The Supreme Court denied the appeal by certiorari of Belinda Soriano, Christine Evangelista, Michelle Nicole Soriano, Jose Enrique Roxas III, and Bernardina Feliciano, and affirmed the Court of Appeals rulings that allowed respondent Antonio V. Estrella to eject them from a property in Quezon City due to unlawful detainer.
The Case
On January 30, 2014, respondent Antonio V. Estrella filed a Complaint for ejectment against petitioners Belinda Soriano, Christine Evangelista, Michelle Nicole Soriano, Jose Enrique Roxas III, and Bernardina Feliciano. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 14-00796 and raffled to the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC).
Antonio alleged that he is the registered owner of a real property located at No. 64 South Maya Street, PhilAm Homes, Quezon City, described under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT-5674 (89911). He said the property was conveyed to him by his parents.
With Antonio's consent, Maria Teresa Estrella, the mother of the petitioners, occupied the basement of the house on the property. Upon Teresa's death on February 21, 2004, Belinda, Christine, and Jose asked Antonio to allow them to stay, promising to leave once they find a suitable place to reside. As his nieces and nephew, Antonio allowed them to use the basement and introduce improvements without paying rent.
In September 2012, Antonio informed them of his plan to renovate the basement and demanded that they vacate. They refused. After barangay conciliation failed, Antonio sent a demand letter to vacate dated July 1, 2013, which the petitioners received on July 19, 2013. The demand went unheeded, and Antonio filed the ejectment complaint.
The petitioners argued that their grandparents titled the property in Antonio's name, while the lot and improvements were declared for tax purposes in the name of their mother, Teresa. They also claimed Antonio was declared dead on November 14, 1990, and that Antonio's wife, Maria Rosario Castro-Estrella, executed a notarized Authorization Letter dated March 12, 2014, allowing them to continue occupying the lower portion of the house without paying rent.
The MeTC dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MeTC ruling and dismissed the suit for lack of cause of action. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC.
The Issue
The Court addressed whether Rosario could validly bind the subject property through the authorization she gave to petitioners to continue occupying it, and whether Antonio remained legally capacitated to bring the ejectment suit despite the claim of his death.
The Ruling
The Court denied the appeal. Its dispositive portion states: "ACCORDINGLY, the appeal by certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit. The July 17, 2017 Decision and December 18, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 141886 are AFFIRMED."
The Court held that respondent is entitled to the remedy afforded under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court for the ejectment of petitioners due to unlawful detainer.
By the Numbers
- G.R. No. 236333
- Complaint for ejectment filed: January 30, 2014
- Civil Case No. 14-00796
- TCT No. RT-5674 (89911)
- Death of Teresa: February 21, 2004
- Demand letter to vacate dated: July 1, 2013; received July 19, 2013
- Authorization Letter of Rosario dated: March 12, 2014
- TCT issued: March 4, 1965
- Marriage of respondent and Rosario: July 13, 1962
- Joint Affidavit of spouses Estrella: September 5, 1981
- CA Decision: July 17, 2017; CA Resolution: December 18, 2017 (CA-G.R. SP No. 141886)
The Court's Reasoning
The Court found that the CA erred in holding that Rosario is not a co-owner of the subject property. Nevertheless, the petitioners still cannot rely on the authorization given to them by Rosario. Since respondent and Rosario were married on July 13, 1962, prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, their property relations are governed by the Civil Code.
Because the TCT over the subject property was issued on March 4, 1965, during the marriage, there is a presumption that the property belongs to the conjugal partnership of gains. The Court noted this presumption may only be rebutted by strong, clear, categorical, and convincing evidence, which respondent failed to present. The Court also doubted that respondent acquired the property by inheritance because his parents appeared to have still been alive when the property was registered, as they executed a Joint Affidavit on September 5, 1981. Thus, the presumption of conjugality stands, and the property is the conjugal property of respondent and Rosario. This finding of ownership is merely provisional, in accordance with Rule 70, Section 16 of the Rules of Court.
On whether Rosario can validly bind the property through her authorization, the Court answered no. Under Article 165 of the Civil Code, the husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership. A wife may bind the conjugal partnership only in limited circumstances, none of which were present. Respondent's decision to evict takes precedence over his wife's authorization.
The Court further held that respondent controverted the fact of his death as shown in the certificate of death, so he remains legally capacitated to bring the ejectment suit. The Court also noted the petitioners themselves do not assert any ownership rights over the property, having admitted before the MeTC that respondent is the registered owner.
Source: Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. 236333.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.