Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Programme vs. Province of Battan
Programme vs. Province of Battan
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 144635 June 26, 2006
PROGRAMME INCORPORATED, Petitioner,
vs.
PROVINCE OF ATAAN,
1
Responent.
D E C I S I O N
CORONA, J.:
In this petition file uner Rule !" of the Rules of Court, petitioner Pro#ra$$e Incorporate
contests the Court of %ppeals &C%' ecision
(
an resolution
)
upholin# responent Province
of *ataan+s o,nership of Pia--a .otel an the lan on ,hich it stans. /he assaile
ecision in C%01.R. CV No. !21)" affir$e the ecision of the Re#ional /rial Court &R/C',
*ranch !, *alan#a, *ataan in a suit for preli$inar3 in4unction an su$ of $one3 file b3
petitioner a#ainst *ataan Ship3ar an En#ineerin# Co., Inc. &*%SECO'. /he case ,as
oc5ete as Civil Case No. 1(20M6. /he ispositive portion of the trial court ecision rea7
8.ERE9ORE, in vie, of all the fore#oin# consierations, 4u#$ent is hereb3 renere
is$issin# the co$plaint, ,ithout pronounce$ent as to costs.
Si$ilarl3, :*%SECO+s; counterclai$ is is$isse.
On the co$plaint in intervention, 4u#$ent is hereb3 renere orerin# :petitioner; to pa3
:responent; the rentals for the lease pre$ises in <uestion, na$el3, the Pia--a .otel an
the Mariveles 6o#e, situate at the *ataan E=port Processin# >one &*EP>' Co$poun in
Mariveles, *ataan, at the rate of si= thousan five hunre pesos &P?,"@@.@@' per $onth for
both establish$ents, startin# in %u#ust 12A2 ,ith le#al interest at ?B per annu$, up to an
until the le#al arreara#es shall have been full3 pai, an to pa3 the succeein# rentals
therefor at the sa$e rate.
SO ORDERED.
!
/he controvers3 arose fro$ the follo,in# facts.
*%SECO ,as the o,ner of Pia--a .otel an Mariveles 6o#e, both locate in Mariveles,
*ataan.
On Ma3 1!, 12A?, *%SECO #rante petitioner a contract of lease over Pia--a .otel at a
$onthl3 rental of P?,"@@ for three 3ears, i.e., fro$ Canuar3 1, 12A? to Canuar3 1, 12A2,
sub4ect to rene,al b3 $utual a#ree$ent of the parties. %fter the e=piration of the three03ear
lease perio, petitioner ,as allo,e to continue operatin# the hotel on $onthl3 e=tensions
of the lease.
In %pril 12A2, ho,ever, the Presiential Co$$ission on 1oo 1overn$ent &PC11' issue
a se<uestration orer a#ainst *%SECO pursuant to E=ecutive Orer No. 1 of for$er
Presient Cora-on C. %<uino.
"
%$on# the properties provisionall3 sei-e an ta5en over
,as the lot on ,hich Pia--a .otel stoo.
On Cul3 12, 12A2, ho,ever, Pia--a .otel ,as sol at a public auction for non0pa3$ent of
ta=es to responent Province of *ataan. /he title of the propert3 ,as transferre to
responent. *%SECO+s /ransfer Certificate of /itle &/C/' No. /0"2?)1 ,as cancelle an a
ne, one, /C/ No. /01(A!"?, ,as issue to the Province of *ataan.
On Cul3 (1, 12A2, petitioner file a co$plaint for preli$inar3 in4unction an collection of su$
of $one3 a#ainst *%SECO &Civil Case No. 1(20M6'.
?
Responent, as the ne, o,ner of the
propert3, file a $otion for leave to intervene on Nove$ber ((, 122@. %fter its $otion ,as
#rante, responent file a co$plaint0in0intervention pra3in#, inter alia, that petitioner be
orere to vacate Pia--a .otel an Mariveles 6o#e for lac5 of le#al interest.
Durin# the pre0trial of the co$plaint0in0intervention, the parties a#ree that the case
D
be
trie on the sole issue of ,hether responent province, as co$plainant0intervenor, ,as the
le#iti$ate o,ner of the Pia--a .otel an Mariveles 6o#e.
