G.R. No. 107951 June 30, 1994
SPOUSES EPIFANIO FIGE and MARTINA FIGE, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MARCELINO E. BAUTISTA, Jr., in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Parañaque, Metro Manila, FELICITACION CAMARILLO, WILFREDO CAMARILLO, and IRMA CORONEL, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents are the registered co-owners of a 401-square meter parcel of land with improvements located at 634 Quirino Avenue, Tambo, Parañaque, Metro Manila, evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 36798. One improvement is a store built in 1972. In September 1984, one co-owner, Antonio Camarillo, verbally leased the store to petitioners for P700.00 a month. On February 21, 1989, private respondents wrote to petitioners terminating the verbal lease by the end of February and gave them fifteen days to vacate. Petitioners responded by sending a money order for P1,400.00 for January and February 1989 rent. On March 2, 1989, private respondents reiterated their demand. After failed barangay conciliation, private respondents filed an Unlawful Detainer complaint against petitioners before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). Petitioners contested, alleging in their answer that the lot described in private respondents’ title was different from the parcel at 634 Quirino Avenue where the store stood, and claimed they bought that lot from a certain Elsie Periquet. The MeTC dismissed the case for lack of cause of action. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MeTC, ordering petitioners to vacate, pay P700.00 monthly from March 15, 1989 as reasonable compensation for use and occupation, P15,000.00 attorney’s fees, and costs. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC decision but deleted the attorney’s fees award. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in: (1) disregarding petitioners’ exhibits and the testimony of their witness despite the weight given by the MeTC; (2) failing to consider that the complaint states no cause of action; and (3) affirming with modification the RTC decision.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision. On the first assigned error, the Court held that petitioners’ exhibits (Exhibits “1”, “2” to “2-5”, “4”, “5”, and “6”) were properly disregarded. Exhibits “1”, “2”, “2-5”, “4”, and “6” were not verified and approved by the Bureau of Lands as required by the Cadastral Act, hence their authenticity was not established. Exhibit “5” was an uncertified xerox copy, not authenticated under the seal of the Bureau of Lands, and petitioners submitted a document different from what was marked during trial, making it inadmissible. The testimony of Engineer Cresencio Supleo was irrelevant to the issue of possession in an unlawful detainer case. On the second and third errors, the Court ruled that the juridical relation between the parties was that of lessee and lessor. As tenants, petitioners cannot controvert the title of their landlord in an action involving possession of the leased premises. The issue in unlawful detainer is possession, not ownership; the issue of ownership should be raised in an appropriate action, as a certificate of title cannot be collaterally attacked. Private respondents proved their cause of action, and petitioners’ allegations of fraud and misrepresentation were not supported by competent evidence.