GR 100700; (November, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 100700 . November 8, 1993.
SOFRONIO MARTINADA, DAVID MARTINADA, ANDRES MARTINADA, LILIA MARTINADA YEPES, LYDIA MARTINADA MACARISAS, MARINO MARTINADA AND ZENAIDA MARTINADA MODESTO, petitioners, vs. DOROTEA BAUTISTA, ELPIDIO BAUTISTA, ANICETO BAUTISTA, VERONICA B. ALVAREZ, CORNELIO BAUTISTA, JR. FILOMENO BAUTISTA AND THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents are the heirs of Cornelio Bautista, the registered owner of a property in Sta. Mesa, Manila covered by TCT No. 51930. In 1958, Cornelio Bautista allowed petitioners to occupy the property for a monthly rental of P100.00. In 1980, Cornelio Bautista filed an ejectment case against petitioners for non-payment of rentals since July 1958. Petitioners claimed they occupied the property since 1956 when it was vacant and ownerless, that the National Housing Authority (NHA) awarded it to Bautista despite their application, and that a 1958 verbal lease agreement allowed them to offset rentals with expenses for improving the property, for which they spent P60,000.00. They refused to vacate unless reimbursed. The Municipal Trial Court ordered petitioners to vacate, pay accrued rentals from July 1958, and pay attorney’s fees. The Regional Trial Court modified the decision, ordering petitioners to vacate and pay rentals from February 15, 1980, plus attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ Petition for Review and subsequent Motion for Reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the lower courts’ decisions ordering the petitioners to vacate the property and pay rentals, despite petitioners’ claims of prior possession, a verbal lease agreement allowing offset of improvements, and the application of Article 546 of the Civil Code on reimbursement for improvements.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The Court reiterated that it is not a trier of facts and defers to the factual findings of the lower courts, which are final and binding unless grounded on speculations. The Court found the lower courts’ findings fully supported by evidence. Petitioners’ claim of prior possession cannot divest the registered owners’ rights. The respondent appellate court correctly held that: (1) the property belongs to private respondents as evidenced by TCT No. 51930, awarded by the NHA to Cornelio Bautista; (2) the evidence for a verbal lease contract allowing offset of rentals with improvement expenses was scant, and the authority of Sofronio Martinada to sub-lease was not shown; (3) petitioners’ stay was due to the owners’ tolerance, which ended with the 1980 demand to vacate; and (4) Article 546 of the Civil Code on reimbursement for improvements does not apply to lease relationships, and the alleged P60,000.00 improvement was not clearly established.