On 9ebruar3 ), 122", after trial on the $erits, the trial court renere 4u#$ent in favor of
responent.1avvphi l.net
On appeal, the C% aresse the issue of o,nership of Pia--a .otel an Mariveles 6o#e
as follo,s7
!"#e $%%&'( )*e )'&$+ ,ou')-. 'u+&n/ )*$) !'e.0on1en)# P'o2&n,e o% $)$$n *$.
e.)$3+&.*e1 34 0'e0on1e'$n,e o% e2&1en,e &). ,+$&( o% o5ne'.*&0 o% P&$66$ 7o)e+ $n1
M$'&2e+e. 8o1/e. In %$,), !0e)&)&one'# *$. no) 0'e.en)e1 e2&1en,e 0'o2&n/ &).
o5ne'.*&0 o% )*e .$&1 3u&+1&n/.!, 5*e'e$. 'e.0on1en) 0'e.en)e1# $ )$9 1e,+$'$)&on
$n1 ,e')&%&,$)e o% )&)+e o2e' )*e .$(e 0'o0e')&e., o2e' 5*&,* &) no5 e9e',&.e. %u++
,on)'o+ $n1 1o(&n&on. /he fact that the sub4ect properties ,ere place uner
se<uestration is of no $o$ent for the PC11 is not an o,ner but a conservator ,ho can
e=ercise onl3 po,ers of a$inistration over propert3 se<uestere, fro-en or provisionall3
ta5en over. %s the o,ner of sai properties, :responent0intervenor; is entitle to the
pa3$ent of the $onthl3 rental in the su$ of P?,"@@.@@ as rule b3 the trial court.
A
&e$phasis
ours'
8e a#ree ,ith the appellate court.
/i$e an a#ain, ,e have rule that factual $atters are best evaluate b3 trial courts ,hich
can scrutini-e evience an hear testi$on3 presente an offere b3 the parties &in this
case, on the issue of o,nership of the sub4ect propert3'. %ll the $ore oes this principle rin#
true in this petition since such factual eter$ination b3 the R/C ,as uphel b3 the
C%.
2
Onl3 <uestions of la, are the proper sub4ect of a petition for revie, on certiorari in this
Court, unless an3 of the 5no,n e=ceptions is e=tant in this case.
1@
/here is none.
/he evience clearl3 establishe responent+s o,nership of Pia--a .otel.
11
9irst, the title of
the lan on ,hich Pia--a .otel stans ,as in the na$e of responent.
1(
Secon, /a=
Declaration No. 1(DA( ,as in the na$e of responent as o,ner of Pia--a .otel.
1)
% note at
the bac5 of the ta= eclaration rea7
T'$n.%e''e1 34 2&')ue o% $ %&n$+ 3&++ o% .$+e e9e,u)e1 34 )*e P'o2&n,&$+ !T'e$.u'e'# o%
$)$$n &n %$2o' o% )*e P'o2&n,&$+ Go2e'n(en) on 9eb. 1), 12A2:, a; 3ear after the
e=piration of the ree$ption perio fro$ ate of auction sale hel on 9eb. 1(, 12AA of all
real propert3 eclare in the na$e of :*%SECO;.
1!
&e$phasis ours'
/hir, petitioner ,as oubtlessl3 4ust a lessee. In the lease contract anne=e to the
co$plaint, petitioner in fact a$itte *%SECO+s &responent+s preecessor0in0interest'
o,nership then of the sub4ect propert3. % stipulation in the contract rea7
8.ERE%S, )*e +e..o' :ASECO; &. )*e o5ne' o% )*e 3u&+1&n/ PIA<<A 7OTE8 an its
outlet M%RIVE6ES 6OD1E locate at *%SECO, Mariveles, *ataan ===
1"
&e$phasis ours'
/he Rules of Court states that E:a;n a$ission, verbal or ,ritten, $ae b3 a part3 in the
course of the proceein#s in the sa$e case, oes not re<uire proof. /he a$ission $a3 be
contraicte onl3 b3 sho,in# that it ,as $ae throu#h palpable $ista5e or that no such
a$ission ,as $ae.E
1?
