THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 175085, June 01, 2016
TAN SIOK1 KUAN AND PUTE CHING, Petitioners, v. FELICISIMO "BOY" HO, RODOLFO C. RETURTA,2 VICENTE M. SALAS, AND LOLITA MALONZO, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PEREZ, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari3 assailing the Decision4 dated June 29, 2006 and the Resolution5 dated October 17, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 92107, which rulings reversed the Consolidated Decision6 dated May 6, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Civil Case Nos. Q-04-53505 to Q-04-53511 and the Joint Decision7 dated July 8, 2004 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) in Civil Case Nos. 30272 to 30278 and, in effect, dismissed for lack of merit the complaints for unlawful detainer filed by herein petitioners.
- defendant AVELINO BOMBITA that his rentals from March 1997 to the present have not been paid in the total sum of Php17,500.00 as of December, 2002; - defendant FELIX GAGARIN that his rentals from September 1997 to the present have not been paid in the total sum of Php16,000.00 as of December, 2002; - defendant FELICISIMO "BOY" HO that his rentals from December 1996 to the present have not been paid in the total sum of Php28,700.00 as of December, 2002; - defendant LOLITA MALONZO that her rentals from January, 1997 to the present have not been paid in the total sum of Php21,600.00 as of December, 2002; - defendant BERNARDO NAPOLITANO that his rentals from September, 1997 to the present have not been paid in the total sum of Php16,000.00 as of December, 2002; - defendant RODOLFO RETURTA that his rentals from July, 1996 to the present have [not] been [paid in] the total sum of Php23,700.00 as of December, 2002; and - defendant VICENTE SALAS [that] his rentals from August, 1997 to the [present have] not been paid in the total sum of Php22,750.00 as of December, 2002.9
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the herein plaintiffs TAN S1U KUAN & PUTE CHING as against all the above named defendants over that certain property located at Apollo Street, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City covered by TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NOS. 270014 and 279015, both of the Registry of Deeds for Quezon City, as follows:
IN CIVIL CASE NO. 30272:
- ordering the defendant AVELINO BOMBITA and any and all persons' claiming rights under him [to] vacate the premises in question, and to peacefully surrender and turn over the possession of the same unto plaintiffs;
- ordering said defendant to pay unto plaintiff the sum of Php250.00 per month starting from February 7, 2003 until they have completely vacated the premises;
- ordering said [defendant to] pay unto plaintiff the sum of Php 10,000.00 pesos as and by way of attorney's fees, plus costs of suit.
IN CIVIL CASE NO. 30273:
- ordering the defendant FELIX GAGARIN and any and all persons claiming rights under him to vacate the premises in question, and to peacefully surrender and turn over the possession of the same unto plaintiffs;
- ordering said defendant to pay unto plaintiff the sum of Php250.00 per month starting from February 7, 2003 until they have completely vacated the premises;
- ordering said defendant to pay unto plaintiff the sum of Php10,000.00 pesos as and by way of attorney's fees, plus costs of suit.
IN CIVIL CASE NO. 30274:
- ordering the defendant FELIC1SIMO "[BOY]" HO and any and all persons [claiming] rights under him to vacate the premises in question, and to peacefully surrender and turn over the possession of the same unto plaintiffs;
- ordering said defendant to pay unto plaintiff the sum of Php350.00 per month starting from February 7, 2003 until they have completely vacated the premises;
- ordering said defendant to pay unto plaintiff the sum of Phpl0,000.00 pesos as and by way of attorney's fees, plus costs of suit.
IN CIVIL CASE NO. 30275:
- ordering the defendant LOLITA MALONZO and any and all persons claiming rights under her to vacate the premises in question, and to peacefully surrender and turn over the possession of the same unto plaintiffs;
- ordering said defendant to pay unto plaintiffs the sum of Php300.00 per month starting from February 7, 2003 until they have completely vacated the premises;
- ordering said defendant to pay unto plaintiffs the sum of Php 10,000.00 pesos as and by way of attorney's fees, plus costs of suit.
IN CIVIL CASE NO. 30276:
- ordering the defendant BERNARDO NAPOLITANO and any [and all] persons claiming rights under him to vacate the premises in question, and to peacefully surrender and turn over the possession of the same unto plaintiffs;
- ordering said defendant to pay unto plaintiffs the sum of Php250.00 per month starting from February 7, 2003 until they have completely vacated the premises;
- ordering said defendant to pay unto plaintiffs the sum of Phpl0,000.00 pesos as and by way of attorney's fee[s], plus costs of suit.
