Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 386 views

    Llobrera v. Fernandez

    Uploaded by

    Maria Analyn
    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' ruling that the petitioners' possession of the disputed land was based on mere tolerance by the landowner respondent Fernandez, and not on a lease agreement. As occupants with only tolerated possession, the petitioners were bound by an implied promise to vacate upon demand, and the respondent's ejectment case was thus proper. The petitioners' consignment of rental payments also had no legal effect, as there was no contractual relationship between the parties that would make consignment a valid tender of payment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Llobrera v. Fernandez

    Uploaded by

    Maria Analyn
    386 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' ruling that the petitioners' possession of the disputed land was based on mere tolerance by the landowner respondent Fernandez, and not on a lease agreement. As occupants with only tolerated possession, the petitioners were bound by an implied promise to vacate upon demand, and the respondent's ejectment case was thus proper. The petitioners' consignment of rental payments also had no legal effect, as there was no contractual relationship between the parties that would make consignment a valid tender of payment.

    Original Description:

    Property case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' ruling that the petitioners' possession of the disputed land was based on mere tolerance by the landowner respondent Fernandez, and not on a lease agreement. As occupants with only tolerated possession, the petitioners were bound by an implied promise to vacate upon demand, and the respondent's ejectment case was thus proper. The petitioners' consignment of rental payments also had no legal effect, as there was no contractual relationship between the parties that would make consignment a valid tender of payment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    386 views2 pages

    Llobrera v. Fernandez

    Uploaded by

    Maria Analyn
    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' ruling that the petitioners' possession of the disputed land was based on mere tolerance by the landowner respondent Fernandez, and not on a lease agreement. As occupants with only tolerated possession, the petitioners were bound by an implied promise to vacate upon demand, and the respondent's ejectment case was thus proper. The petitioners' consignment of rental payments also had no legal effect, as there was no contractual relationship between the parties that would make consignment a valid tender of payment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Sps. Llobrera v. Josefina Fernandez the barangay captain.

