two-storey building on the land owned by them which she agreed; that they also agreed that petitioners would pay her the amount spent for the construction of said building as soon as they could afford to do so, but in the meantime, she would have the right to use, possess and occupy the same; that she is using the building in the concept of an owner; and that since petitioners did not pay for the expenses incurred by her in the construction of the said building, they have no right to use and utilize the same, much less to eject her from the premises.
On June 9, 2003, the MTC rendered its decision, the decretal portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, by preponderance of evidence, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendant and all other persons claiming rights under her:
- Enjoining the defendant and all persons acting in her behalf from exercising proprietary acts over the commercial unit erected on a parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-792865;
- To pay arrearages in the amount of P47,000.00 with legal interest per month till and after the defendant and all otherpersons claiming rights under her, vacate the premises;
- To vacate the premises;
- To pay P30,000.00 as reasonable attorney’s fees and P3,000.00 per Court appearance; and
- To pay the cost of suit.”
On appeal, the RTC, in its decision dated February 6, 2004, reversed the decision of the MTC and ruled as follows:
“WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision is hereby set aside and the parties are hereby ordered to adhere to the provisions of Article 448 of the New Civil Code.”
Their motion for reconsideration having been denied in an order dated August 30, 2004, petitioners filed the instant petition for review, raising the following issues, to wit:
I
WHETHER OR NOT THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN DISTURBING THE FINDINGS OF FACTS OF THE LOWER COURT.II
WHETHER OR NOT THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT IT WAS THE DEFEDANT WHO CONSTRUCTED THE BUILDING OVER THE PIECE OF LAND COVERED BY TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. T-795865 OWNED BY PLAINTIFF, WHEN THE BUILDING HAS ALREADY BEEN IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME DEFENDANT LEASED THE PREMISES SUBJECT MATTER OF THE INSTANT CASE.III
WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT WAS THE ONE WHO BUILT THE BUILDING AND AT THE SAME TIME WHETHER OR NOT SHE IS A BUILDER IN GOOD FAITH PURSUANT TO ART. 448 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE.IV
WHETHER OR NOT THE QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP OF THE BUILDING IS ESSENTIAL IN THIS SUMMARY ACTION OF EJECTMENT.
Petitioners argue that the issue of ownership in the instant case for ejectment is irrelevant and that the same should be raised in the appropriate action. They further insist that they are the owners of subject building having purchased the parcel of land, where it was erected, from its former owner.
On the other hand, respondent also asserts ownership of the subject building erected on the lot owned by petitioners. She contends that: she constructed the said building using her own funds pursuant to her agreement with petitioners; that she has the right to possess, use, occupy or utilize the same until she is paid for the expenses incurred for the construction of the said building; and that since petitioners failed to reimburse her for the said expenses, she has the right to stay in the premises.
In an action for ejectment, the only question involved is possession de facto.[4] When the defendant raised the defense of ownership and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved for the purposes only of determining the issue of possession, and such judgment shall not bar an action between the same parties respecting title to the real property.[5] Courts in ejectment cases decide questions of ownership only as it is necessary to decide the question of possession. The reason for this rule is to prevent the defendant from trifling with the summary nature of an ejectment suit by the simple expedient of asserting ownership over the disputed property.[6]
In this case, We are of the considered view that the resolution of the issue of ownership of the subject building is inextricably linked to the issue of possession. Thus, that the RTC is correct when it resolved the issue of ownership in the disposition of the appealed case from the MTC, although the same was for unlawful detainer.
We also agree with the findings of the RTC that respondent is the owner of the subject building, thus, We quote:
“The allegations raised by the defendant[7] after being determined thoroughly by the Court must be given merit. The receipt presented by the party defendant clearly show that it was the defendant who was responsible for the construction of the subject two-story building. The receipts dated November 2000 proved that the construction materials were used in constructing the building.