IN CIVIL CASE NO, 30277:
- ordering the defendant RODOLFO RETURTA and any and all persons claiming rights under him to vacate the premises in question, and to peacefully surrender and turn over the possession of the same unto plaintiffs;
- ordering said defendant to pay unto plaintiffs the sum of Php300.00 per month starting from February 7, 2003 until they have completely vacated the premises;
- ordering said defendant to pay unto plaintiffs the sum of Phpl0,000.00 pesos as and by way of attorney's fees, plus costs of suit.
-and-
IN CIVIL CASE NO. 30278:
- ordering the defendant VICENTE SALAS and any and all persons claiming rights under him to vacate the premises in question, and to peacefully surrender and turn over the possession of the same unto plaintiffs;
- ordering said defendant to pay unto plaintiffs the sum of Php350.00 per month starting from February 7, 2003 until they have completely vacated the premises; and
- ordering said defendant to pay unto plaintiffs the sum of Phpl 0,000.00 pesos as and by way of attorney's fees, plus costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
In sum, the Court finds no reversible error in the decision of the court a quo and hereby affirms the same en toto.
Costs against the defendant. SO ORDERED.
WHEREFORE, the Consolidated Decision dated May 6, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 87, Quezon City is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In its stead, a new one is entered dismissing the actions for unlawful detainer for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.23 (Citation omitted.)
- THE CONSOLIDATED DECISION DATED 6 MAY 2005 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY BRANCH 87 IN CIVIL CASE NOS. 04-53507, 53508, 04-53510 and 04-53511, WHICH AFFIRMED IN TOTO THE EARLIER JOINT DECISION DATED 8 JULY 2004 OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, QUEZON CITY IN CIVIL CASE NOS. 30272 TO 30278 HAD BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY FOR FAILURE OF RESPONDENTS TO FILE THEIR JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WITHIN THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD OF FIFTEEN (15) DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF THE DECISION.24
- THE TENANCY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS WAS PROPERLY ESTABLISHED.25
(O)n a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man's own acts are binding upon himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence against him.
Endnotes:
1Sometimes spelled as "Siu."
2 Sometimes spelled as "Retorta."
3Rollo, pp. 2-12.
4 Id. at 86-97; penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon and concurred in by Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente.
5 Id. at 105-108; penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente.
6 Id. at 46-53; penned by Judge Fatima Gonzales-Asdala.
7 Id. at 35-44; penned by Presiding Judge Fernando T. Sagun, Jr.
8 Id. at 13-20.
9 Id. at 35-44; MeTC Joint Decision.
10 Supra note 8.
11 Supra note 9 at 32.
12 CA rollo, pp. 61, 62, and 64; the letters identically state:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryBuong galang po naming ipinababatid sa inyo na ang nasabing demand letter ay maari pong nagkamali ng [pinagpadalhan] sapagkat kami po ay hindi umuupa sa aming bahay na tinitirahan [sapagkat] kami po o ang mga magulang namin ang nagtirik ng mga nabanggit na bahay at wala po kaming nakilalang may-ari na naningil ng paupa sa amin.13 Id. at 4; per verification letter dated April 17, 1997 of Mr. Samuel Cleofe, Register of Deeds of Quezon City; as alleged in the Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals.
Alalaong baga, ang [nabanggit] ninyong mga kliyente ninyong sina Tan Siok Kuan at Pute Ching ay ni minsan sa loob ng mahigit na tatlumpung taon naming paninirahan sa mga nabanggit na address ay hindi man lamang namin nakausap o nakatanggap ng anumang pabatid o pagpapakilala upang pagbayaran ng anumang uri ng upa o bayad
14Rollo, pp. 41-43.
15 Id. at 47-48; RTC Consolidated Decision.
16 Id. at 51.
17 Id. at 53.
18 RTC records, Vol. 7 pp. 341 -346.
19 Id. at 349-350; Certification dated February 24, 2006 of Deputy Sheriff Marcelino E. Cabigao.
20 CA rollo, pp. 7-8; Petition for Review on Certiorari.
21 Id. at 71; Comment.
22Rollo, pp. 96-97.
23 There appears to be a mix-up in the RTC records. In the Order dated January 5, 2012 (RTC records, Vol. 7, pp. 434-435), the RTC stated that there was already an Entry of Judgment in this case by the CA of the Decision dated June 29, 2006. A review of the CA records shows, however, that there is as yet no entry of judgment in the said case and that petitioners timely filed the present petition on November 6, 2006, having received the notice of denial of the motion for reconsideration on October 23, 2006.
24Rollo, p. 5.cralawred
25 Id. at 7.
26 Supra note 18 at 230.cralawred
27 CA rollo, p. 123; Opposition.
28 Supra note 18 at 215-A.
29Rollo, p. 111.
30 RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, Sees. 28-31.
31 624 Phil. 312, 327 (2010).
32 Dependants below, other than the respondents herein.