Fullido v Grilli

Fullido v Grilli FACTS: - In 1994, Grilli, an Italian national, met Fullido in Bohol and courted her. In 1995, Grilli decided to build a residential house where he and Fullido would to stay whenever he would be vacationing in the country. - Grilli financially assisted Fullido in procuring a lot located in Biking I, Dauis, Bohol, from her parents which was registered in her name under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 30626. On the said property, they constructed a house, which was funded by Grilli. Upon completion, they maintained a common-law relationship and lived there whenever Grilli was on vacation in the Philippines twice a year. - In 1998, Grilli and Fullido executed a contract of lease, a memorandum of agreement (MOA) and a special power of attorney (SPA), to define their respective rights over the house and lot. - The lease contract stipulated, among others, that Grilli as the lessee, would rent the lot, registered in the name of Fullido, for a period of fifty (50) years, to be automatically renewed for another fifty (50) years upon its expiration in the amount of P10,000.00 for the whole term of the lease contract; and that Fullido as the lessor, was prohibited from selling, donating, or encumbering the said lot without the written consent of Grilli. SPA allowed her to administer, manage and transfer the house and lot on behalf of Fullido. - Initially, their relationship was harmonious, but it turned sour after 16 years of living together. Both charged each other with infidelity. They could not agree who should leave the common property, and Grilli sent formal letters to Fullido demanding that she vacate the property - Grilli filed a complaint for unlawful detainer with prayer for issuance of preliminary injunction - Grilli: He discovered she was pregnant, led him to believe it was his only it wasn’t. But he still allowed Fullido to live in his house in another room without rent. She let her two children, sibings and parents stay. Property damaged and his personal belongings stolen or lost. Her family was hostile to him. - Fullido: Met as 17 when she was a Cashier at Alturas Supermarket, he was a tourist. She was young, he assured her and her parents that they would eventually be married in 3 years. He offered to build a house for her on land she exclusively owned which would become their conjugal abode. It lasted for 18 years, until Fullido found another woman. He threatened her and beat her and her children. She filed a TPO under 6262. Even though Grilli funded construction, she owned it and contributed to the value by supervising construction and maintaining their household. - MTC: Dismissed, Fullido can’t be ejected because she was co-owner and respected the TPO. - RTC: Reversed, Grilli had right to house and lot. Since lease had not expired, Fullido had obligation to respect Grilli as lessee. TPO no bearing. - CA: Upheld RTC, as Fullido executed both the MOA and the contract of lease, which gave Grilli the possession and use of the house and lot, the same constituted as a judicial admission that it was Grilli who had the better right of physical possession. TPO no prejudice. - ISSUE: W/N CA erred - YES HELD: Contracts void for violating Secs 2,3,7 of Art XII, Grilli does not have a cause of action for unlawful detainer