ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 135187.December 15, 1999]
DURWIN et al. vs. LIM
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 15, 1999.
G.R. No. 135187(Carlos F. Durwin, et al. vs. Lulene Uypeco Lim.)
This is an ejectment case where all the three (3) courts below ruled against the petitioners.
Petitioners allege that they have been residing in the subject property situated in Balintawak, Kalookan City given to them by the registered owner, the late Manuel Nieto, for more than thirty years now. They have occupied the land in the concept of an owner, built their respective houses and paid the real estate property tax on said land.
Allegedly unknown to them, the heirs of Manuel Nieto executed a Deed of Sale dated October 12, 1995 in favor of the private respondent over the subject property. On the basis of such document, private respondent consequently filed an action for ejectment against the petitioners.
In their answer. to the complaint, petitioners argue that they can not be evicted from said land since the Land is covered under P.D. 1517 or the "Urban Land Reform Law" where it provides that:
SECTION 6. Land Tenancy in Urban Land Reform Areas. - Within the Urban Zones legitimate tenants who have resided on the land for ten years or more who have built their homes on the land and residents who have legally occupied the lands by contract, continuously for the last ten years shall not be dispossessed of the land and shall be allowed the right of first refusal to purchase the same within a reasonable time and at reasonable prices, under terms and conditions to be determined by the Urban Zone Expropriation and Land Management Committee created by Section 8 of this Decree.
On September 20, 1996, the MTC ruled against the petitioners stating that "the law covers only legitimate tenants [1] cralaw and that "tenants" refer only to the rightful occupants of the land and its structures but do not include those whose presence on the land is merely tolerated. [2] cralaw In the case at bar, the defendants have been occupying the subject premises by mere tolerance. [3] cralaw
This adverse ruling was appealed to the RTC which affirmed in toto the MTC decision. The Court of Appeals, likewise, dismissed petitioners' petition before it. Hence, this petition.
Petitioners argue in the main that under the "Urban Land Reform Law," they fall under the ambit of resident considering that they have been residing in the property for more than thirty years in the concept of an owner. Even assuming that they are not residents, they can be considered as legitimate tenants since the rent or consideration for their stay is their payment of the real estate taxes which were never reimbursed or paid back to them.
The petition is devoid of merit.
Well-settled is the rule that findings of fact of the lower courts are accorded great respect and finality if supported by substantial evidence. We find no cogent reason to disturb such rule.
The respondent court did not commit reversible error with the findings that petitioners have been occupying the land by mere tolerance of the registered owner. P.D. 1517 excludes from its coverage the occupants whose presence was merely tolerated by the landowners of the land covered under said law. [4] cralaw
Petitioners contend that said land was given to them by the late Manuel Nieto but present no proof of such transfer of ownership. As held by the trial court: if the property is real or immovable property, the donation and the acceptance of the donee must be in a public instrument pursuant to Article 749 of the Civil Code. Such requirement is wanting in the instant case. On the other hand, private respondent has a TCT issued in her name over the subject property. As against this public document which is a conclusive evidence of ownership, petitioners' mere allegation finds no support in fact and in law. He who alleges must prove.
Moreover, the fact that they have been paying the real property taxes is of no moment. Tax declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership in land registration cases. [5] cralaw The rule is well-settled that mere possession cannot defeat the title of a holder of a registered torrens title to real property [6] cralaw nor can a titled land be acquired by prescription. [7] cralaw
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolved to DENY the petition for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Sec. 6 , P.D. 1517.
[2] cralaw Sec. 6[f], Ibid.
[3] cralaw Par. 4, Plaintiff's Affidavit, Rollo, p. 32.
[4] cralaw Section 3.Definitions.
(f) Tenants refer to the rightful occupant of the land and its structures, but does not include those whose presence on the land is merely tolerated and without the benefit of contact, those who enter the land by force and deceit, or those whose possession is under litigation.
[5] cralaw Palomo v. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 392 (1997).
[6] cralaw Eduarte v. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 391 (1996).
[7] cralaw Rivera v. Court of Appeals, 244 SCRA 218 (1995).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
