Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CORONA,
J.:
This is a Petition for
Review of the Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals dated November 29, 1999 affirming the July 28,
1995 decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City,
Branch
16, in Civil Case No. 309(85).
It appears that a complaint
for accion publiciana was filed by respondent Emilio Enriquez against
petitioner,
Emerita Acosta, operating under the business name and style of New
Ham’s
Trading. In his complaint, respondent averred that he is the owner of a
parcel of land located at Rajah Soliman St., Zamboanga City with an
area
of 98 square meters covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
T-66,680. Constructed on said land is a three-storey building
owned
likewise by him.cralaw:red
Petitioner occupied
door nos. 30-32, consisting of the ground, mezzanine, and second floors
of respondent’s building. Albeit no written lease contract was
executed,
petitioner, together with her late husband Francisco, who was
respondent’s
brother, paid rent in 1984 in the amount of P3,000 a month.
However,
she eventually stopped paying rent after her husband died.chanrobles virtual law library
On March 16, 1987, respondent
gave notice to petitioner to vacate. She was given only until the
end of June 1987 to use the property because respondent needed the
space
for his business. Again, on June 25, 1987, respondent demanded
that
petitioner vacate the premises. Petitioner failed to do so and in
fact refused to vacate the property. Thus, on January 22, 1988,
respondent,
through counsel, sent petitioner a letter demanding payment of rentals
for the whole year of 1987 at P8,000 a month and informed petitioner
that
the rent effective January 1, 1988 was to be P10,000 a month.cralaw:red
Petitioner, however,
continued to disregard respondent’s demands. She also failed to
pay
her rent of P8,000 a month for the whole year of 1987 and P10,000 a
month
from January 1, 1988 to April 1989. Hence, an action for recovery of
possession
(accion publiciana) was filed by respondent against petitioner.cralaw:red
In her answer, petitioner
admitted respondent’s allegations in his complaint that, in 1984, she
paid
rentals for the property but later on refused to pay the same.
She
denied, however, that respondent owned the property covered by TCT No.
66680 and the portion of the building in which her store was
located.
She claimed that her late husband, Francisco, owned several parcels of
land but owed several creditors. In order to pay his debts,
Francisco
obtained a loan from Monte de Piedad Savings Bank, through his brother,
Emilio, who had better credit with banks. For that purpose, Francisco
temporarily
transferred the titles of his landholdings to respondent, in trust for
the former, to be used as collateral for the loans which respondent
obtained
for Francisco. Respondent successfully obtained the loan, and
thus,
her husband was able to pay his debts.chanrobles virtual law library
Petitioner also claimed
that part of the proceeds of the loan was used to purchase the property
occupied by her New Ham’s Trading store. Thus, said property
belonged
to and was in fact owned by her husband. But since her husband’s
demise, petitioner claimed that she and her children with Francisco
were
the lawful owners of the property in question, and the parcels of land
he transferred to respondent.cralaw:red
After trial, the RTC
of Zamboanga City rendered a Decision[2]
in favor of respondent, the dispositive portion of which read:
WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff EMILIO ENRIQUEZ and
against
defendant EMERITA ACOSTA ENRIQUEZ, operating under the business name
and
style of New Ham’s Trading, as follows:chanrobles virtual law library
1.
Ordering
said defendant and all persons claiming rights under her, members of
her
family, agents, representatives, or privies, to immediately vacate
plaintiff’s
premises at Door No. 32, first floor, mezzanine and second floor of
plaintiff’s
building located at Lot 5, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
T-66,680, along Rajah Soliman Street, Zamboanga City, and peacefully
surrender
possession thereof to the plaintiff;
2. Ordering
defendant
to pay plaintiff rentals at P8,000.00 a month for the whole year of
1987,
and P10,000.00 a month starting January 1, 1988 to December 1989 and
P15,000.00
a month from January 1990 up to the date the defendant shall have
vacated
the above-mentioned premises.
3. Ordering
defendant
to pay the costs of the suit.
SO ORDERED.[3]
Aggrieved, petitioner
appealed
to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the trial
court.
Hence, the instant petition on grounds that: (1) the Court of
Appeals
erred in holding that a landlord-tenant relationship existed between
the
parties; (2) the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that because of
the nature of the action, neither the appellate court nor the trial
court
could decide the issue of ownership that petitioner raised; and
(3)
the Court of Appeals erred in not rendering judgment on the
counterclaim
of petitioner for the reconveyance of several
parcels
of land under TCT Nos. T-63,733, T-63,734,
T-68,755,
and T-66,680.
