Você está na página 1de 1


G.R. No. 175085
Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision of the CA dismissing for lack of merit the
complaints for unlawful detainer filed by petitioners.
FACTS: The case stems from seven separate complaints for unlawful detainer filed by petitioners Tan
Siu Kuan and Pute Ching against defendants Avelino Bombita (Bombita), Felix Gagarin (Gagarin),
Bernardo Napolitano (Napolitano), Felicisimo "Boy" Ho (Ho), Rodolfo Returta (Returta), Vicente Salas
(Salas), and Lolita Malonzo (Malonzo) wherein petitioners claim that they are the owners of a parcel of
land located at Apollo Street, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, and that they have been leasing
portions of said property to the defendants since 1972.
On February 7, 2003 they notified defendants in writing of their failure to pay rentals which defendants
allegedly ignored warranting the filing of the complaints for unlawful detainer. Defendants claim that
have been in possession of the subject premises for 35 to 37 years without any rentals being paid to
any landlord or his agents, and that there are no existing lease contracts between respondents and
petitioners. Moreover, they contend that petitioners cause of action cannot be one for ejectment or
unlawful detainer, but accion publiciana.
After trial, the MeTC of Quezon City ruled in favor of petitioners holding that there is implied admission
to the existence of lease contracts. Thus, defendants cannot deny the consequent lessor-lessee
relationship. Upon appeal, the RTC affirmed the MeTC and the subject premises were turned over to
petitioners through the issued a Writ of Execution. Defendants then timely filed their appeal before the
CA, questioning the jurisdiction of the MeTC over the consolidated cases and the finding of a lessorlessee relationship between petitioners and respondents in violation of the principle of res inter alias
After evaluating the merits of the case, the CA reversed the RTC, although upholding the jurisdiction of
the MeTC. The CA agreed with respondents that petitioners have materially failed to prove their right to
eject respondents on the strength of being lessors. CA also sustained respondents' invocation of the
principle of res inter alias acta.
ISSUES: Whether or not the consolidated decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City had
become final and executory for failure of respondents to file their joint motion for reconsideration within
the reglementary period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of the decision.
Whether or not the tenancy relationship between petitioners and respondents was properly established.
RULING: As to the first issue, a close review of the records shows that the Joint Motion for
Reconsideration was timely filed. Respondents merely committed an error in the date of receipt
stipulated in their pleading.
As to the second issue, the Court sustains that a lessor-lessee relationship between the parties was not
properly established. As observed by the CA, except for petitioners' bare claims, they have not shown
any evidence of a lease between them and respondents, be it express or implied. There was no
mention of how and when the alleged contract of lease started, there was no proof of prior payment of
rentals or any prior demand for such payment considering petitioners' allegation that respondents failed
to pay rentals since 1997 and that the case was instituted only in 2003.
Moreover, there is merit in respondents' invocation of the principle of res inter alias acta or that principle
which states that "the right of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of
another, except as hereinafter provided, among which are: (1) admission by third party, (2) admission
by co-partner or agent, (3) admission by conspirator, and (4) admission by privies." Petitioners failed to
establish that the defendants' alleged implied admission of a lessor-lessee relationship falls under the
exceptions to the principle of res inter alias acta as to make such admission binding upon respondents.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the assailed rulings, the Court resolves to DENY the
present petition. Accordingly, the Decision dated June 29, 2006 and the Resolution dated October 17,
2006 of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED and the complaints for unlawful detainer filed by
petitioners Tan Siu Kuan and Pute Ching against respondents Felicisimo "Boy" Ho, Rodolfo Returta,
Vicente Salas, and Lolita Malonzo are DISMISSED.