Ocampo Vs Tirona
Ocampo Vs Tirona
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745857e19f78ab0df8003600fb002c009e/p/ASU972/?username=Guest Page 1 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 455 9/4/20, 5:01 PM
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
63
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745857e19f78ab0df8003600fb002c009e/p/ASU972/?username=Guest Page 2 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 455 9/4/20, 5:01 PM
proper when the lessee does not know the person to whom to pay
rentals due to conflicting claims on the property. The action of
interpleader is a remedy whereby a person who has property
whether personal or real, in his possession, or an obligation to
render wholly or partially, without claiming any right in both, or
claims an interest which in whole or in part is not disputed by the
conflicting claimants, comes to court and asks that the persons who
claim the said property or who consider themselves entitled to
demand compliance with the obligation, be required to litigate
among themselves, in order to determine finally who is entitled to
one or the other thing. The remedy is afforded not to protect a
person against a double liability but to protect him against a double
vexation in respect of one liability. When the court orders that the
claimants litigate among themselves, there arises in reality a new
action and the former are styled interpleaders, and in such a case
the pleading which initiates the action is called a complaint of
interpleader and not a cross-complaint.
64
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
1 2
This is a petition for review to annul the Decision dated
29 November 2000 of the Court of Appeals („appellate
court‰) in CA-G.R. SP No. 41686, and its Resolution dated
16 April 2001 denying the motion for3 reconsideration. The
appellate court set aside the Decision dated 27 June 1996
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745857e19f78ab0df8003600fb002c009e/p/ASU972/?username=Guest Page 3 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 455 9/4/20, 5:01 PM
Antecedent Facts
_______________
65
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745857e19f78ab0df8003600fb002c009e/p/ASU972/?username=Guest Page 4 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 455 9/4/20, 5:01 PM
_______________
66
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745857e19f78ab0df8003600fb002c009e/p/ASU972/?username=Guest Page 5 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 455 9/4/20, 5:01 PM
_______________
7 Records, p. 15.
8 Ibid., pp. 24-26.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745857e19f78ab0df8003600fb002c009e/p/ASU972/?username=Guest Page 6 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 455 9/4/20, 5:01 PM
67
The MTC ruled that Tirona does not have any reason to
suspend payment of rents until after PD No. 1517, in
relation to PD Nos. 1893 and 1968, is implemented in her
favor. TironaÊs non-payment of rents rendered her
occupation of the subject land illegal. As owner of the
subject land, Ocampo is entitled to its use and enjoyment,
as well as to recover its possession from any person
unlawfully withholding it.
_______________
„Authorizing the Issuance of Special Investors Resident Visas to Aliens and for
Other Purposes,‰ as Amended (1983).
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745857e19f78ab0df8003600fb002c009e/p/ASU972/?username=Guest Page 7 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 455 9/4/20, 5:01 PM
68
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745857e19f78ab0df8003600fb002c009e/p/ASU972/?username=Guest Page 8 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 455 9/4/20, 5:01 PM
_______________
69
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745857e19f78ab0df8003600fb002c009e/p/ASU972/?username=Guest Page 9 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 455 9/4/20, 5:01 PM
_______________
70
„This Court after a careful review of the complete record of this case
particularly the evidences, applicable laws and jurisprudence relied
upon by the [MTC] in finding for [Ocampo] and declaring that
[Tirona] can be lawfully ejected from the subject premises, concurs
with the findings thereof. There is therefore nothing in the record
which would warrant the Court to disturb the findings of fact and
law and the conclusions reached by the [MTC].
This Court finds the decision of the lower court fully justified in
granting the reliefs to [Ocampo].
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered AFFIRMING IN
TOTO the decision of the [MTC] with costs against [Tirona].
16
SO ORDERED.‰
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745857e19f78ab0df8003600fb002c009e/p/ASU972/?username=Guest Page 10 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 455 9/4/20, 5:01 PM
_______________
71
The appellate court stated that the principal issue for its
resolution is whether Ocampo, being the buyer of the
subject land which is not19
yet partitioned among the heirs,
can validly evict Tirona.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745857e19f78ab0df8003600fb002c009e/p/ASU972/?username=Guest Page 11 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 455 9/4/20, 5:01 PM
