Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    Llobrera Vs Fernandez

    Uploaded by

    Leo Tumagan
    Petitioners occupied land in Dagupan City since 1945, claiming they had permission from co-owner Gualberto de Venecia to stay on condition of paying 20Php monthly rent. However, they failed to present any written documents to prove the alleged lease agreement. While they claimed receipts were burned in a 1996 fire, there was no evidence of a lessor-lessee relationship between the parties. Without such proof of a contractual basis, their possession was by mere tolerance and they were legally bound to vacate upon demand from co-owner Josefina Fernandez. Monthly deposits made to a bank as consignation had no legal effect on Fernandez since there was no proven contractual relationship between the parties.

    Copyright:

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

    Llobrera Vs Fernandez

    Uploaded by

    Leo Tumagan
    31 views1 page
    Petitioners occupied land in Dagupan City since 1945, claiming they had permission from co-owner Gualberto de Venecia to stay on condition of paying 20Php monthly rent. However, they failed to present any written documents to prove the alleged lease agreement. While they claimed receipts were burned in a 1996 fire, there was no evidence of a lessor-lessee relationship between the parties. Without such proof of a contractual basis, their possession was by mere tolerance and they were legally bound to vacate upon demand from co-owner Josefina Fernandez. Monthly deposits made to a bank as consignation had no legal effect on Fernandez since there was no proven contractual relationship between the parties.

    Original Title

    134. Llobrera vs Fernandez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioners occupied land in Dagupan City since 1945, claiming they had permission from co-owner Gualberto de Venecia to stay on condition of paying 20Php monthly rent. However, they failed to present any written documents to prove the alleged lease agreement. While they claimed receipts were burned in a 1996 fire, there was no evidence of a lessor-lessee relationship between the parties. Without such proof of a contractual basis, their possession was by mere tolerance and they were legally bound to vacate upon demand from co-owner Josefina Fernandez. Monthly deposits made to a bank as consignation had no legal effect on Fernandez since there was no proven contractual relationship between the parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    31 views1 page

    Llobrera Vs Fernandez

    Uploaded by

    Leo Tumagan
    Petitioners occupied land in Dagupan City since 1945, claiming they had permission from co-owner Gualberto de Venecia to stay on condition of paying 20Php monthly rent. However, they failed to present any written documents to prove the alleged lease agreement. While they claimed receipts were burned in a 1996 fire, there was no evidence of a lessor-lessee relationship between the parties. Without such proof of a contractual basis, their possession was by mere tolerance and they were legally bound to vacate upon demand from co-owner Josefina Fernandez. Monthly deposits made to a bank as consignation had no legal effect on Fernandez since there was no proven contractual relationship between the parties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    SPS. RICARDO AND LYDIA LLOBRERA, SPS. BENJAMIN AND ESTHER LLOBRERA, SPS.

    MIKE AND
    RESIDA MALA, SPS. OTOR AND DOLINANG BAGONTE, SPS. EDUARDO AND DAMIANA ICO, SPS.
    ANTONIO AND MERLY SOLOMON, SPS. ANSELMO AND VICKY SOLOMON, SPS. ALEX AND
    CARMELITA CALLEJO, SPS. DEMETRIO AND JOSEFINA FERRER, SPS. BENJAMIN AND ANITA
    MISLANG, SPS. DOMINGO AND FELICIDAD SANCHEZ, SPS. FERNANDO AND CARMELITA QUEBRAL,
    SPS. BERNARDO AND PRISCILLA MOLINA, PRISCILLA BAGA AND BELEN SEMBRANO, petitioners, vs.
    JOSEFINA V. FERNANDEZ,respondent.

    Facts:

    - Josefina Fernandez, one of the registered co-owners of land in Dagupan City,


    sent a demand letter to Sps Llobrera et al to vacate premises within 15 days.
    Petitioners refused and no settlement was reached on the barangay level.
    - Fernandez then filed a complaint for ejectment and damages in the MTCC pf
    Dagupan
    - Petitioners defended that they occupied lot since beginning of 1945 with the
    permission of Gualberto de Venecia, one of co-owner, on condition of
    payment of 20Php monthly rental. The representative of Gualberto refused
    to receive the payments of rentals so in June 1996, they were prompted to
    consign the same and pay it to Banco San Juan instead which they maintained
    and update their payment.
    - MTCC, RTC and CA favored Fernandez.

    Issue: WON possession of the subject property is founded on contract

    Held:

    No. Petitioners failed to present any written memo of the alleged lease
    arrangements between them and De Venecia. There is dearth (aba dearth. Jima.) of
    evidence to substantiate the averred lessor-lessee relationship. (ang ilaha excuse
    kay naa daw sunog na nadala ang receipts that’s why wa sila ka present sa receipts
    na giissue ni De Venecia. Jima na pod)
    Petitioners failed to present any written memorandum of the alleged lease arrangements between them and Gualberto De
    Venecia. The receipts claimed to have been issued by the owner were not presented on the excuse that the March 19, 1996 fire
    burned the same. Simply put, there is a dearth of evidence to substantiate the averred lessor-lessee relationship. . . . . 3

    Absent such proof of any contractual basis for their possession, the legal
    implication is that they were possessing by mere tolerance. Therefore, the
    person occupying is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he/she will
    vacate upon demand.

    The bank deposits made, as consignation, has no legal effect insofar as the
    respondent is concerned since there is no contractual relationship. Therefore,
    Fernandez cannot be compelled to receive such deposits.

    You might also like