Sps. Llobrera v. Josefina Fernandez the barangay captain.

Failing to help the parties reach

G.R. NO. 142882, May 02, 2006 any settlement, the barangay captain issued the
Topic: Possession; tolerance requisite certification to file an action.
 Respondent Fernandez filed a complaint for ejectment
SPS. RICARDO AND LYDIA LLOBRERA, SPS. BENJAMIN and damages against petitioners Sps. Llobrera, et al.,
AND ESTHER LLOBRERA, SPS. MIKE AND RESIDA MALA, before the MTCC.
SPS. OTOR AND DOLINANG  MTCC ruled in favor of respondent Fernandez. It
BAGONTE, SPS. EDUARDO AND DAMIANA ICO, SPS. ordered the petitioners Sps. Llobrera, et al., to vacate
ANTONIO AND MERLY SOLOMON, SPS. ANSELMO AND the premises and restore possession to respondent
VICKY SOLOMON, SPS. ALEX AND CARMELITA CALLEJO, Fernandez. It also ordered the petitioners to pay P300
SPS. DEMETRIO AND JOSEFINA FERRER, SPS. BENJAMIN per month from January 17, 1997 until they vacate the
AND ANITA MISLANG, SPS. DOMINGO AND FELICIDAD land. It also ordered them to pay proportionately the
SANCHEZ, SPS. FERNANDO AND CARMELITA QUEBRAL, amount of P10,000 as attorney’s fees and P2,000 as
SPS. BERNARDO AND PRISCILLA MOLINA, PRISCILLA litigation fees.
BAGA AND BELEN SEMBRANO, PETITIONERS,  RTC affirmed the MTCC ruling.
VS.  CA affirmed the RTC ruling. CA also denied the motion
JOSEFINA V. FERNANDEZ, RESPONDENT. for reconsideration of Sps. Llobrera, et al.
 Rule 45 Petitioner for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE  Petitioners Sps. Llobrera, et al., assigned the following
 Whether or not petitioners Spouses Llobrera, et al., are errors to the Court of Appeals:
in possession of the lot by mere tolerance of o That the CA erred in holding that their
respondent Fernandez - YES occupation and possession of the property was
o Whether or not the possession of the lot by by mere tolerance of respondent Fernandez;
petitioners Spouses LLobrera, et al., is founded o That the CA erred in holding that their failure to
on a contract – NO vacate the premises despite the demands to do
so was a valid ground for their ejectment;
RULES o That the CA erred in holding that their
 NCC 537 – acts which do not give rise to possession consignation of the monthly rental payments is
(not mentioned in the case) not legally tenable pursuant to Article 1256 of
 NCC 1256 – consignation NCC.
 Roxas v. CA (G.R. No. 138955, Oct. 29, 2002) – o That the CA erred in affirming the decisions of
possession of lot by virtue of tolerance of owner the lower courts as regards payment of rental,
attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses.
ANALYSIS OF FACTS
ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTS
Petitioner (as Respondents
 The property in dispute is a parcel of land in Dagupan. contained in their
Respondent Fernandez, one of the co-owners of the Answer in the case
land, sent a written demand letter to petitioners Sps. before the MTCC)
Llobrera and other named petitioners. Fernandez They have been
demanded that they vacate the premises within 15 occupying the property
days from receipt of said notice. since 1945.
 Sps. Llobrera, et al., refused to vacate so Fernandez Their possession of their
filed a complaint with the barangay captain. They property was through
failed to reach any settlement. their predecessors-in-
 Fernandez then filed a complaint for ejectment and interest; the latter was
damages against Sps. Llobrera, et al., before the MTC. given permission by one
MTC ruled in favor of Fernandez. RTC and CA affirmed Gualberto de Venecia to
the MTC ruling. develop and occupy the
land, with the condition
 The property in dispute is a 1,849 square-meter parcel that they pay a monthly
of land in Dagupan City. Respondent Fernandez, one rental of P20 each.
of the co-owners of the land, sent a written demand Since then, petitioners
letter upon petitioners Sps. Llobrera and the other have paid the monthly
named petitioners. Fernandez demanded that the rental of P20 to Gualberto
petitioners Sps. Llobrera, et al., vacate the premises de Venecia or Rosita de
within 15 days from the said notice. Venecia or their
 Petitioners. Sps. Llobrera refused to vacate so representatives. Their
respondent Fernandez filed a formal complaint with payments were all
 acknowledged with o Art. 1256. If the creditor to whom tender
receipts. of payment has been made refuses
In 1996, Gualberto’s without just cause to accept it, the debtor
representative suddenly shall be released from responsibility by
refused to accept the the consignation of the thing or sum due.
rental payments. This  Respondent Fernandez has no obligation to receive
prompted them to consign any payment from petitioners Sps. Llobrero, et al.,
the amounts to a bank
absent any contractual relationship between them. As
through an account which
such, the bank deposit done by petitioners Sps.
their continued to update
with their monthly Llobero has no legal effect insofar as respondent
payments. Fernandez is concerned.

Petition is denied for lack of merit.

CONCLUSION
 The Supreme Court affirms the finding of the lower
courts that the possession of the lot by petitioners Sps.
Llobrera, et al., is not based on a contract. Petitioners
Sps. Llobrera failed to substantiate their claim of a
lessor-lessee relationship; they failed to present as
evidence any written document of the alleged lease
agreement. The receipts allegedly given by the De
Venecias as acknowledgement of the rental payments
were also not presented, on the excuse that these
were burned by a fire. The unanimous decision of the
lower courts on this factual issue is final and conclusive
upon the Supreme Court. This factual finding is
relevant as regards two things: (1) possession by
tolerance, and (2) propriety of consignation.

Possession by tolerance

 Absent any proof of the alleged lessor-lessee

relationship, the only available conclusion as regards
the arrangement is that their possession is by mere
tolerance by respondent Fernandez.
 Roxas v. Court of Appeals (2002): A person who
occupies the land of another person, without any form
of contract between them and only through the latter’s
tolerance or permission, is bound by an implied
promise to vacate the property upon the latter’s
demand. Upon his failure to vacate the property upon
demand, the latter can file a summary action for
ejectment as proper remedy.

Propriety of consignation

 The absence of any contractual relationship between

petitioners Sps. Llobrera, et al., and respondent
Fernando precludes any legal efficacy of the
consignation done by the former.
 NCC 1256 on consignation requires that in order for
valid consignation to take place, there must be a
creditor-debtor relationship between the parties. NCC
1256 applies only when there is unjust refusal by a
creditor to accept payment from a debtor. NCC 1256
provides: