4/17/2016 ResuenavsCA:128338:March28,2005:J.

Tinga:SecondDivision:Decision

SECONDDIVISION

[G.R.No.128338.March28,2005]

TINING RESUENA, ALEJANDRA GARAY, LORNA RESUENA, ELEUTERIO

RESUENA, EUTIQUIA ROSARIO and UNISIMA RESUENA, petitioners,
vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, 11th DIVISION and JUANITO
BORROMEO,SR.,respondents.

DECISION
TINGA,J.:

[1]
ThisisaRule45PetitionforReviewonCertiorarioftheDecision oftheCourtofAppeals
[2]
affirming that of the RegionalTrial Court (RTC) of Cebu, which in turn reversed that of the
[3]
MetropolitanTrialCourt(mtc)ofTalisay,Cebu.
Thefactsareasfollows:
[4]
Private respondent, the late Juanito Borromeo, Sr. (hereinafter, respondent), is the co
owner and overseer of certain parcels of land located in Pooc, Talisay, Cebu, designated as
LotsNos.2587and2592oftheTalisayManglanillaEstate.Respondentownssixeighths(6/8)
of Lot No. 2587 while the late spouses Inocencio Bascon and Basilisa Maneja (Spouses
Bascon)owntwoeights(2/8)thereof.Ontheotherhand,LotNo.2592isownedincommonby
respondent and the heirs of one Nicolas Maneja. However, the proportion of their undivided
shareswasnotdeterminedaquo.
Prior to the institution of the present action, petitionersTining Resuena,Alejandra Garay,
LornaResuena,EleuterioResuena,andUnisimaResuenaresidedintheupperportionofLot
No. 2587, allegedly under the acquiescence of the Spouses Bascon and their heir, Andres
Bascon. On the other hand, petitioner Eutiquia Rosario occupied a portion of Lot No. 2592,
allegedly with the permission of the heirs of Nicolas Maneja, one of the original coowners of
Lot No. 2587. Respondent claims that all petitioners have occupied portions of the subject
propertybyvirtueofhisownliberality.
RespondentdevelopedportionsofLotsNos.2587and2592occupiedbyhimintoaresort
knownastheBorromeoBeachResort.Inhisdesiretoexpandandextendthefacilitiesofthe
resort that he established on the subject properties, respondent demanded that petitioners
vacatetheproperty.Petitioners,however,refusedtovacatetheirhomes.
[5]
On16February1994,respondentfiledaComplaint forejectmentwiththeMTCagainst
[6]
thepetitioners.Afterasummaryproceeding,theMTC,inaDecision dated10October1994,
foundthatLotsNos.2587and2592wereownedincommonbyrespondentwithotherpersons.
TheMTCruledthatrespondentdidnothaveapreferentialrightofpossessionovertheportions
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/128338.htm 1/6
4/17/2016 ResuenavsCA:128338:March28,2005:J.Tinga:SecondDivision:Decision

occupied by petitioners, since Lots Nos. 2587 and 2592 were not yet partitioned nor the
disputed portions assigned to respondent as his determinate share.Thus, the MTC held that
respondent had no right to evict petitioners therefrom. Consequently, respondents Complaint
wasdismissed.
Notably, the MTC held that respondent and the spouses Bascon were the owners in
commonofLotNo.2587andtheirrespectiveshareshadnotyetbeendeterminedbypartition
asprovenbyatestimonygivenbyrespondentinCivilCaseNo.R14600,viz:
Q.AndtheparticipationthereofInocencioBasconis2/8ofthesaidparcelofland?
A.Yessir.

Q.Anduntilthepresentthatparceloflandisundivided?
A.Itisnotyetpartitioned,butduringthetimeofBasilisaManejawehadalreadymadesome
indicationsoftheportionsthatwecametooccupy.

Q.Thatistheparceloflandwhereyouhaveyourbeachresort?
A.Yes,sirandthatwasouragreement,verbally,thatwithrespecttotheportionofthelandtowardsthe
[7]
seashoreitwillbemyshareandthatportionofthelandtowardstheupperpartwillbetheirs.

