G.R. No.

189061 August 6, 2014

MIDWAY MARITIME AND TECHNOLOGICAL FOND ATION, !"#!"s"$t"% &' (ts

C)*(!+*$-!"s(%"$t -)D ($ E%u*t(o$ DR. /AINO M. MANGLICMOT, Petitioner,
vs.
MARI//A E. CA/TRO, ET AL., Respondents.

REYE/, J.:

Facts

Midway Maritime and Technological Foundation (petitioner) is the lessee of two

parcels of land in Caanatuan City. The president of the company is !r. "aino
Manglicmot. #e is married to $doracion Cloma, the registered owner of the land.
%nside said property stands a residential uilding owned y the respondents.
The two parcels of land were srcinally owned y the respondents& father 'ouis
Castro, "r. The elder Castro was also the president of Caanatuan City Colleges
(CCC).
n $ugust *, +-, Castro mortgaged the property to ancom !evelopment
Corporation (ancom) to secure a loan.
!uring the susistence of the mortgage, CCC&s oard of directors agreed to a */
year lease of a portion of the property to the Castro&s children, herein respondents,
who suse0uently uilt the residential house nowin dispute.
The lease was to e1pire in ++2.
3hen CCC failed to pay its oligation, ancom foreclosed the mortgage and the
property was sold at pulic auction in ++, with ancom as the highest idder.
ancom thereafter assigned the credit to 4nion an5 of the Philippines (4nion

an5),
+6- dueandtolater
CCC&son,failure
4nion to
an5 consolidated
redeem its ownership over the properties in
the property.
3hen 4nion an5 sought the issuance of a writ of possession over the properties,
which included the residential uilding, respondents opposed the same.
The case reached the Court entitled, Castro, 7r. v. C$, and in a !ecision, the Court
ruled that the residential house was owned y the respondents.
%n the meantime, $doracion&s father, Tomas Cloma (Tomas), ought the two parcels
of land from 4nion an5 in an auction sale conducted on 7uly 8, ++8. Tomas
suse0uently leased the property to the petitioner and thereafter, sold the same to
$doracion.
"everal suits were rought y the respondents against the petitioner, including the
case at ench, which is an action for wnership, Recovery of Possession and
!amages, doc5eted as Civil Case 9o. 8:: ($F).
%n their $mended Complaint the respondents alleged;
o () they are the owners of the residential uilding, which they used from + to
+6* when they left for the 4nited "tates of $merica and instituted their uncle, 7osefino C.
Castro (7osefino), as the careta5er< (2) Manglicmot, leased the uilding (e1cept for the
portion occupied y 7osefino) from 'ourdes Castro, mother of the respondents< (8) the
petitioner failed to pay rent starting $ugust ++*, thus prompting the respondents to file the
action.
 The petitioner, however, denied respondents& ownership of the residential uilding
and claimed that $doracion owns the uilding, having ought the same together with
the land on which it stands.
Regional Trial Court; rendered =udgment in favor of the respondents, declared them
as the asolute owners of the residential uilding
C$; dismissed the petitioner&s appeal

%ssue>#olding>Ratio

39 there was a lease agreement etween the petitioner and respondent regarding the
residential uilding? @A", the petitioner thus cannot claim ownership over the uilding.