!Su,* $1(&..&on.# ($4 3e ($1e &n :$; )*e 0+e$1&n/. %&+e1 34 )*e 0$')&e., :3; &n )*e
,ou'.e o% )*e )'&$+ e&)*e' 34 2e'3$+ o' 5'&))en ($n&%e.)$)&on. o' .)&0u+$)&on., o' :,; &n
o)*e' .)$/e. o% )*e =u1&,&$+ 0'o,ee1&n/, $. &n )*e 0'e>)'&$+ o% )*e ,$.e. %$issions
obtaine throu#h epositions, ,ritten interro#atories or re<uests for a$ission are also
consiere 4uicial a$issions.
1D
&e$phasis ours'
E/o be consiere as a 4uicial a$ission, the sa$e $ust be $ae in the sa$e case in
,hich it is offere.E
1A
In its o,n co$plaint
12
for preli$inar3 in4unction an su$ of $one3, petitioner ac5no,le#e
that it ,as not the o,ner of the propert3 ,hen it state that E:*%SECO; lease:; to
:petitioner; the builin# Pia--a .otel an its outlet Mariveles 6o#e === for $onthl3 rentals
of P?,"@@.@@.E
(@
Petitioner coul not possibl3 be the o,ner of a builin# $erel3 lease to it.
(1
9urther$ore, petitioner+s reference to %rticle !!A
((
of the
Civil Coe to 4ustif3 its suppose ri#hts as Epossessor in #oo faithE ,as erroneous.
/he benefits #rante to a possessor in #oo faith cannot be $aintaine b3 the lessee
a#ainst the lessor because, such benefits are intene to appl3 onl3 to a case ,here one
buils or so,s or plants on lan ,hich he believes hi$self to have a clai$ of title an not to
lans ,herein one+s onl3 interest is that of a tenant uner a rental contract, other,ise, it
,oul al,a3s be in the po,er of a tenant to i$prove his lanlor out of his propert3.
*esies, as bet,een lessor an lessee, the Coe applies specific provisions esi#ne to
cover their ri#hts.
.ence, the lessee cannot clai$ rei$burse$ent, as a $atter of ri#ht, for useful
i$prove$ents he has $ae on the propert3, nor can he assert a ri#ht of retention until
rei$burse. .is onl3 re$e3 is to re$ove the i$prove$ent if the lessor oes not choose to
pa3 its valueF but the court cannot #ive hi$ the ri#ht to bu3 the lan.
()
Petitioner+s assertion that Pia--a .otel ,as constructe Eat &its' e=penseE foun no support
in the recors. Neither i an3 ocu$ent or testi$on3 prove this clai$. %t best, ,hat ,as
confir$e ,as that petitioner managed and operated the hotel. /here ,as no evience that
petitioner ,as the one ,hich spent for the construction or renovation of the propert3. %n
since petitioner+s alle#e e=penitures ,ere never proven, it coul not even see5
rei$burse$ent of one0half of the value of the i$prove$ents upon ter$ination of the lease
uner %rticle 1?DA
(!
of the Civil Coe.
9inall3, both the trial an appellate courts eclare that the lan as ,ell as the i$prove$ent
thereon &Pia--a .otel' belon#e to responent. 8e fin no reason to overturn this factual
conclusion.
Since this petition for revie, on certiorari ,as clearl3 ,ithout le#al an factual basis,
petitioner+s counsel shoul not have even file this appeal. It is obvious that the intention
,as $erel3 to ela3 the isposition of the case.
"7EREFORE, the petition is hereb3 DENIED. /he ecision an resolution of the Court of
%ppeals in C%01.R. CV No. !21)" are AFFIRMED.
Costs a#ainst petitioner. Sa$e costs a#ainst %tt3. *enito R. Cuesta I, petitioner+s counsel,
for filin# this fli$s3 appeal, pa3able ,ithin ten &1@' a3s fro$ finalit3 of this ecision.
SO ORDERED.