Onappeal,theRTCreversedtheDecisionoftheMTC.ItheldthatArticle487oftheCivil
Code,whichallowsanyoneofthecoownerstobringanactioninejectment,maysuccessfully
beinvokedbytherespondentbecause,inasense,acoowneristheownerandpossessorof
the whole, and that the suit for ejectment is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all co
[8]
owners. TheRTCalsoruledthatassumingpetitionerswereauthorizedtooccupyaportionof
thecoownedproperty,theycouldresumethisoccupationwhenthepropertiesshallhavebeen
partitionedandallocatedtotheoneswhogavethempermissiontoresidetherein.Itthusheld:

WHEREFORE,judgmentofthelowercourtisherebyreversedandthedefendantsareherebydirectedto
vacatethepremisesinquestionwithoutprejudicetotheirgoingbacktothelandafterpartitionshallhave
beeneffectedbythecoheirsand/orcoownersamongthemselvesbuttothespecificportionorportions
adjudicatedtothepersonorpersonswhoallegedlyauthorizedthemtooccupytheirportionsbytolerance.
[9]

TheCourtofAppealsaffirmedtheDecisionoftheRTChence,thispetitionwhichinvolves
[10]
thefollowingassignmentoferrors:

1.Thatwithgraveabuseofdiscretion,amountingtoexcessofjurisdiction,thehonorableeleventh
divisionofthecourtofappealserredinNOTAPPLYINGand/orinNOTDECLARINGprivate
respondentjuanitoborromeoestoppedinfilingthisejectmentcaseagainstthehereinsix(6)petitioners.

2.Thatwithgraveabuseofdiscretion,thehonorableeleventhdivisionofthecourtofappealserredin
incorrectlyapplyingthestatuteoffrauds,consideringthattheverbalagreemententeredintobyand
betweenspousesinocenciobasconandbasilisamanejaontheonehandandjuanitoborromeoonthe
othermorethantwenty(20)yearsagotoday,wasalreadyanEXECUTEDCONTRACT.

3.Thatwithgraveabuseofdiscretion,amountingtoexcessofjurisdiction,thehonorableeleventh
divisionofthecourtofappealserredinignoringoutrightarticle493ofthenewcivilcodeofthe
philippines,consideringthatthesix(6)petitionersareonlyASSIGNEES,pureandsimple,ofcoowners
spousesignaciobasconandbasilisamanejaand/orandresbascon,theadoptedsonofthesaidspouses.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/128338.htm 2/6
4/17/2016 ResuenavsCA:128338:March28,2005:J.Tinga:SecondDivision:Decision

4.Thatgrantingarguendothatthehereinsix(6)petitionershavetobeejected,theeleventhdivisionof
thecourtofappealserredinNOTremandingthiscasetothecourtoforiginforthereceptionofevidence
fordamages,pursuanttoandinaccordancewithart.546,newcivilcode.

