G.R. No.
189061 August 6, the conclusive presumption that the lessor has
2014
MIDWAY MARITIME AND
TECHNOLOGICAL FOUNDATION,
represented by its
Chairman/President PhD in
Education DR. SABINO M.
MANGLICMOT, Petitioner,
vs.
MARISSA E. CASTRO, ET AL.,
FACTS:
The pettoner Midway Maritme Foundaton is
the lessee of ttwo parcels of land. Its
president,Dr. Manglicmot is married to
Adoracion, who is the registered owner of
the property.
Inside said property stands a residental
building owned by the respondents. The
respondents alleged that Manglicmot, who
was the President of the pettoner leased
the building from the mother of the
respondents.
The respondents prayed that they be
declared as the owners of the residental
building, and that the pettoner be ordered
to vacate the same and pay rent arrearages
and damages. Pettoner disputes and denies
the ownership of the respondents.
According to the pettoner, it is Adoracion
who ac]tually owns the residental building
having bought the same from her father
Tomas, who, in turn, bought it in an aucton
sale.
ISSUE:
Whether the petitioner lessee may deny the
ownership of the respondents lessor.
RULING:
NO.
It is settled that "[o]nce a contact of lease is
shown to exist between the parties, the lessee
cannot by any proof, however strong, overturn
a valid title to or a better right of possession to
the subject premises than the lessee."14 Section
2(b), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court prohibits a
tenant from denying the title of his landlord at
the time of the commencement of the relation
of landlord and tenant between them.15 In
Santos v. National Statistics Office,16 the Court
expounded on the rule on estoppel against a
tenant and further clarified that what a tenant is
estopped from denying is the title of his
landlord at the time of the commencement of
the landlord-tenant relation. If the title asserted
is one that is alleged to have been acquired
subsequent to the commencement of that
relation, the presumption will not apply.
In this case, the petitioner’s basis for insisting
on Adoracion’s ownership dates back to the
latter’s purchase of the two parcels of land
from her father, Tomas. It was Tomas who
bought the property in an auction sale by Union
Bank in 1993 and leased the same to the
petitioner in the same year. Note must be
madethat the petitioner’s president,
Manglicmot, is the husband of Adoracion and
son-in-law of Tomas. It is not improbable that at
the time the petitioner leased the residential
building from the respondents’ mother in 1993,
it was aware of the circumstances surrounding
the sale of the two parcels of land and the
natureof the respondents’ claim over the
residential house. Yet, the petitioner still chose
to lease the building. Consequently, the
petitioner is now estopped from denying the
respondents’ title over the residential building.
"Nemo dat quod non habet. One can sell only
what one owns or is authorized to sell, and the
buyer can acquire no more right than what the
seller can transfer legally."18 It must be pointed
out that what Tomas bought from Union Bank
in the auction sale werethe two parcels of land
originally owned and mortgaged by CCC to
Bancom, and which mortgage was later
assigned by Bancom to Union Bank. Contrary
to the petitioner’s assertion, the property
subject of the mortgage and consequently the
auction sale pertains only to these two parcels
of land and did not include the residential
house.
Hence, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.