SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 152809 August 3, 2006
MERCEDES MORALIDAD, Petitioner,
vs.
SPS. DIOSDADO PERNES and ARLENE PERNES, Respondents.
vs.
SPS. DIOSDADO PERNES and ARLENE PERNES, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
GARCIA, J.:
Under consideration is this petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to nullify and set aside
the following issuances of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
61610, to wit:
1. Decision dated September 27, 2001,
1
affirming an earlier decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Davao City which reversed that of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities
(MTCC), Davao City, Branch 1, in an action for unlawful detainer thereat
commenced by the petitioner against the herein respondents; and
2. Resolution dated February 28, 2002,
2 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
At the heart of this controversy is a parcel of land
located in Davao City and registered in the name of petitioner Mercedes
Moralidad under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-123125 of the
Registry of Deeds of Davao City.
In her younger days, petitioner taught in Davao City,
Quezon City and Manila. While teaching in Manila, she had the good
fortune of furthering her studies at the University of Pennsylvania,
U.S.A. While schooling, she was offered to teach at the Philadelphia
Catholic Archdiocese, which she did for seven (7) years. Thereafter, she
worked at the Mental Health Department of said University for the next
seventeen (17) years.
During those years, she would come home to the
Philippines to spend her two-month summer vacation in her hometown in
Davao City. Being single, she would usually stay in Mandug, Davao City,
in the house of her niece, respondent Arlene Pernes, a daughter of her
younger sister, Rosario.
Back in the U.S.A. sometime in 1986, she received
news from Arlene that Mandug at the outskirts of Davao City was infested
by NPA rebels and many women and children were victims of crossfire
between government troops and the insurgents. Shocked and saddened about
this development, she immediately sent money to Araceli, Arlene’s older
sister, with instructions to look for a lot in Davao City where Arlene
and her family could transfer and settle down. This was why she bought
the parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-123125.
Petitioner acquired the lot property initially for
the purpose of letting Arlene move from Mandug to Davao City proper but
later she wanted the property to be also available to any of her kins
wishing to live and settle in Davao City. Petitioner made known this
intention in a document she executed on July 21, 1986.
3 The document reads:
I, MERCEDES VIÑA MORALIDAD, of legal age, single,
having been born on the 29th day of January, 1923, now actually residing
at 8021 Lindbergh Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., wishes
to convey my honest intention regarding my properties situated at Palm
Village Subdivision, Bajada, Davao City, 9501, … and hereby declare:
1. That it is my desire that Mr. and Mrs. Diosdado M. Pernes may build their house therein and stay as long as they like;
2. That anybody of my kins who wishes to stay on the
aforementioned real property should maintain an atmosphere of
cooperation, live in harmony and must avoid bickering with one another;
3. That anyone of my kins may enjoy the privilege to
stay therein and may avail the use thereof. Provided, however, that the
same is not inimical to the purpose thereof;
4. That anyone of my kins who cannot conform with the wishes of the undersigned may exercise the freedom to look for his own;
5. That any proceeds or income derived from the
aforementioned properties shall be allotted to my nearest kins who have
less in life in greater percentage and lesser percentage to those who
are better of in standing.
xxx xxx xxx
Following her retirement in 1993, petitioner came
back to the Philippines to stay with the respondents’ on the house they
build on the subject property. In the course of time, their relations
turned sour because members of the Pernes family were impervious to her
suggestions and attempts to change certain practices concerning matters
of health and sanitation within their compound. For instance, Arlene’s
eldest son, Myco Pernes, then a fourth year veterinary medicine student,
would answer petitioner back with clenched fist and at one time hurled
profanities when she corrected him. Later, Arlene herself followed suit.
Petitioner brought the matter to the local barangay lupon where she
lodged a complaint for slander, harassment, threat and defamation
against the Pernes Family. Deciding for petitioner, the lupon apparently
ordered the Pernes family to vacate petitioner’s property but not after
they are reimbursed for the value of the house they built thereon.
Unfortunately, the parties could not agree on the amount, thus
prolonging the impasse between them.
Other ugly incidents interspersed with violent
confrontations meanwhile transpired, with the petitioner narrating that,
at one occasion in July 1998, she sustained cuts and wounds when Arlene
pulled her hair, hit her on the face, neck and back, while her husband
Diosdado held her, twisting her arms in the process.
Relations having deteriorated from worse to worst,
petitioner, on July 29, 1998, lodged a formal complaint before the
Regional Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao, charging the respondent
spouses, who were both government employees, with conduct unbecoming of
public servants. This administrative case, however, did not prosper.
Then, on August 3, 1998, petitioner filed with the
MTCC of Davao City an unlawful detainer suit against the respondent
spouses. Petitioner alleged that she is the registered owner of the land
on which the respondents built their house; that through her counsel,
she sent the respondent spouses a letter demanding them to vacate the
premises and to pay rentals therefor, which the respondents refused to
heed.
