05 Moralidad v. Pernes
05 Moralidad v. Pernes
DECISION
GARCIA , J : p
Under consideration is this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court to nullify and set aside the following issuances of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 61610 , to wit:
1. Decision dated September 27, 2001, 1 a rming an earlier decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City which reversed that of the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Davao City, Branch 1, in an action
for unlawful detainer thereat commenced by the petitioner against the
herein respondents; and
At the heart of this controversy is a parcel of land located in Davao City and
registered in the name of petitioner Mercedes Moralidad under Transfer Certi cate of Title
(TCT) No. T-123125 of the Registry of Deeds of Davao City.
In her younger days, petitioner taught in Davao City, Quezon City and Manila. While
teaching in Manila, she had the good fortune of furthering her studies at the University of
Pennsylvania, U.S.A. While schooling, she was offered to teach at the Philadelphia Catholic
Archdiocese, which she did for seven (7) years. Thereafter, she worked at the Mental
Health Department of said University for the next seventeen (17) years.
During those years, she would come home to the Philippines to spend her two-
month summer vacation in her hometown in Davao City. Being single, she would usually
stay in Mandug, Davao City, in the house of her niece, respondent Arlene Pernes, a daughter
of her younger sister, Rosario.
Back in the U.S.A. sometime in 1986, she received news from Arlene that Mandug at
the outskirts of Davao City was infested by NPA rebels and many women and children
were victims of cross re between government troops and the insurgents. Shocked and
saddened about this development, she immediately sent money to Araceli, Arlene's older
sister, with instructions to look for a lot in Davao City where Arlene and her family could
transfer and settle down. This was why she bought the parcel of land covered by TCT No.
T-123125.
Petitioner acquired the lot property initially for the purpose of letting Arlene move
from Mandug to Davao City proper but later she wanted the property to be also available
to any of her kins wishing to live and settle in Davao City. Petitioner made known this
intention in a document she executed on July 21, 1986. 3 The document reads:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
I, MERCEDES VIÑA MORALIDAD, of legal age, single, having been born on
the 29th day of January, 1923, now actually residing at 8021 Lindbergh
Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., wishes to convey my honest
intention regarding my properties situated at Palm Village Subdivision, Bajada,
Davao City, 9501, . . . and hereby declare:
1. That it is my desire that Mr. and Mrs. Diosdado M. Pernes may build
their house therein and stay as long as they like;
2. That anybody of my kins who wishes to stay on the aforementioned
real property should maintain an atmosphere of cooperation, live in
harmony and must avoid bickering with one another;
3. That anyone of my kins may enjoy the privilege to stay therein and
may avail the use thereof. Provided, however, that the same is not inimical
to the purpose thereof;
4. That anyone of my kins who cannot conform with the wishes of the
undersigned may exercise the freedom to look for his own;
Following her retirement in 1993, petitioner came back to the Philippines to stay
with the respondents' on the house they build on the subject property. In the course of
time, their relations turned sour because members of the Pernes family were impervious
to her suggestions and attempts to change certain practices concerning matters of health
and sanitation within their compound. For instance, Arlene's eldest son, Myco Pernes, then
a fourth year veterinary medicine student, would answer petitioner back with clenched st
and at one time hurled profanities when she corrected him. Later, Arlene herself followed
suit. Petitioner brought the matter to the local barangay lupon where she lodged a
complaint for slander, harassment, threat and defamation against the Pernes Family.
Deciding for petitioner, the lupon apparently ordered the Pernes family to vacate
petitioner's property but not after they are reimbursed for the value of the house they built
thereon. Unfortunately, the parties could not agree on the amount, thus prolonging the
impasse between them.
Other ugly incidents interspersed with violent confrontations meanwhile transpired,
with the petitioner narrating that, at one occasion in July 1998, she sustained cuts and
wounds when Arlene pulled her hair, hit her on the face, neck and back, while her husband
Diosdado held her, twisting her arms in the process.
Relations having deteriorated from worse to worst, petitioner, on July 29, 1998,
lodged a formal complaint before the Regional O ce of the Ombudsman for Mindanao,
charging the respondent spouses, who were both government employees, with conduct
unbecoming of public servants. This administrative case, however, did not prosper.
