Professional Documents
Culture Documents
23 Fige vs. Court of Appeals
23 Fige vs. Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 107951. June 30, 1994
PUNO, J.:
Facts:
Private respondents Felicitacion and Wilfredo Camarillo and Irma Coronel are the
registered co-owners of a 401sqm land with some improvements, one of which is a store. One of
the co-owners, Antonio Camarillo verbally leased the store in favor of petitioner spouses
Epifanio and Martine Fige and agreed with P700.00 monthly rental. Later, private respondents
terminated the verbal lease and gave 15 days to vacate the store. Petitioners, then, sent a postal
money order in the amount of P1,400.00 representing rental for two months. Private respondents
reiterated the demand of terminating lease which failed, prompting for a complaint for unlawful
detainer. Petitioner claimed that they bought the lot from certain Elsie Periquet. The MTC
dismissed the case for lack of merit which the RTC reversed and ordered petitioners to vacate.
Upon appeal, CA affirmed the decision and denied the motion for reconsideration. Thus, this
petition.
Issue:
Whether CA failed to consider that private respondents’ complaint states no cause of
action?
Rule of law:
Application:
We also stress that the juridical relation between petitioners and private respondents is
that of lessee and lessor. Considering this jural relationship, petitioners cannot claim that they
purchased the questioned lot from Elsie Periquet. Well settled is the rule that a tenant cannot, in
an action involving the possession of the leased premises, controvert the title of his landlord. Nor
can a tenant set up any inconsistent right to change the relation existing between himself and his
landlord, without first delivering up to the landlord the premises acquired by virtue of the
agreement between themselves.
Conclusion:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the respondent Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED