Pascual v. Heirs of Patag (G.R. No. 238539. June 06, 2018)

[G.R. No. 238539, June 06, 2018]. GERTIE O. PASCUAL V. HEIRS OF ICASIANO PATAG, REPRESENTED BY ALLAN P. ANTAZO. Pascual v. Heirs of Patag (G.R. No. 238539. June 06, 2018).

After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the August 29, 2017 Decision[1] and April 3, 2018 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 149898 for failure of petitioner Gertie O. Pascual (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding her ejectment from the premises situated in Calumpang, Binangonan, Rizal.

As correctly ruled by the CA, respondents Heirs of Icasiano Patag, represented by Allan P. Antazo (respondents), had sufficiently established a better right of possession over the subject premises, having pleaded the key jurisdictional elements constitutive of an unlawful detainer case against petitioner.[3] Also, the CA aptly found the existence of the lease contract between petitioner and respondents which bars the former from denying the latter's title or right of possession over the subject premises, or asserting a better title in favor of Antonina, Margarita, Felisa, and Crisanta, all surnamed Guido (Guidos). It is settled that a tenant, in an action involving the possession of the leased premises, can neither controvert the title of his landlord nor assert any rights adverse to that title, or set up any inconsistent right to change the relation existing between himself and his landlord.[4] Neither was it shown that the Guidos acquired the title to the subject property subsequent to the commencement of the landlord-tenant relationship between petitioner and respondents.[5]Well-established is the principle that factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court and will not be reviewed on appeal,[6] save for certain exceptions, none of which are obtaining in this case.


[1] Rollo, pp. 11-18. Penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez with Associate Ji/stices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Ramon Paul L. Hernando concurring.

[2] Id. at 20-22.

[3] Petitioner's possession of the subject property was by virtue of a month-to-month lease which expired at the end of each month; that despite demand to vacate on April 12, 2016 due to non-payment of lease rentals, the same went unheeded; and the filing of the complaint on June 3,2016 is within one year from the last demand.

[4] See Santos v. National Statistics Office, 662 Phil. 708, 718 (2011). See also Section 2 (b), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court which provides that: "(b) the tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them."

[5] Rollo, p. 21.

[6] Insular Investment and Trust Corporation v. Capital One Equities Corporation, 686 Phil. 819, 830-831 (2012); citation omitted.

Popular Posts