Villa v. Altavas

FACTS: This case involves a complaint for ejectment filed by Enrique Altavas II (Respondent) et. al against Dr. LornaVilla (Petitioner) with Virginia Bermejo and Rolita Roxas. According to respondents, they were the heirs of the deceased Enrique Altars I, the original owner of 2 parcels of fishponds designated as Lot. 2816 and 2817 (Capiz)—and have been in actual possession through their administrator Mussolini Bermejo the husband of Virginia. After the death of the administrator, Virginia took over the possession and without consent from respondents leased in favor of petitioner Villa five hectares of Lot 2816. Even after formal demands by respondents to vacate the land they still persisted and occupied the lands. According to petitioner, she was a possessor in good faith and that Bermejo represented herself as the owner of the land. TheMCTC rendered judgment in favor of respondents and demanded petitioners to vacate and pay for compensation.Their appeal to the RTC was dismissed for their failure to file a memorandum. CA affirmed the decision and dismissed their petition for certiorari hence this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondents who did not have actual of physical possession of the lot may recover

possession through the summary remedy of ejectment? will an action for ejectment lie against petitioner.

Petitioners contention:(1) The complaint and exhibits presented by respondents do not constitute preponderance of evidence in their favor and that since no sufficient evidence were presented the MCTC had no jurisdiction of the case (2) Respondents have not proven that they are ownerssince petitioner had a valid contract of lease with Bermejo that entitles her to possession(3) Respondents have no cause against petitioner since they are not lessors, vendors, or persons who contracted with petitioner and failed to aver facts constitutive of either forcible entry or unlawful detainer.

CLARIFICATION: Respondents refer to Lot 2816 but the MCTC and CA found that the disputed property was Lot 2817. Respondents never questioned such so the court shall refer to this disputed property as lot 2817

HELD: No, the petition is unmeritorious. The trial court finding of facts is binding upon this court unless there is

evidence to the contrary. Records show that respondents attached annexes to their complaint, the original Certificateof Titles in the name of Enrique covering lost 2816 and 2817—evidence of their ownership and right to possess.

Being a mere lessee, petitioner steps into the shoes of the lessor Virigina and since the MCTC did not sustain the claim of Virginia—and founds that she was not the lawful owner and no right to possess the same should be binding to petitioners in this case.