20. SPOUSES SHEIKDING BOOC and BILY BOOC, petitioners, vs.

FIVE STAR
MARKETING CO., INC., respondent [G.R. No. 157806. November 22, 2007.]
FACTS
The petitioners are present occupants of the third floor of the building apparently owned by Five
Star marketing. They were allowed to live there for free. However, on March 15, 1999 the
plaintiff notified all building occupants that it had withdrawn the privilege granted (rental free) to
them coupled with a notice of rental rates in each premises concerned, and further required to
any interested occupants to negotiate and sign a lease agreement with plaintiff. The defendants
failed and refused to lease and vacate the premises. They claim that they are co-owners of the
said building and that the respondent is merely holding the property in trust for them.
An unlawful detainer case was filed by the respondents which were decided in favor of the
petitioners in the lower courts but was overturned by the CA finding in favor of Five Star
Marketing hence this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners are co-owners of the building and therefore have a right of material
possession over the same
RULING
No. The court affirms the ruling of the CA that the petitioners fail to prove that petitioners Booc,
purchased the lot and constructed the building with their own money.
The petitioners claim that the subject property was being held in trust for them by Five Star
Marketing and as a rule, the burden of proving the existence of a trust is on the party asserting
its existence and such proof must be clear and satisfactorily show the existence of the trust and
its elements.
The petitioners were unable to present competent evidence to support their allegation of
ownership of the lot in question. And the preponderance of evidence lies in favor of
respondent's claim of ownership. Surely, the Deed of Sale, TCT, Tax Declarations and Official
Receipts of tax payments in the name of respondent are more convincing than the evidence
submitted by petitioners