Furthermore, the building permit issued is under the name of the defendant-appellant, which is an evidence showing that the latter caused the construction of the building.
The Court observed that if it was the party plaintiffs[8] who caused the construction of the building, why is it that the building permit was issued under the name of the defendant and not the plaintiffs?
It would be highly unbelievable on the part of the plaintiffs to let the building permit be under the name of the party defendant if the former is the real owner of the building. Much more, the Court painstakingly totaled the sum of the receipts submitted by the defendants and it amounts to Four Hundred Eighty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Seven (P484,867.00) Pesos which is enough to construct a building.
ARTICLE 448 of the NEW CIVIL CODE PROVIDES:
XXX XXX XXX
In this case, plaintiffs-appellees cannot appropriate for themselves the subject building even if they are the owners of the lot wherein defendant-appellant constructed the building for the latter is in good faith.”
Petitioners failed to adduce evidence in the court a quo which would warrant the reversal of the above findings of the RTC. Furthermore, the evidence submitted by petitioners contradicts their claim that they are the owners of the subject building.
On page 16 of their petition,[9] petitioners’ argument reads:
“Besides, the following facts are noteworthy:
- The plaintiffs purchased the parcel of land including the building from the former owner (underscored, ours)
- the building was declared for taxation purposes under Tax Declaration No. 14901 dated September 19, l994;
- Letters of Mrs. Belen Co dated February 27, 2004 showing that the Meralco Electric Meter Nos. 100307401 and 100307501 were already installed in the building as early as l995 and the Reply dated Mach 8, 2004 showing that the electric meters were installed on May 5, l995 on the building even though the service contract has already been terminated;
Therefore, the foregoing factual circumstances readily belied defendant’s concoction that she is the owner of the building as the same has already been in existence at the time she rented the commercial unit. Besides, “Accessory follows the principal.” (Accesio cedit principali).”
This is contrary to what is stated in the Deed of Sale[10] they presented as evidence, which reads:
“DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
THAT I, JUANITA R. PULIDO……hereby SELL, TRANSFER AND CONVEY by way of absolute sale unto the said RENATO R. CO,…ownership and title over a certain parcel of land together with a residential house erected thereon, which are more particularly described as follows, to wit: (underscored, ours)
XXX XXX XXX
My ownership of the said parcel of land is evidenced by TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. T-455050 issued by the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cavite:A residential house erected on the above-described parcel of land, with a floor area of 77—9, R.C. & Wood, with Galvanize roofing, covered by Tax Declaration No. 14901 of the Office of the Provincial Assessor or Cavite, Series of l989. (underscored, ours)Of which I am also the true and lawful and absolute owner thereof, free from liens or encumbrances;”
The building referred to in the Deed of Sale was already existing in 1994, the year when the said contract was executed. On the other hand, the building subject of this controversy was constructed only in the year 2000. Obviously, the foregoing negates the assertion of petitioners that at the time they bought the parcel of land, the building, the ownership of which is being claimed by respondent, was already existing.
We must stress, however, that this is only an initial determination of ownership over the building in dispute, for the purpose of settling the issue of possession. Such being the case, the RTC’s adjudication of ownership is merely provisional, and our affirmance of the trial court’s decision as well, would not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties respecting title to the building, if and when such action is brought seasonably before the proper forum.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed decision of the RTC of Trece Martirez City, Cavite in Civil Case No. TMCV-0032-03 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Asuncion, (Chairman) and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 30-34
[2] Rollo, pp. 71-78
[3] Rollo, p. 52.
[4] Agag v. Alpha Financing Corp., 407 SCRA 602.
[5] Rural Bank of Sta. Ignacia, Inc. v. Dimatulac, 401 SCRA 742.
[6] Rivera v. Rivera, G.R. No. 154203, July 8, 2003, 405 SCRA 466 471.
[7] Respondents herein.
[8] Petitioners herein.
[9] Rollo, p.22.
[10] Rollo,pp 47-48