GR 192217; (March, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. 192217; March 2, 2011
DANILO L. PAREL, Petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF SIMEON PRUDENCIO, Respondents.
FACTS
A complaint for recovery of possession and damages was filed by Simeon Prudencio against Danilo Parel. Simeon alleged he owned a two-story house in Baguio City and allowed Danilo and his parents to live on the ground floor. In November 1985, Simeon demanded they vacate; Danilo’s parents complied, but Danilo remained. Danilo countered that the land was in his late father Florentino’s name and that Florentino and Simeon were co-owners of the house built thereon. The RTC initially ruled in favor of Danilo, declaring co-ownership and denying eviction. The CA reversed, declaring Simeon the sole owner, ordering Danilo to surrender possession and pay monthly rentals of P2,000 from April 1988 until he actually vacates, plus attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA Decision in G.R. No. 146556 on April 19, 2006. Simeon moved for a writ of execution. Danilo filed a Comment, praying that the P2,000 monthly rental be computed only from April 1988 to March 1994, claiming he vacated in April 1994. The RTC issued Orders on February 15, 2008 and July 31, 2008, granting the writ of execution and denying Danilo’s motion for reconsideration, ruling it could not modify the final and executory judgment and that Danilo never effectively turned over possession. The CA affirmed these RTC Orders. Danilo filed the present petition.
ISSUE
1. Whether the CA committed an error of law in upholding the RTC Order dated February 15, 2008.
2. Whether the CA committed an error of law in upholding the RTC Order dated July 31, 2008.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The Court held that while the RTC was correct that the judgment was final and executory and that Danilo should have seasonably brought the fact of his alleged vacation to the court’s attention, it would be inequitable to order him to pay monthly rentals “until he actually vacates” without a determination of when he actually vacated. This would oblige him to pay rentals indefinitely. The Court ruled that the duty to pay rentals for the use and occupancy of the property is extinguished once possession is lawfully yielded. The case was remanded to the RTC to conduct a hearing, receive evidence, and determine the actual date Danilo left the premises before issuing a writ of execution based on that resolution.