G.R. No. 143361 ; February 9, 2006
PAULO BALLESTEROS, Petitioner, vs. ROLANDO ABION, Respondent.

FACTS

The property, a commercial building and land, was owned by Dr. Rodolfo Vargas. On September 27, 1995, Dr. Vargas sold it to respondent Rolando Abion. Prior to this sale, petitioner Paulo Ballesteros had leased one door of the building from Ronald Vargas, the son of Dr. Vargas, under a contract dated March 14, 1991. After the sale to Abion but before the new title was issued, Ballesteros entered into a second lease contract on October 30, 1995, with Ronald Vargas, who again misrepresented himself as the owner, extending the lease and including the second door. Ballesteros occupied the premises and made advance rental payments.
Upon obtaining his title on April 10, 1996, Abion demanded that Ballesteros vacate the property. Ballesteros refused, prompting Abion to file an unlawful detainer case. The Municipal Trial Court dismissed the complaint, but the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed this, ordering Ballesteros to vacate and pay rentals. The RTC later issued a writ of execution and, after Ballesteros failed to comply, authorized the sheriff to forcibly open the premises to deliver possession to Abion on December 15, 1997. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision with modifications on the awarded amounts.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Abion could legally eject petitioner Ballesteros from the property.

RULING

Yes, respondent Abion could legally eject petitioner Ballesteros. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. The legal logic rests on the principle that a lease contract executed by one who is not the owner or authorized agent of the owner, and who does not have any right to the property’s possession, produces no legal effect. Ronald Vargas was not the registered owner at the time of the second lease contract, nor was he shown to be an authorized agent of the true owner, Dr. Vargas, or the subsequent buyer, Abion. Therefore, the second contract conferred no right of possession upon Ballesteros against the true owner, Abion.
Ballesteros’s possession after Abion’s purchase was merely by tolerance. Such tolerance ended when Abion, as the registered owner, made a lawful demand to vacate. Ballesteros’s refusal to vacate upon demand rendered his continued possession unlawful, giving Abion a valid cause of action for ejectment. The Court also upheld the propriety of the forcible execution, as Ballesteros was given due notice and failed to comply voluntarily with the writ. The reduction of monetary awards by the Court of Appeals was deemed proper and factual.