Unfounded source

A person cannot lease a property that he does not own. This is the principle applied in this case of Lora.

The property involved in this case was a fishpond consisting of two lots (Lots 2816 and 2817) titled in the name of the late Enrico (TCT No. RO-4326 and RO- 4327). When Enrico’s children Jun, Bella and Becky inherited the fishponds, they designated Bernie, a local councilman in their town, to oversee and administer the same.

On January 31, 1994 however, upon Bernie’s death, his wife Virgie took over the possession of the lots without the consent and permission of the heirs. Then Virgie later on even leased in favor of Lora a portion of about five hectares of lot 2817. When Jun, Bella and Becky learned about Virgie’s unauthorized acts, they formally sent demand letters to Virgie and Lora to vacate the respective portions occupied by them. But despite demands, the latter refused to vacate and continued their illegal occupancy of the fishponds.

So on November 26, 1997, June, Bella and Becky in their capacity as heirs of Enrico filed a complaint for ejectment before the Municipal Trial Court (MCTC) against Virgie, Lora, and another occupant of the fishpond.

For her defense Lora contended that Jun, Bella and Becky had not been in actual possession of the lot in question for years, while she was in lawful possession of the area and had developed it since it was leased to her by a person in actual possession thereof who represented herself as the owner of said lot.

The MCTC however ruled in favor of the heirs as they were able to present the titles to the property together with their respective affidavits.

Lora still questioned the decision insisting that the summary action for ejectment filed by the heirs who were not in actual possession could not lie against her and that she has a valid contract of lease with Virgie which entitled her to the possession of said lot 2817. Was Lora correct?

No. The Transfer Certificates of Title RO-4326 and RO-4327 which were submitted in evidence by Jun, Bella and Becky as heirs of Enrico are evidence of their ownership and right to possess the property. So they are entitled to its possession.

Moreover, being a mere lessee, Lora steps into the shoes of her lessor Virgie. However Virgie was not the owner of and had no right to possess the disputed property or to transfer possession of the same through lease, in favor of another person. In fact Virgie’s claim of ownership was not sustained by the MCTC and she did not question such finding anymore. So Lora had no right to possess the lot (Villa vs. Heirs of Altavas, G.R. 162028, July 14, 2008).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]