The Issues
_______________
18 Rollo, p. 57.
19 See CA Rollo, p. 203.
20 CA Rollo, p. 204.
21 Ibid., p. 205.
72
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745857e19f78ab0df8003600fb002c009e/p/ASU972/?username=Guest Page 12 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 455 9/4/20, 5:01 PM
Unlawful Detainer
Elements to be Proved
_______________
73
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745857e19f78ab0df8003600fb002c009e/p/ASU972/?username=Guest Page 13 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 455 9/4/20, 5:01 PM
_______________
74
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745857e19f78ab0df8003600fb002c009e/p/ASU972/?username=Guest Page 14 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 455 9/4/20, 5:01 PM
Ownership as an Issue
When Tirona filed her answer before the MTC, she raised
the issue of ownership and ascribed ownership of the
subject lot to one Doña Lourdes Rodriguez Yaneza. Tirona
later changed her strategy and filed an amended answer
that ascribed ownership of the subject lot to Maria Lourdes
Breton-Mendiola. Tirona justified the amendment by
stating that she did not ask for the assistance of a lawyer
for fear of not being able to file her answer on time. This
excuse is flimsy considering that Tirona first communicated
to Ocampo through Callejo Law Office. However, the MTC
still allowed Tirona to amend her answer. Tirona stated
that there was no violation of the lease agreement because
she paid her rent to the real owner, Maria Lourdes Breton-
Mendiola.
Contrary to TironaÊs position, the issue of ownership is
not essential to an action for unlawful detainer. The fact of
the lease and the expiration of its term are the only
elements of the action. The defense of ownership does not
change the summary nature of the action. The affected
party should raise the issue of ownership in an appropriate
action, because a certificate
33
of title cannot be the subject of
a collateral attack. Although a wrongful possessor may at
times be upheld by the courts, this is merely temporary and
solely for the maintenance of public order. The question of
ownership is 34to be settled in the proper court and in a
proper action.
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745857e19f78ab0df8003600fb002c009e/p/ASU972/?username=Guest Page 15 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 455 9/4/20, 5:01 PM
75
In actions for forcible entry and [unlawful] detainer, the main issue
is possession de facto, independently of any claim of ownership or
possession de jure that either party may set forth in his pleadings,
and an appeal does not operate to change the nature of the original
action. On appeal, in an ejectment case, it is within the discretion of
the court to look into the evidence supporting the assigned errors
relating to the alleged ownership of appellant insofar as said
evidence would indicate or determine the nature of appellantÊs
possession of the controverted premises. Said court should not
however resolve the issue raised by such assigned errors. The
resolution of said issues would effect an adjudication on ownership
which is not sanctioned in the summary action for unlawful
35
detainer.
_______________
(1) The 9 March 1995 waiver allegedly signed by Rosauro Breton cited
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745857e19f78ab0df8003600fb002c009e/p/ASU972/?username=Guest Page 16 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 455 9/4/20, 5:01 PM
incapacity due to brain operation as the reason for the waiver. This
raises serious questions as to the validity of the waiver.
(2) Tirona presented receipts for payment of her lease from April 1995 to
June 1996 in sequential numbers (Nos. 3416 to 3425). The receipt for
payment for March 1995 was numbered 3429. It appearing that Tirona
was not the only lessee, the only conclusion
76
Interpleader
The good faith of Tirona is put in question in her preference
for Maria Lourdes Breton-Mendiola. As a stakeholder,
Tirona should have used reasonable diligence in hailing the
contending claimants to court. Tirona need not have
awaited actual institution of a suit by Ocampo
37
against her
before filing a bill of interpleader. An action for
interpleader is proper when the lessee does not know the
person to whom
38
to pay rentals due to conflicting claims on
the property.
Ocampo has the right to eject Tirona from the subject land.
All the elements required for an unlawful detainer case to
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745857e19f78ab0df8003600fb002c009e/p/ASU972/?username=Guest Page 17 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 455 9/4/20, 5:01 PM
_______________
we can gather is that the receipts were not issued in the regular
course of business.
(3) The receipts Tirona presented are printed with „Rosauro Y. Breton-
Administrator.‰ This is contrary to TironaÊs claim that Maria Lourdes
Breton-Mendiola is the administrator of the estate.
37 See Wack-Wack Golf and Country Club, Inc. v. Won, et al., 162 Phil.
233; 70 SCRA 165 (1976).
38 See Pagkalinawan v. Rodas, 80 Phil. 281 (1948).
39 Oscar M. Herrera, III Remedial Law 182 (1999) citing Alvarez, et al.
v. Commonwealth, et al., 65 Phil. 302 (1938).
77
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745857e19f78ab0df8003600fb002c009e/p/ASU972/?username=Guest Page 18 of 19
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 455 9/4/20, 5:01 PM
_______________
78
··o0o··
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001745857e19f78ab0df8003600fb002c009e/p/ASU972/?username=Guest Page 19 of 19