Thepetitioncannotprosper.
At the outset it must be stated that petitioners ground their petition on respondents
testimonyinCivilCaseNo.R14600thathehadagreedwithcoowner,BasilisaManeja,onthe
portions they each were to occupy in Lot No. 2587 prior to the partition of the property.
However,respondentstestimonyand,consequently,theagreementalludedtothereinpertains
solelytoLotNo.2587which,admittedly,allofpetitionersoccupy,saveforEutiquiaRosariowho
occupiesLotNo.2592.Noargumentwaspresentedinthispetitionasregardsthelattersclaim.
HavingnobasistoreviewEutiquiaRosariosclaimtobeallowedtocontinueinheroccupation
ofLotNo.2592,thisCourtmaintainstheholdingoftheRTConthismatter,asaffirmedbythe
CourtofAppeals,thatrespondenthastherighttoejectpetitionerEutiquiaRosariofromLotNo.
2592.
With regard to the other five (5) petitioners, the Court notes that their first three
assignments of errors are interrelated and built on each other. Petitioners allege that
respondentstestimonyinCivilCaseNo.R14600,expressingthattheuppertwoeighths(2/8)
portionofLotNo.2587wouldbeoccupiedbyBasilisaManeja,constitutingasitdoesawaiver
of said portion, has estopped respondent from claiming the portion. Basilisa Maneja and her
husbandallegedlyreliedonthisagreementwhenthespousesassignedtheupperportionofLot
No.2587topetitioners.Moreover,petitionersclaimthattheiroccupationoftheupperportionof
Lot No. 2587 had consummated the verbal agreement between respondent and Basilisa
ManejaandbroughtagreementbeyondthepurviewoftheStatuteofFrauds.
Acarefulperusaloftheforegoingissuesrevealsthatpetitionersassumedthefollowingas
provenfacts:(1)respondenthadindicatedtoBasilisaManejatheportionstheyweretooccupy
inLotNo.2587and(2)theSpousesBasconassignedtopetitionerstheirportionsofLotNo.
2587.Byclaimingtheseasthebasesfortheirassignmentoferrors,petitionersinessenceare
[11]
raisingquestionsoffact.
The issues raised by petitioners on the application of estoppel, statute of frauds, and the
assignmentofpropertiesownedincommonintheirfavor,whileostensiblyraisingquestionsof
law,invitethisCourttoruleonquestionsoffact.Thisrunscountertothesettledrulethatonly
questionsoflawmayberaisedinapetitionforreviewbeforetheCourtandthesamemustbe
[12]
distinctlysetforth.
ItisnotthefunctionofthisCourttoweighanewtheevidencealreadypasseduponbythe
CourtofAppealsforsuchevidenceisdeemedfinalandconclusiveandmaynotbereviewedon
appeal.Adeparturefromthegeneralrulemaybewarranted,amongothers,wherethefindings
offactoftheCourtofAppealsarecontrarytothefindingsandconclusionsofthetrialcourt,or
[13]
whenthesameisunsupportedbytheevidenceonrecord.
In the instant case, the RTC and the Court of Appeals rendered judgment merely on
questions of law as applied to the facts as determined by the MTC. Consequently this Court
mustproceedonthesamesetoffactswithoutassuming,aspetitionershavedone,theveracity
ofclaimswhichhavebeenconsidered,butnotacceptedasfacts,bythecourtsbelow.
Guided by the foregoing, this Court finds in this case that filtered of the muddle from

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/128338.htm 3/6
4/17/2016 ResuenavsCA:128338:March28,2005:J.Tinga:SecondDivision:Decision

