Case Digest: Spouses Abad vs. Fil-Homes Realty
G.R. No. 189239: November 24, 2010
SPOUSES LETICIA & JOSE ERVIN ABAD,SPS. ROSARIO AND ERWIN COLLANTES, SPS. RICARDO AND FELITA ANN, SPS.ELSIE AND ROGER LAS PIS, LINDA LAYDA, RESTITUTO MARIANO, SPS. ARNOLD AND MIRIAM MERCINES, SPS. LUCITA AND WENCESLAO A. RAPACON, SPS. ROMEO AND EMILYN HULLEZA, LUZ MIPANTAO, SPS. HELEN AND ANTHONY TEVES, MARLENE TUAZON, SPS. ZALDO AND MIA SALES, SPS. JOSEFINA AND JOEL YBERA, SPS. LINDA AND JESSIE CABATUAN, SPS. WILMA AND MARIO ANDRADA, SPS. RAYMUNDO AND ARSENIA LELIS, FREDY AND SUSANA PILONEO, Petitioners v.FIL-HOMES REALTY and DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and MAGDIWANG REALTY CORPORATION, Respondents.
Carpio Morales, J.:
FACTS:
Fil-Homes filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against petitioners. Respondent alleged that since 1980, they have made demands for petitioners to vacate, but they went unheeded. Petitioners countered that there is no possession by tolerance for they have been in adverse, continuous and uninterrupted possession of the lots for more than 30 years; and that respondentspredecessor-in-interest, Pilipinas Development Corporation, had no title to the lots. During the pendency of the case, the city of Paranaque filed a case of expropriation. A writ of possession was granted to the city.
The respondent won in the unlawful detainer case, but the RTC reversed the ruling upon appeal reasoning that there was no "tolerance" on the part of Respondents. On appeal of the Respondents to the CA, it upheld the decision of the MeTC. Thus, the current petition.
ISSUES:
A. Whether or not Petitioners should be ejected from the premises.
HELD: Petition is devoid of merit.
CIVIL LAW: Ejectment
As a general rule, ejectment proceedings, due to its summary nature, are not suspended or their resolution held in abeyance despite the pendency of a civil action regarding ownership. In the present case, the mere issuance of a writ of possession in the expropriation proceedings did not transfer ownership of the lots in favor of the City.Such issuance was only the first stage in expropriation.There is even no evidence that judicial deposit had been made in favor of respondents prior to the City's possession of the lots
Respecting petitioners claim that they have been named beneficiaries of the lots, the city ordinance authorizing the initiation of expropriation proceedings does not state so.Petitioners cannot thus claim any right over the lots on the basis of the ordinance. Even if the lots are eventually transferred to the City, it is nonsequitur for petitioners to claim that they are automatically entitled to be beneficiaries thereof.For certain requirements must be met and complied with before they can be considered to be beneficiaries.
Petition is DENIED. The decision of CA is affirmed.
SPOUSES LETICIA & JOSE ERVIN ABAD,SPS. ROSARIO AND ERWIN COLLANTES, SPS. RICARDO AND FELITA ANN, SPS.ELSIE AND ROGER LAS PIS, LINDA LAYDA, RESTITUTO MARIANO, SPS. ARNOLD AND MIRIAM MERCINES, SPS. LUCITA AND WENCESLAO A. RAPACON, SPS. ROMEO AND EMILYN HULLEZA, LUZ MIPANTAO, SPS. HELEN AND ANTHONY TEVES, MARLENE TUAZON, SPS. ZALDO AND MIA SALES, SPS. JOSEFINA AND JOEL YBERA, SPS. LINDA AND JESSIE CABATUAN, SPS. WILMA AND MARIO ANDRADA, SPS. RAYMUNDO AND ARSENIA LELIS, FREDY AND SUSANA PILONEO, Petitioners v.FIL-HOMES REALTY and DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and MAGDIWANG REALTY CORPORATION, Respondents.
Carpio Morales, J.:
FACTS:
Fil-Homes filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against petitioners. Respondent alleged that since 1980, they have made demands for petitioners to vacate, but they went unheeded. Petitioners countered that there is no possession by tolerance for they have been in adverse, continuous and uninterrupted possession of the lots for more than 30 years; and that respondentspredecessor-in-interest, Pilipinas Development Corporation, had no title to the lots. During the pendency of the case, the city of Paranaque filed a case of expropriation. A writ of possession was granted to the city.
The respondent won in the unlawful detainer case, but the RTC reversed the ruling upon appeal reasoning that there was no "tolerance" on the part of Respondents. On appeal of the Respondents to the CA, it upheld the decision of the MeTC. Thus, the current petition.
ISSUES:
A. Whether or not Petitioners should be ejected from the premises.
HELD: Petition is devoid of merit.
CIVIL LAW: Ejectment
As a general rule, ejectment proceedings, due to its summary nature, are not suspended or their resolution held in abeyance despite the pendency of a civil action regarding ownership. In the present case, the mere issuance of a writ of possession in the expropriation proceedings did not transfer ownership of the lots in favor of the City.Such issuance was only the first stage in expropriation.There is even no evidence that judicial deposit had been made in favor of respondents prior to the City's possession of the lots
Respecting petitioners claim that they have been named beneficiaries of the lots, the city ordinance authorizing the initiation of expropriation proceedings does not state so.Petitioners cannot thus claim any right over the lots on the basis of the ordinance. Even if the lots are eventually transferred to the City, it is nonsequitur for petitioners to claim that they are automatically entitled to be beneficiaries thereof.For certain requirements must be met and complied with before they can be considered to be beneficiaries.
Petition is DENIED. The decision of CA is affirmed.