Then, on August 3, 1998, petitioner led with the MTCC of Davao City an unlawful
detainer suit against the respondent spouses. Petitioner alleged that she is the registered
owner of the land on which the respondents built their house; that through her counsel, she
sent the respondent spouses a letter demanding them to vacate the premises and to pay
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
rentals therefor, which the respondents refused to heed. CSTDEH
In their defense, the respondents alleged having entered the property in question,
building their house thereon and maintaining the same as their residence with petitioner's
full knowledge and express consent. To prove their point, they invited attention to her
written declaration of July 21, 1986, supra, wherein she expressly signi ed her desire for
the spouses to build their house on her property and stay thereat for as long as they like.
The MTCC, resolving the ejectment suit in petitioner's favor, declared that the
respondent spouses, although builders in good faith vis-à-vis the house they built on her
property, cannot invoke their bona des as a valid excuse for not complying with the
demand to vacate. To the MTCC, respondents' continued possession of the premises
turned unlawful upon their receipt of the demand to vacate, such possession being merely
at petitioner's tolerance, and sans any rental. Accordingly, in its decision dated November
17, 1999, 4 the MTCC rendered judgment for the petitioner, as plaintiff therein, to wit:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of herein plaintiff and
against the defendants, as follows:
a) Directing the defendants, their agents and other persons acting on their
behalf to vacate the premises and to yield peaceful possession thereof to
plaintiff;
b) Ordering defendants to pay P2,000.00 a month from the ling of this
complaint until they vacate premises;
SO ORDERED. 8
SO ORDERED.
With the CA's denial of her motion for reconsideration in its Resolution of February
28, 2002, petitioner is now before this Court raising the following issues:
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE
UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASE FOR BEING PREMATURE WHICH DECISION IS
NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN APPLYING
ARTICLES 448 AND 546 AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE ON
USUFRUCT INSTEAD OF ARTICLE 1678 OF THE CIVIL CODE.
Usufruct, in essence, is nothing else but simply allowing one to enjoy another's
property. 9 It is also de ned as the right to enjoy the property of another temporarily,
including both the jus utendi and the jus fruendi, 1 0 with the owner retaining the jus
disponendi or the power to alienate the same. 1 1
It is undisputed that petitioner, in a document dated July 21, 1986, supra, made
known her intention to give respondents and her other kins the right to use and to enjoy
the fruits of her property. There can also be no quibbling about the respondents being
given the right "to build their own house" on the property and to stay thereat "as long as
they like." Paragraph #5 of the same document earmarks " proceeds or income derived
from the aforementioned properties" for the petitioner's " nearest kins who have less in life
in greater percentage and lesser percentage to those who are better of (sic) in standing."
The established facts undoubtedly gave respondents not only the right to use the property
but also granted them, among the petitioner's other kins, the right to enjoy the fruits
thereof . We have no quarrel, therefore, with the CA's ruling that usufruct was constituted
between petitioner and respondents. It is thus pointless to discuss why there was no lease
contract between the parties.
However, determinative of the outcome of the ejectment case is the resolution of
the next issue, i.e., whether the existing usufruct may be deemed to have been extinguished
or terminated. If the question is resolved in the a rmative, then the respondents' right to
possession, proceeding as it did from their right of usufruct, likewise ceased. In that case,
petitioner's action for ejectment in the unlawful detainer case could proceed and should
prosper. EcATDH
We disagree with the CA's conclusion of law on the matter. The term or period of the
usufruct originally speci ed provides only one of the bases for the right of a usufructuary
to hold and retain possession of the thing given in usufruct. There are other modes or
instances whereby the usufruct shall be considered terminated or extinguished. For sure,
the Civil Code enumerates such other modes of extinguishment:
ART. 603. Usufruct is extinguished:
The document executed by the petitioner dated July 21, 1986 constitutes the title
creating, and sets forth the conditions of, the usufruct. Paragraph #3 thereof states "[T]hat
anyone of my kins may enjoy the privilege to stay therein and may avail the use thereof.