petitioners assignment of errors, it is unmistakable that respondent has a right to eject the
petitionersfromLotNo.2587.
Article 487 of the Civil Code, which provides simply that [a]ny one of the coowners may
bringanactioninejectment,isacategoricalandanunqualifiedauthorityinfavorofrespondent
toevictpetitionersfromtheportionsofLot.No.2587.
[14]
This provision is a departure from Palarca v. Baguisi, which held that an action for
ejectment must be brought by all the coowners. Thus, a coowner may bring an action to
exerciseandprotecttherightsofall.Whentheactionisbroughtbyonecoownerforthebenefit
of all, a favorable decision will benefit them but an adverse decision cannot prejudice their
[15]
rights.
Respondents action for ejectment against petitioners is deemed to be instituted for the
[16]
benefitofallcoownersoftheproperty sincepetitionerswerenotabletoprovethattheyare
authorizedtooccupythesame.
Petitionerslackofauthoritytooccupytheproperties,coupledwithrespondentsrightunder
Article487,clearlysettlesrespondentsprerogativetoejectpetitionersfromLotNo.2587.Time
and again, this Court has ruled that persons who occupy the land of another at the latter's
tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, are necessarily bound by an
impliedpromisethattheywillvacatethesameupondemand,failinginwhichasummaryaction
[17]
forejectmentistheproperremedyagainstthem.
Petitioners pose the strange claim that respondent had estopped himself from filing an
ejectment case against petitioners by his aforequoted testimony in Civil Case No. R14600.
Such testimony is irrelevant to the case at bar, as it does nothing to strengthen the claim of
petitionersthattheyhadarighttooccupytheproperties.Thistestimonymerelyindicatesthat
theremighthavebeenanagreementbetweentheSpousesBasconandBorromeoastowhich
of them would occupy what portion of Lot No. 2587. Yet this averment hardly establishes a
definitivepartition,ormoreover,anyrightofpetitionerstodwellinanyportionofLotNo.2587.
Besides, [e]stoppel is effective only as between the parties thereto or their successors in
interest thus, only the spouses Bascon or their successors in interest may invoke such
estoppel.Astrangertoatransactionisneitherboundby,norinapositiontotakeadvantageof,
[18]
anestoppelarisingtherefrom.
Forthesamereason,itisofnomomentwhetherindeed,aspetitionersclaim,therewasa
verbalcontractbetweenBasilisaManejaandBorromeowhenthelatterindicatedtheportions
theyeachweretooccupyinLotNo.2587.Suchverbalcontract,assumingtherewasone,does
notdetractfromthefactthatthecommonownershipoverLotNo.2587remainedinchoateand
undivided, thus casting doubt and rendering purely speculative any claim that the Spouses
Basconsomehowhadthecapacitytoassignortransmitdeterminateportionsofthepropertyto
petitioners.
Thus, in order that the petition may acquire any whiff of merit, petitioners are obliged to
establishalegalbasisfortheircontinuedoccupancyoftheproperties.Themeretoleranceof
oneofthecoowners,assumingthattherewassuch,doesnotsufficetoestablishsuchright.
Tolerance in itself does not bear any legal fruit, and it can easily be supplanted by a sudden
change of heart on the part of the owner. Petitioners have not adduced any convincing
evidence that they have somehow become successorsininterest of the Spouses Bascon, or

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/128338.htm 4/6
4/17/2016 ResuenavsCA:128338:March28,2005:J.Tinga:SecondDivision:Decision

anyoftheownersofLotNo.2587.
Indeed, there is no writing presented to evidence any claim of ownership or right to
occupancytothesubjectproperties.Thereisnoleasecontractthatwouldvestonpetitioners
[19]
therighttostayontheproperty.AsdiscussedbytheCourtofAppeals, Article1358ofthe
CivilCodeprovidesthatactswhichhavefortheirobjectthecreation,transmission,modification
or extinguishment of real rights over immovable property must appear in a public instrument.
How then can this Court accept the claim of petitioners that they have a right to stay on the
subject properties, absent any document which indubitably establishes such right?Assuming
thattherewasanyverbalagreementbetweenpetitionersandanyoftheownersofthesubject
lots,Article1358grantsacoercivepowertothepartiesbywhichtheycanreciprocallycompel
[20]
thedocumentationoftheagreement.
Thus, the appellate court correctly appreciated the absence of any document or any
occupancy right of petitioners as a negation of their claim that they were allowed by the
SpousesBascontoconstructtheirhousesthereonandtostaythereonuntilfurthernotice.On
thisnote,thisCourtwillnolongerbelaborpetitionersallegationthattheiroccupationofLotNo.
2587isjustifiedpursuanttotheallegedbutunprovenpermissionoftheSpousesBascon.
Allsix(6)petitionersclaimtherighttobereimbursednecessaryexpensesforthecostof
[21]
constructingtheirhousesinaccordancewithArticle546oftheCivilCode. Itiswellsettled
that while the Article allows full reimbursement of useful improvements and retention of the
premisesuntilreimbursementismade,appliesonlytoapossessoringoodfaith,i.e.,onewho
buildsonlandwiththebeliefthatheistheownerthereof.Verily,personswhoseoccupationofa
[22]
realtyisbysheertoleranceofitsownersarenotpossessorsingoodfaith.
The lower courts have made a common factual finding that petitioners are occupying
portionsofLotsNo.2587and2592bymeretolerance.Thus,petitionershavenorighttoget
reimbursedfortheexpensestheyincurredinerectingtheirhousesthereon.
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thePetitionisDENIEDandtheDecisionoftheCourt
ofAppealsAFFIRMED.Costsagainstpetitioners.
SOORDERED.
Puno,(Chairman),AustriaMartinez,Callejo,Sr.,andChicoNazario,JJ.,concur.

