Facts:
In June 1979,
petitioner Colito T. Pajuyo (Pajuyo) paid P400 to a certain Pedro Perez for the
rights over a 250- square meter lot in Barrio Payatas, Quezon City. Pajuyo then
constructed a house made of light materials on the lot. Pajuyo and his family
lived in the house from 1979 to 7 December 1985.
On 8 December
1985, Pajuyo and private respondent Eddie Guevarra (Guevarra) executed a
Kasunduan or agreement. Pajuyo, as owner of the house, allowed Guevarra to live
in the house for free provided Guevarra would maintain the cleanliness and
orderliness of the house. Guevarra promised that he would voluntarily vacate
the premises on Pajuyos demand.
In September
1994, Pajuyo informed Guevarra of his need of the house and demanded that
Guevarra vacate the house. Guevarra refused.
Pajuyo filed
an ejectment case against Guevarra with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon
City, Branch 31 (MTC).
In his Answer,
Guevarra claimed that Pajuyo had no valid title or right of possession over the
lot where the house stands because the lot is within the 150 hectares set aside
by Proclamation No. 137 for socialized housing. Guevarra pointed out that from
December 1985 to September 1994, Pajuyo did not show up or communicate with
him. Guevarra insisted that neither he nor Pajuyo has valid title to the lot.
MTC: The MTC
ruled that the subject of the agreement between Pajuyo and Guevarra is the
house and not the lot. Pajuyo is the owner of the house, and he allowed
Guevarra to use the house only by tolerance. Thus, Guevarras refusal to vacate
the house on Pajuyos demand made Guevarras continued possession of the house
illegal.
RTC: The RTC
upheld the Kasunduan, which established the landlord and tenant relationship
between Pajuyo and Guevarra. The terms of the Kasunduan bound Guevarra to
return possession of the house on demand.
The RTC
rejected Guevarras claim of a better right under Proclamation No. 137, the
Revised National Government Center Housing Project Code of Policies and other
pertinent laws. In an ejectment suit, the RTC has no power to decide Guevarras
rights under these laws. The RTC declared that in an ejectment case, the only
issue for resolution is material or physical possession, not ownership.
CA: Pajuyo and
Guevarra are squatters. Pajuyo and Guevarra illegally occupied the contested
lot which the government owned.
Perez, the
person from whom Pajuyo acquired his rights, was also a squatter. Perez had no
right or title over the lot because it is public land. Pajuyo and Guevarra are
in pari delicto or in equal fault. The court will leave them where they are.
Kasunduan is
not a lease contract but a commodatum because the agreement is not for a price
certain.
Since Pajuyo
admitted that he resurfaced only in 1994 to claim the property, the appellate
court held that Guevarra has a better right over the property under
Proclamation No. 137. President Corazon C. Aquino issued Proclamation No. 137
on 7 September 1987. At that time, Guevarra was in physical possession of the
property. Under Article VI of the Code of Policies Beneficiary Selection and
Disposition of Homelots and Structures in the National Housing Project (the
Code), the actual occupant or caretaker of the lot shall have first priority as
beneficiary of the project. The Court of Appeals concluded that Guevarra is
first in the hierarchy of priority.
Issue:
Whether or not
the CA erred or abused its authority and discretion tantamount to lack of
jurisdiction in ruling that the Kasunduan voluntarily entered into by the
parties was in fact a commodatum, instead of a Contract of Lease as found by
the Metropolitan Trial Court and in holding that the ejectment case filed
against defendant-appellant is without legal and factual basis.
Held:
The Court do
not subscribe to the CA’s theory that the Kasunduan is one of commodatum.
In a contract
of commodatum, one of the parties delivers to another something not consumable
so that the latter may use the same for a certain time and return it. An
essential feature of commodatum is that it is gratuitous. Another feature of
commodatum is that the use of the thing belonging to another is for a certain
period. Thus, the bailor cannot demand the return of the thing loaned until
after expiration of the period stipulated, or after accomplishment of the use
for which the commodatum is constituted. If the bailor should have urgent need
of the thing, he may demand its return for temporary use. If the use of the
thing is merely tolerated by the bailor, he can demand the return of the thing
at will, in which case the contractual relation is called a precarium. Under
the Civil Code, precarium is a kind of commodatum.
The Kasunduan
reveals that the accommodation accorded by Pajuyo to Guevarra was not
essentially gratuitous. While the Kasunduan did not require Guevarra to pay
rent, it obligated him to maintain the property in good condition. The
imposition of this obligation makes the Kasunduan a contract different from a
commodatum. The effects of the Kasunduan are also different from that of a
commodatum. Case law on ejectment has treated relationship based on tolerance
as one that is akin to a landlord-tenant relationship where the withdrawal of
permission would result in the termination of the lease. The tenants
withholding of the property would then be unlawful. This is settled
jurisprudence.
Even assuming that
the relationship between Pajuyo and Guevarra is one of commodatum, Guevarra as
bailee would still have the duty to turn over possession of the property to
Pajuyo, the bailor. The obligation to deliver or to return the thing received
attaches to contracts for safekeeping, or contracts of commission,
administration and commodatum. These contracts certainly involve the obligation
to deliver or return the thing received.
Guevarra
turned his back on the Kasunduan on the sole ground that like him, Pajuyo is
also a squatter. Squatters, Guevarra pointed out, cannot enter into a contract
involving the land they illegally occupy. Guevarra insists that the contract is
void.
Guevarra
should know that there must be honor even between squatters. Guevarra freely
entered into the Kasunduan. Guevarra cannot now impugn the Kasunduan after he
had benefited from it. The Kasunduan binds Guevarra.
The Kasunduan
is not void for purposes of determining who between Pajuyo and Guevarra has a
right to physical possession of the contested property. The Kasunduan is the
undeniable evidence of Guevarras recognition of Pajuyos better right of
physical possession. Guevarra is clearly a possessor in bad faith. The absence
of a contract would not yield a different result, as there would still be an
implied promise to vacate.
No comments:
Post a Comment