Scribd
Upload
113 views1 page

Civ Case Digest Format

The Supreme Court ruled that Grilli did not have a cause of action for unlawful detainer against Fullido. To bring an unlawful detainer case, the complainant must have a right of possession over the property, such as being the lessor, vendor, or vendee. However, in this case the lease contract and memorandum of agreement that purportedly gave Grilli the right of possession were found to be null and void. A void contract produces no legal rights or effects. Therefore, Grilli did not have a possessory right over the property and could not eject Fullido, who was in possession. The unlawful detainer complaint was dismissed for failure to prove Grilli's cause of action.

Uploaded by

Jepoy Francisco
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
113 views1 page

Civ Case Digest Format

The Supreme Court ruled that Grilli did not have a cause of action for unlawful detainer against Fullido. To bring an unlawful detainer case, the complainant must have a right of possession over the property, such as being the lessor, vendor, or vendee. However, in this case the lease contract and memorandum of agreement that purportedly gave Grilli the right of possession were found to be null and void. A void contract produces no legal rights or effects. Therefore, Grilli did not have a possessory right over the property and could not eject Fullido, who was in possession. The unlawful detainer complaint was dismissed for failure to prove Grilli's cause of action.

Uploaded by

Jepoy Francisco
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Fullido v Grilli | G.R. No.

215014 | February 29, 2016 | Justice Mendoza | Sereno Court

Doctrine: In an unlawful detainer case, the complainant must either be a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other
person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld. The complainant in an
unlawful detainer case must have some right of possession over the property.

Facts: Grilli, an Italian national, formed a common-law relationship with Fullido, a Filipina, and lived in a house
in Bohol. Grilli and Fullido executed a contract of lease, a memorandum of agreement and a special power of
attorney (SPA) to define their respective rights over the house and lot. The lease contract stipulated, among
others, that Grilli as the lessee, would rent the lot, registered in the name of Fullido, for a period of fifty (50)
years, to be automatically renewed for another fifty (50) years upon its expiration in the amount of P10,000.00 for
the whole term of the lease contract; and that Fullido as the lessor, was prohibited from selling, donating, or
encumbering the said lot without the written consent of Grilli.
Initially, their relationship was harmonious, but it turned sour after 16 years of living together. Both charged each
other with infidelity. They could not agree who should leave the common property, and Grilli sent formal letters
to Fullido demanding that she vacate the property, but these were unheeded. Grilli filed a complaint for unlawful
detainer with prayer for issuance of preliminary injunction against Fullido before the MCTC.
MCTC dismissed the complaint for unlawful detainer, after finding that Fullido could not be ejected from their
house and lot, being the co-owner of the house as she contributed to it by supervising its construction. RTC
reversed the MCTC, ruling that Grilli had the exclusive right to use and possess the house and lot by virtue of the
contract of lease executed by the parties. CA affirmed the RTC, emphasizing that in the ejectment case, the only
issue to be resolved would be the physical possession of the property.

Issue:
Whether the unlawful detainer action is proper in this case. NO.

Ratio:

Grilli has no cause of action for unlawful detainer against Fullido. The complainant must either be a lessor,
vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld. The
complainant in an unlawful detainer case must have some right of possession over the property.

In the case at bench, the lease contract and the MOA, from which Grilli purportedly drew his right of possession,
were found to be null and void for being unconstitutional. A contract that violates the Constitution and the law is
null and void ab initio and vests no rights and creates no obligations. It produces no legal effect at all. 36 Hence,
as void contracts could not be the source of rights, Grilli had no possessory right over the subject land. A person
who does not have any right over a property from the beginning cannot eject another person possessing the same.
Consequently, Grilli's complaint for unlawful detainer must be dismissed for failure to prove his cause of action.

You might also like