01 Midway Maritime v Castro

G.R. No. 189061

August 6, 2014

MIDWAY MIDWAY MARITIME AND TECHNOLOGICAL FONDAT FOND ATION, ION, !"#!"s"$t"% &' (ts C)*(!+*$-!"s(%"$t -)D ($ E%u*t(o$ DR. /AINO M. MANGLICMOT, MANGLICMOT, Petitioner, vs. MARI//A E. CA/TRO, ET AL., Respondents. AL.,  Respondents. REYE/, J.: Facts Midway Maritime and Technological Technological Foundation (petitioner) is the l essee of two parcels of land in Caanatuan City. The president of the company is !r. "aino Manglicmot. #e is married to $doracion Cloma, the registered owner of the land. %nside said property stands a residential uildin g owned y the respondents. The two parcels of land were originally owned y the respondents& father 'ouis Castro, "r. The elder Castro was also the president of Caanatuan City Colleges (CCC). n $ugust *, +-, Castro mortgaged the property to ancom !evelopment Corporation (ancom) to secure a loan. !uring the susistence of the mortgage, CCC&s oard of directors agreed to a */ year lease of a portion of the property to the Castro&s children, herein respondents, who suse0uently uilt the residential house nowin dispute. The lease was to e1pire in ++2. 3hen CCC failed to pay its oligation, ancom foreclosed the mortgage and the property was sold at pulic auction in ++, with ancom as the h ighest idder. ancom thereafter assigned the credit to 4nion an5 of the Philippines (4nion an5), and later on, 4nion an5 consolidated its ownership over the properties in +6- due to CCC&s failure to redeem the property. 3hen 4nion an5 sought the issuance of a writ of possession over the properties, which included the residential uilding, respondents opposed the same. The case reached the Court entitled, Castro, 7r. v. C$, 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 Tomas suse0uently 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; () they are the owners of the residential uilding, which they used from + to o +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 $doracion owns the uilding, having ought the same together with the land on which it stands. Regional Trial Court; rendered =udgment in favor of the respondents, declared them as the asolute owners of the residential uilding C$; dismissed the petitioner&s appeal

%ssue>#olding>Ratio 39 there was a lease agreement etween the petitioner and respondent regarding the residential uilding? @A", the petitioner thus cannot claim o wnership 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 ctoer ++* 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. "aino Manglicmot. Avidence; cash disursement voucher issued y the petitioner to Mrs. 'ourdes Castro. The voucher contained the statement payment of uilding rentals 1 1 1 from 7une : to !ecemer :, ++8 in the total amount of P8,:::.::.  DTP%C$' It (s s"tt"% t)*t 3o$" * 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" 1s *ss"!t(o$, t)" #!o#"!t' su&"t o5 t)" +o!tg*g" *$% o$s"?u"$t' t)" *ut(o$ s*" #"!t*($s o$' to t)"s" to #*!"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.

39 the sale of the property included all improvements, including the uilding? 9. •

•

 $s regards the ruling of the RTC of Caanatuan 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, $doracion&s suse0uent ac0uisition of the two parcels of land from her father does not necessarily entail the ac0uisition of the residential uilding. $ uilding y itself is a real or immovale property distinct from the land on which it is constructed and therefore can e a separate su=ect of contracts.

39 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 le ase 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 suse0uently ought the property did not ipso facto terminate the lease. 3hile the lease etween CCC and the respondents contained a */year period, to e nd in ++2, the petitioner failed to show that the suse0uent 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.