GR 174376; (September, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 174376 ; September 12, 2012
ZOSIMA INCORPORATED, Petitioner, vs. LILIA SALIMBAGAT and all persons claiming rights under her, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Zosima Incorporated, owner of an office building at 2414 Legarda Street, Sampaloc, Manila, entered into a lease contract with respondent Lilia Salimbagat in April 1993. The lease was renewed annually. After the contract terminated in March 1997, an implied new lease (tacita reconduccion) was created, and Salimbagat continued paying rent until March 2000. Zosima alleged that from April 2000, Salimbagat stopped paying and unlawfully withheld possession, accumulating rental arrears. In June 2003, Zosima sent a demand letter for payment and to vacate. Upon Salimbagat’s refusal, Zosima filed an unlawful detainer case.
In her defense, Salimbagat claimed she was not occupying Zosima’s office building, asserting it had been demolished for an LRT project. She alleged she was occupying a separate warehouse on a dried estero behind the address, which she purchased under a Deed of Conditional Sale. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ruled for Zosima, ordering eviction and payment of arrears. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed, dismissing the complaint, finding Zosima failed to prove Salimbagat was unlawfully possessing the specific leased office building from April 2000 onward.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the unlawful detainer complaint on the ground that Zosima Incorporated failed to sufficiently prove that Lilia Salimbagat was unlawfully withholding possession of the leased office building.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s decision. The core issue in an unlawful detainer case is the right to possess a specific property. The plaintiff must prove by preponderance of evidence that it is entitled to possession and that the defendant is unlawfully withholding the identical property subject of the lease. Zosima’s complaint specifically pertained to the office building at 2414 Legarda Street. However, Salimbagat consistently asserted she occupied a different structure—a warehouse on a dried estero—which she claimed to own.
The Court found that Zosima failed to discharge its burden of proof. It did not present conclusive evidence, such as a tax declaration or title, demonstrating that the warehouse Salimbagat occupied was part of its titled property. The mere sharing of a street address was insufficient to establish identity. Furthermore, Zosima did not adequately refute Salimbagat’s claim about the office building’s demolition. Since the very subject matter of the lease—the office building—was put in serious doubt, Zosima could not successfully maintain that Salimbagat’s possession of the warehouse was by virtue of the expired lease contract. Therefore, the essential element of unlawful withholding of the leased premises was not proven, warranting the dismissal of the ejectment suit.