The petition is bereft
of merit.chanrobles virtual law library
Petitioner questions
the findings of the Court of Appeals that a landlord-tenant
relationship
existed between the parties, alleging, inter alia, that the amount of
P100
being paid to respondent per day constitutes mere contributions of
Francisco
to augment respondent’s monthly amortizations on the loan respondent
obtained
for Francisco’s benefit. Clearly, this is a factual issue.cralaw:red
The trial court declared
that respondent had established the landlord-tenant relationship
between
him and petitioner on the basis of the judicial admissions of
petitioner
in her Amended Answer. The Court of Appeals affirmed this finding
stating that said relationship was likewise established on the basis of
the evidence of the parties, including petitioner’s testimony.
Petitioner
in fact admitted the remittances of her late husband Francisco and
those
made by her after his death.cralaw:red
We agree with the conclusions
of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that indeed a
landlord-tenant
relationship existed between the parties. The petitioner failed
to
explain why the titles to the properties in dispute were transferred to
respondent. Except for her bare allegation that the money used to
purchase the property came from the loan respondent allegedly obtained
for her husband, petitioner failed to explain why said titles were
transferred
to respondent’s name without any objection or opposition from her.cralaw:red
Findings of fact by
the Court of Appeals, especially if they affirm factual findings of the
trial court, will not be disturbed by the Court, unless these findings
are not supported by evidence.[4]chanrobles virtual law library
The Court cannot be
tasked to go over the proofs presented by the parties and analyze,
assess
and weigh them to ascertain if the trial court and appellate court were
correct in according them superior credit.[5]
The fact that the Court of Appeals adopted the findings of fact of the
trial court makes the same binding upon this Court. The findings
of the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon the parties and carry even
more weight considering that these coincide with the factual findings
of
the trial court.cralaw:red
Petitioner desperately
attempts to justify her possessory rights over the property and raises
the issue of ownership of the subject property, denying in effect
respondent’s
title thereto. Again, this matter has been passed upon and
comprehensively
discussed both by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. It bears
stressing
that a person who occupies the land of another at the latter’s
forbearance
or permission without any contract between them is necessarily bound by
an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing which a
recovery
for possession thereof may be filed against him. As correctly
observed
by the Court of Appeals, if petitioner believed that the deeds of
absolute
sale executed by her and her late husband, Francisco, in favor of
respondent
over their parcels of land (including the property now in dispute) were
null and void, she should have instituted an action precisely to
nullify
said deeds.cralaw:red
It should be emphasized
that the only issue to be resolved in this action to recover possession
of the subject property is the question on who is entitled to the
physical
or material possession of the premises. Accordingly, whatever
right
of possession petitioner may have over the subject property cannot
prevail
over that of respondent for the simple reason that respondent is the
registered
owner of the property in dispute. Hence, reconveyance thereof, as
prayed
for by petitioner in the instant case, cannot be granted.cralaw:red
At any rate, judgment
rendered in the instant case shall not bar an action between the same
parties
respecting title to the land or building, nor shall it be conclusive as
to the facts therein found in a case between the same parties upon a
different
cause of action involving possession.[6]
Whatever pronouncements are made on questions of ownership in this case
can only be provisional in nature.[7]chanrobles virtual law library
In fine, after a careful
consideration of the instant petition, we rule that petitioner failed
to
show why the actions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals should
be reversed. There is no showing that these courts’ factual
findings
are not based on substantial evidence, or that their decisions are
contrary
to applicable law and jurisprudence.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the Court
hereby resolves to DENY the petition. The decision of the Court
of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 52554 is AFFIRMED in toto.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman), Panganiban,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. (now Associate
Justice
of the Supreme Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Quirino D.
Abad Santos, Jr. and Mariano M. Umali, Rollo, pp. 24-41.chanrobles virtual law library
[2]
Penned by Judge Jesus C. Carbon, Jr.
[3]
Rollo, p. 81.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Bañas, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 325 SCRA 259 [2000]; Mari vs.
Court
of Appeals, 332 SCRA 475 [2000]; Food Terminal Incorporated vs. Court
of
Appeals, 334 SCRA 156 [2000].
[5]
Chan Sui Bi vs. Court of Appeals, 341 SCRA 364 [2000].chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
Olam vs. Court of Appeals, 314 SCRA 731 [1999].chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Amayan vs. Marayag, 326 SCRA 581 [2000].
chan
robles virtual law library