Villa v.

Altavas
FACTS: This case involves a complaint for ejectment filed
by Enrique Altavas II (Respondent) et. al against Dr. Lorna
Villa (Petitioner) with Virginia Bermejo and Rolita Roxas.
According to respondents, they were the heirs of the
deceased Enrique Altars I, the original owner of 2 parcels
of fishponds designated as Lot. 2816 and 2817 (Capiz)
and have been in actual possession through their
administrator Mussolini Bermejo the husband of Virginia.
After the death of the administrator, Virginia took over the
possession and without consent from respondents leased
in favor of petitioner Villa five hectares of Lot 2816. Even
after formal demands by respondents to vacate the land
they still persisted and occupied the lands. According to
petitioner, she was a possessor in good faith and that
Bermejo represented herself as the owner of the land. The
MCTC rendered judgment in favor of respondents and
demanded petitioners to vacate and pay for compensation.
Their appeal to the RTC was dismissed for their failure to
file a memorandum. CA affirmed the decision and
dismissed their petition for certiorari hence this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondents who did not have
actual of physical possession of the lot may recover

possession through the summary remedy of ejectment?

will an action for ejectment lie against petitioner.
Petitioners contention:
(1) The complaint and exhibits presented by
respondents do not constitute preponderance of
evidence in their favor and that since no sufficient
evidence were presented the MCTC had no
jurisdiction of the case
(2) Respondents have not proven that they are owners
since petitioner had a valid contract of lease with
Bermejo that entitles her to possession
(3) Respondents have no cause against petitioner
since they are not lessors, vendors, or persons who
contracted with petitioner and failed to aver facts
constitutive of either forcible entry or unlawful
detainer.
CLARIFICATION: Respondents refer to Lot 2816 but the
MCTC and CA found that the disputed property was Lot
2817. Respondents never questioned such so the court
shall refer to this disputed property as lot 2817
HELD: No, the petition is unmeritorious. The trial court
finding of facts is binding upon this court unless there is

evidence to the contrary. Records show that respondents

attached annexes to their complaint, the original Certificate
of Titles in the name of Enrique covering lost 2816 and
2817evidence of their ownership and right to possess.
Being a mere lessee, petitioner steps into the shoes
of the lessor Virigina and since the MCTC did not sustain
the claim of Virginiaand founds that she was not the
lawful owner and no right to possess the same should be
binding to petitioners in this case.