Roman Catholic Apostolic Church v. Familiar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Since time immemorial, a Roman Catholic chapel stood on a parcel of land in Uacas, Cavite Viejo. The chapel was in use until September 1905, when it was destroyed by a typhoon. Subsequently, the defendants, who owned adjoining land, took possession of the land where the chapel stood, treating it as part of their own property. Procedural History: In May 1906, the plaintiffs initiated an action in the Court of First Instance to recover possession of the land. The defendants claimed ownership based on their ancestor and asserted that their ownership was acknowledged by the annual payment of 50 centavos by an hermano mayor. The Court of First Instance of Cavite ruled in favor of the defendants. The Petition: The plaintiffs appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendants' claim of ownership based on alleged annual payments by an hermano mayor is valid. Whether the defendants, assuming a landlord-tenant relationship, could summarily dispossess the plaintiffs upon the destruction of the chapel. Whether the action was properly filed in the Court of First Instance.
Ruling
The judgment of the Court of First Instance in favor of the defendants is reversed. The plaintiffs are entitled to the possession of the property.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the defendants' claim: The defense that the land belonged to the defendants' ancestor and that ownership was admitted by an annual payment of 50 centavos by an hermano mayor cannot prevail. Firstly, there is no evidence connecting the plaintiffs to this alleged annual payment, nor is there proof of a cofradia, which cannot be inferred from the mere existence of an hermano mayor. Secondly, the payment, even if proven, is disputed by numerous witnesses and its insignificance is inconsistent with an annual rental. The court noted that the payment of 50 centavos was sustained by declarations of two former hermanos mayores but disputed by many witnesses. On the landlord-tenant relationship and summary dispossession: The defense implicitly assumes a landlord-tenant relationship. If such a relationship existed, the defendants could not arbitrarily terminate it. The tenant retains the right to possess the property even after the destruction of the chapel until the lease is terminated through due process of law. A landlord cannot summarily dispossess a tenant, even for non-payment of rent, and the tenant has the right to recover possession until the lease is terminated. The court cited Cioco vs. Muro, Bago vs. Garcia, and Bishop of Cebu vs. Mangaron in support of this principle. On the proper venue for the action: The action was correctly filed in the Court of First Instance. The statute requires actions for possession of land detained by force or other specified means to be commenced within one year in a justice of the peace court. However, if the action is not of that nature, it may be begun in the Court of First Instance. The court found that this was a possessory action properly brought before the Court of First Instance, as it did not fall under the specific conditions requiring a justice of the peace court.
Main Doctrine
A landlord may not summarily enter and dispossess a tenant, even for non-payment of rent, until the lease is terminated by due process of law. The tenant retains the right to possession until such termination.