Case no.

37
Rafael Uy vs. Estate of Fernandez
G.R. No. 200612, dated April 5, 2017

Facts:
Vipa Fernandez owned a parcel of land. Vipa and her husband, Levi ,
entered into a contract of lease with Rafael Nadal. Later on, Vipa died,
leaving no will or testament. Grace Joy, one of the childrens of Vipa and Levi,
become the administrator of the estate of Vipa.
It was alleged that Rafael stopped paying monthly rents. Grace Joy
filed a complaint for unlawful detainer. It was alleged in the complaint that
Rafael did not made any payments for the total amount of Php 3,300,000.
On the other hand, Rafael answered and denied that he refused to pay
the rent. He alleged that Patria, Vipa’s sister demanded the payment of the
rent and since he had no idea as to whom he should pay the rent, he
consigned the same to the courts. The MTC and RTC ruled on the question
of ownership which was sustained by the CA.

Issue:
WON the issue of ownership can be raised on Unlawful Detainer
Ruling:
Yes, MTC may rule on the issue of ownership in order to determine
the issue of possession. However the issue of ownership must be raised by
the defendant on the earliest possible time.
Case No. 38
Heirs of Teodora Loyola as represented by Zosimo L. Mendoza, S.R.
Vs.
CA and Alicia Loyola
G.R. No. 188658, dated January 11, 2017
Facts:
Heirs of Teodora Loyola, represented by Mendoza filed a complaint
for annulment of free patent and original certificate of title, reconveyance of
ownership and possession against Loyola.
The heirs claimed that the property belonged to the mother of their
parents, Teodora Loyola who had been in possession of the property since
time immemorial. Teodora inherited the property from their mother, the
heirs inherited the property from Teodora and maintain open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession until the present and that Alicia
allegedly able to obtain free patent and CTC of the property through fraud
and misrepresentation. Alicia was the wife of their deceased cousin who was
given permission to use part of Teodora’s property.
In her answer, Alicia denied the allegation of fraud and illegality on
the registration of free patent and CTC and countered that the complaint was
barred by latches and prescription as it was registered as early as Dec. 1985.
Issue:
WON the patent is null and void and that the petitioner owned the
land having been in open continuous, exclusive, notorious possession and
occupation of the land.
Ruling:
No, the party seeking to recover the property must be prove by clear
and convincing evidence that they are entitled to the property and that the
adverse party has committed as fraud as mere allegation of existence of
fraud is not sufficient to overcome the allegation of ownership.
 Tax declaration without tax receipts are not sufficient to overcome the
presumption of validity of title and patent. Tax declaration and tax receipts
are merely indicia of a claim of ownership
Case No. 39
Intramuros Administration
Vs.
Offshore Conviction Development
G.R. No. 196795, dated March 7, 2018

Facts:
Intramuros leased a certain real property of national government
which it administered to Offshore construction. Offshore occupied and
introduced improvements in the leased premised. However, Intramuros and
Department of Tourism halted the project due to offshore’s non conformity
of P.D. 166. Offshore filed a complaint with prayer for injuction and T.R.R
against intramuros and the Department of Tourism but later on came to
terms of payment.
During the lease period, Offshore construction failed to pay its utility
bills and rental fees despite several demand letters. To pay it’s arrears,
Offshore made a proposal for its payment but later on again failed to pay.
Intramuros filed an ejectment case in MTC. Offshore filed a motion to
dismiss which was granted by the MTC based on the facts that it was the
RTC who has jurisdiction, the case being complicated as Offshore alleged
that the contract was of concession, between Offshore and government. MTC
found that the cause of action of Intramuros is similar to that of specific
performance.

Issue:
WON the MTC has jurisdiction over the present case.
Ruling:
Yes, the MTC has the jurisdiction over the present case. There is an
unlawful detainer when;
1. Possession of property by virtue of contract or tolerance
2. Such possession become illegal upon notice of the owner of the
termination of its right of possession
3. Defendant remained in possession of properties and deprived
plaintiff of enjoyment
4. Within 1 year from the last demand on defendant to vacated the
property.
A review of the petitioner’s complaint, all this allegations were present.
Case. 40

Leonidas
Vs.
Vargas
G.R. No. 201031, dated December 14, 2017

Facts:
Petitioner alleged that they inherited the subject lots from their parents
Ponciano and Asuncion. As evidence by the certificate of sale and covered
by Tax declaration. That they inherited the subject land upon the death of
his parents. They permitted the subject land upon the death of his parents.
They permitted to occupy portion of the land, the people who owns
adjoining land. However, a certain Torres Vargas declare a portion of land
under his name for taxation.
Petitioner filed an application for titling of the land, the ownership
under his name. Vargas opposed alleging that he is Tomas’ legitimate and
compulsory heir who owns the land and that the owner were not tax
delinquent, and that the allegation that the Provincial Treasure sold the land
to petitioners were not true. At trial, Petitioner presented himself, land
inspector of DENR and CENRO, occupants of the portion of the land.
Issue:
WON Vargas has right to ownership of the land.
Ruling:
Yes. Petitioner failed to establish bonafide possession and ownership
of the land. His contention that his predecessor became the owner of the land
by virtue of sale were consistent with the TD 3549 which was annotated as
contested and failed to prove actual notorious, exclusive and continuous
possession of the subject lots for the length time required.