In their defense, the respondents alleged having
entered the property in question, building their house thereon and
maintaining the same as their residence with petitioner’s full knowledge
and express consent. To prove their point, they invited attention to
her written declaration of July 21, 1986, supra, wherein she expressly
signified her desire for the spouses to build their house on her
property and stay thereat for as long as they like.
The MTCC, resolving the ejectment suit in
petitioner’s favor, declared that the respondent spouses, although
builders in good faith vis-à-vis the house they built on her property,
cannot invoke their bona fides as a valid excuse for not complying with
the demand to vacate. To the MTCC, respondents’ continued possession of
the premises turned unlawful upon their receipt of the demand to vacate,
such possession being merely at petitioner’s tolerance, and sans any
rental. Accordingly, in its decision dated November 17, 1999,
4 the MTCC rendered judgment for the petitioner, as plaintiff therein, to wit:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of herein plaintiff and against the defendants, as follows:
a) Directing the defendants, their agents and other
persons acting on their behalf to vacate the premises and to yield
peaceful possession thereof to plaintiff;
b) Ordering defendants to pay P2,000.00 a month from the filing of this complaint until they vacate premises;
c) Sentencing defendants to pay the sum of P120,000.00
5 as attorney’s fees and to pay the cost of suit.
Defendants counterclaim are hereby dismissed except
with respect to the claim for reimbursement of necessary and useful
expenses which should be litigated in an ordinary civil actions. (sic)
Dissatisfied, the respondent spouses appealed to the RTC of Davao City.
In the meantime, petitioner filed a Motion for
Execution Pending Appeal. The motion was initially granted by the RTC in
its Order of February 29, 2000, but the Order was later withdrawn and
vacated by its subsequent Order dated May 9, 2000
6
on the ground that immediate execution of the appealed decision was not
the prudent course of action to take, considering that the house the
respondents constructed on the subject property might even be more
valuable than the land site.
Eventually, in a decision
7
dated September 30, 2000, the RTC reversed that of the MTCC, holding
that respondents’ possession of the property in question was not, as
ruled by the latter court, by mere tolerance of the petitioner but
rather by her express consent. It further ruled that Article 1678 of the
Civil Code on reimbursement of improvements introduced is inapplicable
since said provision contemplates of a lessor-lessee arrangement, which
was not the factual milieu obtaining in the case. Instead, the RTC ruled
that what governed the parties’ relationship are Articles 448 and 546
of the Civil Code, explaining thus:
Since the defendants-appellees [respondents] are
admittedly possessors of the property by permission from plaintiff
[petitioner], and builders in good faith, they have the right to retain
possession of the property subject of this case until they have been
reimbursed the cost of the improvements they have introduced on the
property.
Indeed, this is a substantive right given to the
defendants by law, and this right is superior to the procedural right to
[sic] plaintiff to immediately ask for their removal by a writ of
execution by virtue of a decision which as we have shown is erroneous,
and therefore invalid. (Words in brackets supplied),
and accordingly dismissed petitioner’s appeal, as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision
appealed from is REVERSED and declared invalid. Consequently, the motion
for execution pending appeal is likewise denied.
Counter-claims of moral and exemplary damages claimed
by defendants are likewise dismissed. However, attorney’s fees in the
amount of fifteen thousand pesos is hereby awarded in favor of
defendants-appellants, and against plaintiffs.
SO ORDERED.
8
Therefrom, petitioner went to the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 61610.
On September 27, 2001, the CA, while conceding the
applicability of Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code to the case,
ruled that it is still premature to apply the same considering that the
issue of whether respondents’ right to possess a portion of petitioner’s
land had already expired or was already terminated was not yet
resolved. To the CA, the unlawful detainer suit presupposes the
cessation of respondents’ right to possess. The CA further ruled that
what governs the rights of the parties is the law on usufruct but
petitioner failed to establish that respondents’ right to possess had
already ceased. On this premise, the CA concluded that the ejectment
suit instituted by the petitioner was premature. The appellate court
thus affirmed the appealed RTC decision, disposing:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition
for review is hereby denied for lack of merit. Accordingly, the
petitioner’s complaint for Unlawful Detainer is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
With the CA’s denial of her motion for
reconsideration in its Resolution of February 28, 2002, petitioner is
now before this Court raising the following issues:
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
DISMISSING THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASE FOR BEING PREMATURE WHICH DECISION
IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
APPLYING ARTICLES 448 AND 546 AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE ON USUFRUCT
INSTEAD OF ARTICLE 1678 OF THE CIVIL CODE.
The Court rules for the petitioner.