"uch issue is a 0uestion of fact already resolved y the RTC in the affirmative.
BFrom 7une ++8 to 7uly 2*, ++* or for a period of 2 months, the DpetitionerE has
een paying rentals for the uilding in 0uestion and paid a rental of DPE*,:::.::
which rental was increased to P:,:::.:: eginning ctoer ++* when the
careta5er of the DrespondentsE Mr. 7osefino Castro was e=ected therefrom and the
entire uilding was leased to the DpetitionerE, represented y !r. "aino
Manglicmot.
Avidence; cash disursement voucher issued y the petitioner to Mrs. 'ourdes
Castro. The voucher contained the statement payment of uilding rentals 1 1 1 from
7une : to !ecemer :, ++8 in the total amount of P8,:::.::.
DTP%C$' It (s s"tt"% t)*t 3o$" * o$t*t o5 "*s" (s s)o$ to "7(st
&"t""$ t)" #*!t("s, t)" "ss"" *$$ot &' *$' #!oo5, )o""! st!o$g, o"!tu!$
t)" o$us(" #!"su+#t(o$ t)*t t)" "sso! )*s * *(% t(t" to o! * &"tt"! !(g)t
o5 #oss"ss(o$ to t)" su&"t #!"+(s"s t)*$ t)" "ss"".3 /"t(o$ 2:&;, Ru" 1<1
o5 t)" Ru"s o5 Cou!t #!o)(&(ts * t"$*$t 5!o+ %"$'($g t)" t(t" o5 )(s *$%o!% at
the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant etween them.
"antos v. 9ational "tatistics ffice / Court e1pounded on the !u" o$ "sto##"
*g*($st * t"$*$t and further clarified that )*t * t"$*$t (s "sto##"% 5!o+ %"$'($g
(s t)" t(t" o5 )(s *$%o!% *t t)" t(+" o5 t)" o++"$"+"$t o5 t)" *$%o!%=
t"$*$t !"*t(o$. %f the title asserted is one that is alleged to have een ac0uired
suse0uent to the commencement of that relation, the presumption will not apply.
%n this case, $doracion&s ownership dates ac5 to her purchase of the two parcels of
land from her father, Tomas. %t was Tomas who ought the property in an auction sale
y 4nion an5 in ++8 and leased the same to the petitioner in the same year. 9ote
must e made that the petitioner&s president, Manglicmot, is the husand of
$doracion and son/in/law of Tomas. %t is not improale that at the time the petitioner
leased the residential uilding from the respondents& mother in ++8, it was aware of
the circumstances surrounding the sale of the two parcels of land and the natureof
the respondents& claim over the residential house. @et, the petitioner still chose to
lease the uilding. Conse0uently, the petitioner is now estopped from denying the
respondents& title over the residential uilding.
3hat Tomas ought from 4nion an5 in the auction sale were the two parcels of land
srcinally owned and mortgaged y CCC to ancom, and which mortgage was later
assigned y ancom to 4nion an5. Co$t!*!' to t)" #"t(t(o$"!>s *ss"!t(o$, t)"
#!o#"!t' su&"t o5 t)" +o!tg*g" *$% o$s"?u"$t' t)" *ut(o$ s*" #"!t*($s
o$' to t)"s" to #*!"s o5 *$% *$% %(% $ot ($u%" t)" !"s(%"$t(* )ous"
%n Castro, 7r. v. C$, the Court nullified the writ of possession issued y the trial court
insofar as it affected the residential house constructed y the respondents on the
mortgaged property as it was not owned y CCC, which was the mortgagor.
39 the sale of the property included all improvements, including the uilding? 9.

$s regards the ruling of the RTC of Caanatuan City that the advertised sale of the
property included all the improvements thereon, that said case involved an action for
e=ectment and any resolution y the RTC on the matter of the ownership of the
improvements of the property is merely provisional and cannot surpass the Court&s
pronouncement in Castro and in the present case.
$lso, $doracion&s suse0uent ac0uisition of the two parcels of land from her father
does not necessarily entail the ac0uisition of the residential uilding. $ uilding y
itself is a real or immovale property distinct from the land on which it is constructed
and therefore can e a separate su=ect of contracts.

39 the lease had already e1pired when $doracion ought the property from Tomas?
The issue cannot e resolved in the present case, ut nothing supports that view.

The petitioner also insists that the lease etween CCC and the respondents already
e1pired when $doracion ought the property from Tomas. The foregoing issue,
however, cannot e considered in the present action. There is also nothing on record
that will prove the petitioner&s claim that the lease etween CCC and the
respondents already e1pired. The fact that $doracion suse0uently ought the
property did not ipso facto terminate the lease. 3hile the lease etween CCC and
the respondents contained a */year period, to end in ++2, the petitioner failed to
show that the suse0uent transferors>purchasers of the two parcels of land opted to
terminate the lease or instituted any action for its termination.
ancom ought the property at an auction sale in ++< 4nion an5, in +6-< Tomas,
and later, $doracion, ac0uired the property in ++8. %t cannot e denied that the
transferors>purchasers of the property all had 5nowledge of the lease etween CCC
and the respondents< yet, not any of the transferors>purchasers moved to terminate
the lease.