Provided, however, that the same is not inimical to the purpose thereof "
(Emphasis supplied). What may be inimical to the purpose constituting the usufruct may
be gleaned from the preceding paragraph wherein petitioner made it abundantly clear "that
anybody of my kins who wishes to stay on the aforementioned property should maintain
an atmosphere of cooperation, live in harmony and must avoid bickering with
one another ." That the maintenance of a peaceful and harmonious relations between and
among kin constitutes an indispensable condition for the continuance of the usufruct is
clearly deduced from the succeeding Paragraph #4 where petitioner stated "[T]hat anyone
of my kins who cannot conform with the wishes of the undersigned may exercise
the freedom to look for his own." In ne, the occurrence of any of the following: the loss of
the atmosphere of cooperation, the bickering or the cessation of harmonious relationship
between/among kin constitutes a resolutory condition which, by express wish of the
petitioner, extinguishes the usufruct .
From the pleadings submitted by the parties, it is indubitable that there were indeed
facts and circumstances whereby the subject usufruct may be deemed terminated or
extinguished by the occurrence of the resolutory conditions provided for in the title
creating the usufruct, namely, the document adverted to which the petitioner executed on
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
July 21, 1986.
As aptly pointed out by the petitioner in her Memorandum, respondents' own
evidence before the MTCC indicated that the relations between the parties "have
deteriorated to almost an irretrievable level." 1 3 There is no doubt then that what impelled
petitioner to le complaints before the local barangay lupon, the O ce of the Ombudsman
for Mindanao, and this instant complaint for unlawful detainer before the MTCC is that she
could not live peacefully and harmoniously with the Pernes family and vice versa.
Thus, the Court rules that the continuing animosity between the petitioner and the
Pernes family and the violence and humiliation she was made to endure, despite her
advanced age and frail condition, are enough factual bases to consider the usufruct as
having been terminated.
To reiterate, the relationship between the petitioner and respondents respecting the
property in question is one of owner and usufructuary. Accordingly, respondents' claim for
reimbursement of the improvements they introduced on the property during the effectivity
of the usufruct should be governed by applicable statutory provisions and principles on
usufruct. In this regard, we cite with approval what Justice Edgardo Paras wrote on the
matter:
If the builder is a usufructuary, his rights will be governed by Arts.
579 and 580 . In case like this, the terms of the contract and the pertinent
provisions of law should govern (3 Manresa 215-216; se also Montinola vs.
Bantug, 71 Phil. 449). 1 4 (Emphasis ours.)
By express provision of law, respondents, as usufructuary, do not have the right to
reimbursement for the improvements they may have introduced on the property. We quote
Articles 579 and 580 of the Civil Code:
Art. 579. The usufructuary may make on the property held in usufruct
such useful improvements or expenses for mere pleasure as he may deem proper,
provided he does not alter its form or substance; but he shall have no right to
be indemnified therefor . He may, however, remove such improvements, should
it be possible to do so without damage to the property. (Emphasis supplied.)
Art. 580. The usufructuary may set off the improvements he may have
made on the property against any damage to the same.
Given the foregoing perspective, respondents will have to be ordered to vacate the
premises without any right of reimbursement. If the rule on reimbursement or indemnity
were otherwise, then the usufructuary might, as an author pointed out, improve the owner
out of his property. 1 5 The respondents may, however, remove or destroy the
improvements they may have introduced thereon without damaging the petitioner's
property.
Out of the generosity of her heart, the petitioner has allowed the respondent
spouses to use and enjoy the fruits of her property for quite a long period of time. They
opted, however, to repay a noble gesture with unkindness. At the end of the day, therefore,
they really cannot begrudge their aunt for putting an end to their right of usufruct. The
disposition herein arrived is not only legal and called for by the law and facts of the case. It
is also right.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the
CA are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the decision of the MTCC is REINSTATED
with MODIFICATION that all of respondents' counterclaims are dismissed, including their
claims for reimbursement of useful and necessary expenses.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
6. Rollo, p. 44.
7. Id. at 45-50
8. Id. at 50.
9. Hemedes vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107132, October 8, 1999, 316 SCRA 309.
10. Eleizegui vs. Manila Lawn Tennis Club, 2 Phil. 309 (1909); cited in De Leon & De Leon,
Jr., Comments & Cases on Property, 2003 ed., p. 397.
11. Art. 581, Civil Code.