The Court is inclined to agree with the CA that what
was constituted between the parties herein is one of usufruct over a
piece of land, with the petitioner being the owner of the property upon
whom the naked title thereto remained and the respondents being two (2)
among other unnamed usufructuaries who were simply referred to as
petitioner’s kin. The Court, however, cannot go along with the CA’s
holding that the action for unlawful detainer must be dismissed on
ground of prematurity.
Usufruct is defined under Article 562 of the Civil Code in the following wise:
ART. 562. Usufruct gives a right to enjoy the
property of another with the obligation of preserving its form and
substance, unless the title constituting it or the law otherwise
provides.
Usufruct, in essence, is nothing else but simply allowing one to enjoy another’s property.
9
It is also defined as the right to enjoy the property of another
temporarily, including both the jus utendi and the jus fruendi,
10 with the owner retaining the jus disponendi or the power to alienate the same.
11
It is undisputed that petitioner, in a document dated
July 21, 1986, supra, made known her intention to give respondents and
her other kins the right to use and to enjoy the fruits of her property.
There can also be no quibbling about the respondents being given the
right "to build their own house" on the property and to stay thereat "as
long as they like." Paragraph #5 of the same document earmarks
"proceeds or income derived from the aforementioned properties" for the
petitioner’s "nearest kins who have less in life in greater percentage
and lesser percentage to those who are better of (sic) in standing." The
established facts undoubtedly gave respondents not only the right to
use the property but also granted them, among the petitioner’s other
kins, the right to enjoy the fruits thereof. We have no quarrel,
therefore, with the CA’s ruling that usufruct was constituted between
petitioner and respondents. It is thus pointless to discuss why there
was no lease contract between the parties.
However, determinative of the outcome of the
ejectment case is the resolution of the next issue, i.e., whether the
existing usufruct may be deemed to have been extinguished or terminated.
If the question is resolved in the affirmative, then the respondents’
right to possession, proceeding as it did from their right of usufruct,
likewise ceased. In that case, petitioner’s action for ejectment in the
unlawful detainer case could proceed and should prosper.
The CA disposed of this issue in this wise:
xxx Section 1, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides xxx
xxx xxx xxx
From the foregoing provision, it becomes apparent that
for an action for unlawful detainer to prosper, the plaintiff
[petitioner] needs to prove that defendants’ [respondents’] right to
possess already expired and terminated. Now, has respondents’ right to
possess the subject portion of petitioner’s property expired or
terminated? Let us therefore examine respondents’ basis for occupying
the same.
It is undisputed that petitioner expressly authorized
respondents o occupy portion of her property on which their house may
be built. Thus – "it is my desire that Mr. and Mrs. Diosdado M. Pernes
may build their house therein and stay as long as they like."
From this statement, it seems that petitioner had given the respondents
the usufructuary rights over the portion that may be occupied by the
house that the latter would build, the duration of which being dependent
on how long respondents would like to occupy the property. While
petitioner had already demanded from the respondents the surrender of
the premises, this Court is of the opinion that the usufructuary rights
of respondents had not been terminated by the said demand considering
the clear statement of petitioner that she is allowing respondents to
occupy portion of her land as long as the latter want to. Considering
that respondents still want to occupy the premises, petitioner clearly
cannot eject respondents.
12
We disagree with the CA’s conclusion of law on the
matter. The term or period of the usufruct originally specified provides
only one of the bases for the right of a usufructuary to hold and
retain possession of the thing given in usufruct. There are other modes
or instances whereby the usufruct shall be considered terminated or
extinguished. For sure, the Civil Code enumerates such other modes of
extinguishment:
ART. 603. Usufruct is extinguished:
(1) By the death of the usufructuary, unless a contrary intention clearly appears;
(2) By expiration of the period for which it was
constituted, or by the fulfillment of any resolutory condition provided
in the title creating the usufruct;
(3) By merger of the usufruct and ownership in the same person;
(4) By renunciation of the usufructuary;
(5) By the total loss of the thing in usufruct;
(6) By the termination of the right of the person constituting the usufruct;
(7) By prescription. (Emphasis supplied.)
The document executed by the petitioner dated July
21, 1986 constitutes the title creating, and sets forth the conditions
of, the usufruct. Paragraph #3 thereof states "[T]hat anyone of my kins
may enjoy the privilege to stay therein and may avail the use thereof.
Provided, however, that the same is not inimical to the purpose thereof"
(Emphasis supplied). What may be inimical to the purpose constituting
the usufruct may be gleaned from the preceding paragraph wherein
petitioner made it abundantly clear "that anybody of my kins who wishes
to stay on the aforementioned property should maintain an atmosphere of
cooperation, live in harmony and must avoid bickering with one another."
