ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[ G.R. No. 139598. October 20, 1999]

SPS. FRANCISCO & CONNIE TUA, et al. vs. SPS EFREN & LILIA ABANADOR, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 20, 1999.

G.R. No. 139598 (Spouses Francisco & Connie Tua, vs. Spouses Efren & Lilia Abanador.)

At bar is a petition for review under Rule 45 assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 29, 1999 and the resolution denying a motion for reconsideration subsequently filed.

The decision under review set aside the decision of the regional trial court and reinstated with modification the judgment rendered by the metropolitan trial court.

Sometime in June, 1989 petitioners entered into a lease agreement with a certain Ceferino Parales involving a house of strong materials located at No. 430 Talon, Las Piñas City. The lease period was stipulated at fifteen years. A deposit of P80,000.00 was also agreed upon to serve as guarantee for the monthly rentals, but with the condition that the same amount will be refunded after the lapse of the lease period. On February 28, 1996, Ceferino Parales sold to respondents (Sps. Abanador) the same property. Consequently, TCT No. T-23767 in the name of Parales was cancelled and a new one was issued. Petitioners (Sps. Tua) were notified of the sale and were advised to pay the monthly rentals to the new owners. Due to petitioners' failure to pay their rentals for eight (8) months and their failure to heed the demand to vacate, a complaint for ejectment was filed against them by respondents. In their answer, petitioners averred that they offered to pay the monthly rentals to respondents but the payment was turned down. Moreover, they asserted that they and the former owner (Parales) had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement on May 16, 1990 whereby petitioners acquired the right over the property with the construction of a building thereon at their expense. They also said that they had introduced useful and necessary improvements for which they were never reimbursed. Petitioners insisted that they cannot be ejected from the lot in question because they are the owners of the lot and the structures thereon.

The metropolitan trial court rendered judgment in favor of respondents, the dispositive portion of which reads:

VIEWED FROM ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby renders judgment ordering the defendants to vacate and surrender possession of the subject premises to the plaintiffs and to pay plaintiff all unpaid rentals until the premises is finally vacated and reasonable attorney's fees of P10,000.00 plus cost of suit.

Plaintiffs on the other hand are ordered to return to the defendants their deposit of P80,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

As earlier mentioned, this decision was reversed by the regional trial court. Upon review, however, by the Court of Appeals, the decision of the regional trial court was set aside and instead, that of the metropolitan trial court was reinstated with modification. The pertinent portion of the CA decision states:

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 253, Las Piñas City is SET ASIDE and the judgment of the Metropolitan Trial Court is REINSTATED, with MODIFICATION that petitioners are allowed to deduct from the deposit of P80,000.00 any unpaid rentals on the leased premises at the rate of P2,500.00 a month until respondents shall have vacated the same and to return the balance thereof to respondents.

A motion for reconsideration proved to be unavailing, hence the instant petition.

Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that their admission that the lot subject of the ejectment case is the same lot that was covered by the lease agreement first with Parales, then with respondents is already conclusive against them.

The petition is unimpressed with merit.

The belated assertion that the ejectment case pertains to a different lot does not merit any consideration. It is a basic rule in evidence that judicial admission is conclusive upon the party making it. The Court of Appeals correctly held that petitioners' admission of their occupation of the property which was the subject of the ejectment case (430 Talon, Las Piñas City) is deemed conclusive and will not be allowed to be contradicted, absent any showing that said admission was made through palpable mistake.

Moreover, the issue raised by the petitioners pertains to a factual finding made by the Court of Appeals which specifically found that Lot 430 is the lot covered by the lease agreement while the memorandum of agreement with Parales involved Lot 432. It is doctrinal that factual findings of the Court of Appeals when supported by substantial evidence on record, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal (Atillo III vs. CA, 266 SCRA 596 [1997]).

WHEREFORE, for failure to show that the respondent court committed any reversible error, the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com