[1]
Dated 07 October 1996 in CAG.R. SP No. 39058 rendered by the Eleventh Division of the Court ofAppeals,
penned by Justice Ramon Mabutas Jr., concurred IB by Justice Minerva P. GonzagaReyes and Justice
SalvadorJ.Valdez,Jr.TheCourtofAppealsheld,thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision (dated April 28, 1995) and the order
(datedSeptember8,1995) of the respondent court (Branch 18, Regional Trial Court in Cebu City) in Civil
CaseNo.CEB16727areherebyAFFIRMED,withcostsagainstthepetitioners/appellants.
SOORDERED.
[2]
Branch18,inCivilCaseforEjectmentNo.CEB16727renderedbyJudgeGalicanoC.Arriesgado.
[3]
Branch01,inCivilCaseforEjectmentNo.695renderedbyJudgeMarioV.Manayon.
[4]
Owing to the death of Juanito Borromeo, Sr. on 23 December 1997, this Court, in its Resolution dated 06
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/128338.htm 5/6
4/17/2016 ResuenavsCA:128338:March28,2005:J.Tinga:SecondDivision:Decision

September1999,allowedhisheirs,namely,JuanitoBorromeo,Jr.,VirginiaBorromeoGuzman,andtheheirs
of Andres Borromeo, Sr. namely: Jacqueline, John, and Andres Jr., all surnamed Borromeo, to be
substitutedforthedeceasedwidower.Rollo,p.146.
[5]
Id.at6365.
[6]
Id.at9096.
[7]
Id.at94
[8]
CitingSeringv.Plazo,G.R.No.L49731,29September1988,166SCRA84,85Rollo,p.99.
[9]
Id.at101.
[10]
IntheirPetitiondated26February1997Id.at21.
[11]
Foraquestiontobeoneoflawitmustinvolvenoexaminationoftheprobativevalueoftheevidencepresented
bythelitigantsoranyofthem.Andthedistinctioniswellknown:Thereisaquestionoflawinagivencase
whenthedoubtordifferencearisesastowhatthelawisonacertainstateoffactsthereisaquestionof
factwhenthedoubtordifferencearisesastothetruthorfalsehoodofallegedfacts.Ramosv.PepsiCola
BottlingCo.,L2253,125Phil.701(1967).
[12]
1997RulesofCivilProcedure,Rule45,Section2.
[13]
Seee.g.,GloriaChangcov.CourtofAppeals,etal.,429Phil.226(2002).
[14]
38Phil.177(1918).
[15]
TOLENTINO,Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, 19978, Vol. IV, p. 170
citing2Castan199200.
[16]
Sunga,et.al.v.DeGuzman,et.al.,G.R.No.L25847,19June2004Seringv.Plazo,G.R.No.L49731,29
September1988,84SCRA85.
[17]
Banco de Oro Savings & Mortgage Bank v.CourtofAppeals,etal., G.R. No. 85448, 21 February 1990, 182
SCRA464,469.
[18]
Supranote15atp.667.
[19]
Rollo,p.34.
[20]
Tapec,etal.v.CourtofAppealsetal.,G.R.No.111952,26October1994,237SCRA749,758.
[21]
Art.546.Necessaryexpensesshallberefundedtoeverypossessorbutonlythepossessoringoodfaithmay
retainthethinguntilhehasbeenreimbursedtherefor.
[22]
PadaKilario,etal.v.CourtofAppeals,etal.,379Phil.515(2000)Refugia,etal. v.CourtofAppeals,etal.,
327Phil.982(1996).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/128338.htm 6/6