    Failing to help the parties reach


    G.R. NO. 142882, May 02, 2006 any settlement, the barangay captain issued the
    Topic: Possession; tolerance requisite certification to file an action.
     Respondent Fernandez filed a complaint for ejectment
    SPS. RICARDO AND LYDIA LLOBRERA, SPS. BENJAMIN and damages against petitioners Sps. Llobrera, et al.,
    AND ESTHER LLOBRERA, SPS. MIKE AND RESIDA MALA, before the MTCC.
    SPS. OTOR AND DOLINANG  MTCC ruled in favor of respondent Fernandez. It
    BAGONTE, SPS. EDUARDO AND DAMIANA ICO, SPS. ordered the petitioners Sps. Llobrera, et al., to vacate
    ANTONIO AND MERLY SOLOMON, SPS. ANSELMO AND the premises and restore possession to respondent
    VICKY SOLOMON, SPS. ALEX AND CARMELITA CALLEJO, Fernandez. It also ordered the petitioners to pay P300
    SPS. DEMETRIO AND JOSEFINA FERRER, SPS. BENJAMIN per month from January 17, 1997 until they vacate the
    AND ANITA MISLANG, SPS. DOMINGO AND FELICIDAD land. It also ordered them to pay proportionately the
    SANCHEZ, SPS. FERNANDO AND CARMELITA QUEBRAL, amount of P10,000 as attorney’s fees and P2,000 as
    SPS. BERNARDO AND PRISCILLA MOLINA, PRISCILLA litigation fees.
    BAGA AND BELEN SEMBRANO, PETITIONERS,  RTC affirmed the MTCC ruling.
    VS.  CA affirmed the RTC ruling. CA also denied the motion
    JOSEFINA V. FERNANDEZ, RESPONDENT. for reconsideration of Sps. Llobrera, et al.
     Rule 45 Petitioner for Review on Certiorari.
    ISSUE  Petitioners Sps. Llobrera, et al., assigned the following
     Whether or not petitioners Spouses Llobrera, et al., are errors to the Court of Appeals:
    in possession of the lot by mere tolerance of o That the CA erred in holding that their
    respondent Fernandez - YES occupation and possession of the property was
    o Whether or not the possession of the lot by by mere tolerance of respondent Fernandez;
    petitioners Spouses LLobrera, et al., is founded o That the CA erred in holding that their failure to
    on a contract – NO vacate the premises despite the demands to do
    so was a valid ground for their ejectment;
    RULES o That the CA erred in holding that their
     NCC 537 – acts which do not give rise to possession consignation of the monthly rental payments is
    (not mentioned in the case) not legally tenable pursuant to Article 1256 of
     NCC 1256 – consignation NCC.
     Roxas v. CA (G.R. No. 138955, Oct. 29, 2002) – o That the CA erred in affirming the decisions of
    possession of lot by virtue of tolerance of owner the lower courts as regards payment of rental,
    attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses.
    ANALYSIS OF FACTS
    ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTS
    Petitioner (as Respondents
     The property in dispute is a parcel of land in Dagupan. contained in their
    Respondent Fernandez, one of the co-owners of the Answer in the case
    land, sent a written demand letter to petitioners Sps. before the MTCC)
    Llobrera and other named petitioners. Fernandez They have been
    demanded that they vacate the premises within 15 occupying the property
    days from receipt of said notice. since 1945.
     Sps. Llobrera, et al., refused to vacate so Fernandez Their possession of their
    filed a complaint with the barangay captain. They property was through
    failed to reach any settlement. their predecessors-in-
     Fernandez then filed a complaint for ejectment and interest; the latter was
    damages against Sps. Llobrera, et al., before the MTC. given permission by one
    MTC ruled in favor of Fernandez. RTC and CA affirmed Gualberto de Venecia to
    the MTC ruling. develop and occupy the
    land, with the condition
     The property in dispute is a 1,849 square-meter parcel that they pay a monthly
    of land in Dagupan City. Respondent Fernandez, one rental of P20 each.
    of the co-owners of the land, sent a written demand Since then, petitioners
    letter upon petitioners Sps. Llobrera and the other have paid the monthly
    named petitioners. Fernandez demanded that the rental of P20 to Gualberto
    petitioners Sps. Llobrera, et al., vacate the premises de Venecia or Rosita de
    within 15 days from the said notice. Venecia or their
     Petitioners. Sps. Llobrera refused to vacate so representatives. Their
    respondent Fernandez filed a formal complaint with payments were all
    acknowledged with o Art. 1256. If the creditor to whom tender
    receipts. of payment has been made refuses
    In 1996, Gualberto’s without just cause to accept it, the debtor
    representative suddenly shall be released from responsibility by
    refused to accept the the consignation of the thing or sum due.
    rental payments. This  Respondent Fernandez has no obligation to receive
    prompted them to consign any payment from petitioners Sps. Llobrero, et al.,
    the amounts to a bank
    absent any contractual relationship between them. As
    through an account which
    such, the bank deposit done by petitioners Sps.
    their continued to update
    with their monthly Llobero has no legal effect insofar as respondent
    payments. Fernandez is concerned.

    Petition is denied for lack of merit.


    CONCLUSION
     The Supreme Court affirms the finding of the lower
    courts that the possession of the lot by petitioners Sps.
    Llobrera, et al., is not based on a contract. Petitioners
    Sps. Llobrera failed to substantiate their claim of a
    lessor-lessee relationship; they failed to present as
    evidence any written document of the alleged lease
    agreement. The receipts allegedly given by the De
    Venecias as acknowledgement of the rental payments
    were also not presented, on the excuse that these
    were burned by a fire. The unanimous decision of the
    lower courts on this factual issue is final and conclusive
    upon the Supreme Court. This factual finding is
    relevant as regards two things: (1) possession by
    tolerance, and (2) propriety of consignation.

    Possession by tolerance

     Absent any proof of the alleged lessor-lessee


    relationship, the only available conclusion as regards
    the arrangement is that their possession is by mere
    tolerance by respondent Fernandez.
     Roxas v. Court of Appeals (2002): A person who
    occupies the land of another person, without any form
    of contract between them and only through the latter’s
    tolerance or permission, is bound by an implied
    promise to vacate the property upon the latter’s
    demand. Upon his failure to vacate the property upon
    demand, the latter can file a summary action for
    ejectment as proper remedy.

    Propriety of consignation

     The absence of any contractual relationship between


    petitioners Sps. Llobrera, et al., and respondent
    Fernando precludes any legal efficacy of the
    consignation done by the former.
     NCC 1256 on consignation requires that in order for
    valid consignation to take place, there must be a
    creditor-debtor relationship between the parties. NCC
    1256 applies only when there is unjust refusal by a
    creditor to accept payment from a debtor. NCC 1256
    provides:

    You might also like