That the maintenance of a peaceful and harmonious relations between and
among kin constitutes an indispensable condition for the continuance of
the usufruct is clearly deduced from the succeeding Paragraph #4 where
petitioner stated "[T]hat anyone of my kins who cannot conform with the
wishes of the undersigned may exercise the freedom to look for his own."
In fine, the occurrence of any of the following: the loss of the
atmosphere of cooperation, the bickering or the cessation of harmonious
relationship between/among kin constitutes a resolutory condition which,
by express wish of the petitioner, extinguishes the usufruct.
From the pleadings submitted by the parties, it is
indubitable that there were indeed facts and circumstances whereby the
subject usufruct may be deemed terminated or extinguished by the
occurrence of the resolutory conditions provided for in the title
creating the usufruct, namely, the document adverted to which the
petitioner executed on July 21, 1986.
As aptly pointed out by the petitioner in her
Memorandum, respondents’ own evidence before the MTCC indicated that the
relations between the parties "have deteriorated to almost an
irretrievable level."
13
There is no doubt then that what impelled petitioner to file complaints
before the local barangay lupon, the Office of the Ombudsman for
Mindanao, and this instant complaint for unlawful detainer before the
MTCC is that she could not live peacefully and harmoniously with the
Pernes family and vice versa.
Thus, the Court rules that the continuing animosity
between the petitioner and the Pernes family and the violence and
humiliation she was made to endure, despite her advanced age and frail
condition, are enough factual bases to consider the usufruct as having
been terminated.
To reiterate, the relationship between the petitioner
and respondents respecting the property in question is one of owner and
usufructuary. Accordingly, respondents’ claim for reimbursement of the
improvements they introduced on the property during the effectivity of
the usufruct should be governed by applicable statutory provisions and
principles on usufruct. In this regard, we cite with approval what
Justice Edgardo Paras wrote on the matter:
If the builder is a usufructuary, his rights will be
governed by Arts. 579 and 580. In case like this, the terms of the
contract and the pertinent provisions of law should govern (3 Manresa
215-216; se also Montinola vs. Bantug, 71 Phil. 449).
14 (Emphasis ours.)
By express provision of law, respondents, as
usufructuary, do not have the right to reimbursement for the
improvements they may have introduced on the property. We quote Articles
579 and 580 of the Civil Code:
Art. 579. The usufructuary may make on the property
held in usufruct such useful improvements or expenses for mere pleasure
as he may deem proper, provided he does not alter its form or substance;
but he shall have no right to be indemnified therefor. He may, however,
remove such improvements, should it be possible to do so without damage
to the property. (Emphasis supplied.)
Art. 580. The usufructuary may set off the improvements he may have made on the property against any damage to the same.
Given the foregoing perspective, respondents will
have to be ordered to vacate the premises without any right of
reimbursement. If the rule on reimbursement or indemnity were otherwise,
then the usufructuary might, as an author pointed out, improve the
owner out of his property.
15
The respondents may, however, remove or destroy the improvements they
may have introduced thereon without damaging the petitioner’s property.
Out of the generosity of her heart, the petitioner
has allowed the respondent spouses to use and enjoy the fruits of her
property for quite a long period of time. They opted, however, to repay a
noble gesture with unkindness. At the end of the day, therefore, they
really cannot begrudge their aunt for putting an end to their right of
usufruct. The disposition herein arrived is not only legal and called
for by the law and facts of the case. It is also right.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed
Decision and Resolution of the CA are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, the decision of the MTCC is REINSTATED with MODIFICATION
that all of respondents’ counterclaims are dismissed, including their
claims for reimbursement of useful and necessary expenses.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer
of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S .PUNOAssociate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the
Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion
of the Court.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBANChief Justice
Footnotes
1
Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando with then
Associate Justice Romeo A. Brawner (now ret.) and Associate Justice
Mariano C. Del Castillo, concurring; Rollo, pp. 51-58.
2 Id. at 59-64.
3 Id. at 65.
4 Id. at 33-42.
5 Later changed to P20,000.00
as per Order dated December 16, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court of
Davao City, Branch 1, rectifying the clerical error found on page 10 of
the Decision dated November 17, 1999 in Civil Case No. 5938-A-98.
6 Rollo, p. 44.
7 Id. at 45-50
8 Id. at 50.
9 Hemedes vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107132, October 8, 1999, 316 SCRA 309.
10 Eleizegui vs. Manila Lawn Tennis Club, 2 Phil. 309 (1909); cited in De Leon & De Leon, Jr., Comments & Cases on Property, 2003 ed., p. 397.
11 Art. 581, Civil Code.
12 Rollo, pp. 56-57.
13 Id. at 185.
14 Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, Vol. II, 13th Ed. (1994), p. 211.
15 De Leon & De Leon, Jr., Comments & Cases on Property, 2003 ed., p. 417.
No comments:
Post a Comment