Resuena v. Borromeo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Juanito Borromeo, Sr. (respondent) was the co-owner and overseer of Lots Nos. 2587 and 2592 in Talisay, Cebu. Petitioners resided in portions of these lots, allegedly with the permission of previous co-owners or their heirs. Respondent developed a portion of the lots into a resort and demanded that petitioners vacate to allow for expansion. Petitioners refused. Procedural History: Respondent filed an ejectment case against petitioners. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) dismissed the complaint, ruling that respondent, as a co-owner, did not have a preferential right of possession over the portions occupied by petitioners since the lots were not yet partitioned. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTC, holding that under Article 487 of the Civil Code, any co-owner may bring an ejectment suit for the benefit of all. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision. The Petition: Petitioners sought review, arguing that respondent was estopped from filing the ejectment case, that a verbal agreement regarding occupancy was an executed contract beyond the Statute of Frauds, and that they were assignees of co-owners' portions. They also claimed entitlement to reimbursement for expenses incurred in constructing their houses.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent, as a co-owner, has the right to file an ejectment case against petitioners occupying portions of the co-owned property. Whether petitioners' occupancy was based on a valid agreement that would prevent their ejectment, considering arguments of estoppel and the Statute of Frauds. Whether petitioners are entitled to reimbursement for expenses incurred in constructing their houses on the property, considering their status as occupants by tolerance.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. Petitioners are directed to vacate the premises.
Ratio Decidendi
On the right of a co-owner to file an ejectment case: The Court reiterated that under Article 487 of the Civil Code, any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment. This provision allows a co-owner to institute an action to exercise and protect the rights of all co-owners. A favorable decision benefits all, while an adverse decision does not prejudice the rights of other co-owners. The respondent's action was deemed instituted for the benefit of all co-owners because the petitioners failed to prove their authority to occupy the property. The Court emphasized that persons occupying land by mere tolerance are bound to vacate upon demand, and ejectment is the proper remedy if they refuse. On the validity of petitioners' occupancy and the application of estoppel and Statute of Frauds: The Court found that petitioners' arguments regarding estoppel and the Statute of Frauds were essentially questions of fact, which are generally not reviewable in a petition for review on certiorari. The Court noted that the alleged verbal agreement between respondent and Basilisa Maneja pertained only to Lot No. 2587 and did not establish a definitive partition or a right for petitioners to occupy any portion. Furthermore, estoppel is effective only between the parties to the transaction or their successors in interest; strangers cannot invoke it. The Court also pointed out that Article 1358 of the Civil Code requires acts involving real rights over immovable property to be in a public instrument, and the absence of any such document or lease contract negated petitioners' claim of a right to occupancy. The alleged verbal agreement, even if proven, did not detract from the fact that the co-ownership remained undivided. On the entitlement to reimbursement for expenses: The Court held that Article 546 of the Civil Code, which allows reimbursement for necessary expenses and useful improvements to a possessor in good faith, applies only to those who build on land with the belief that they are the owners. Petitioners, whose occupation was by mere tolerance of the owners, were not possessors in good faith. Therefore, they had no right to claim reimbursement for the expenses incurred in constructing their houses on the subject properties. The lower courts' common factual finding that petitioners occupied the property by mere tolerance was upheld.
Main Doctrine
A co-owner may bring an action for ejectment for the benefit of all co-owners, even if the property is not yet partitioned, provided the occupants do not have a legal basis for their occupancy. Persons occupying land by mere tolerance are not possessors in good faith and are not entitled to reimbursement for improvements.