G.R. No. 243368 - PARAÑAQUE INDUSTRY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY PATRICIA SY AND ROSALINDA ESCOBILLA, VS. JAMES PAUL G. RECIO, DARYL TANCINCO, AND MARIZENE R. TANCINCO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, ordered respondents to: ( a ) vacate the subject property and surrender its possession to petitioner; ( b ) pay reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property in the amount of PHP 10,000.00 a month from July 30, 2012 until they have vacated the premises; ( c ) pay PHP 10,000.00 as attorney's fees; and ( d ) pay the cost of suit. [14] In so ruling, the MeTC found that the facts alleged in the Complaint properly established petitioner's cause of action for unlawful detainer since the fact of tolerance was proven by respondents' admission in their Answer, i.e., that Mr. Ang offered the subject property with the water tank to Mario and his family. Thus, when respondents failed to heed petitioner's demand to vacate, respondents became deforciant occupants and a summary action for ejectment was proper. Further, as the registered owner, petitioner has the right to eject any person illegally occupying the subject property. [15] Meanwhile, on December 20, 2013, respondents filed a Manifestation [16] before the MeTC, stating that even prior to the institution of this suit, they had already vacated the subject property and surrendered the same to petitioner. Hence, reasonable compensation should be computed up to the time respondents vacated and surrendered the property. [17] Thereafter, aggrieved with the MeTC's ruling, respondents appealed [18] to the RTC. The RTC Ruling In a Decision [19] dated June 13, 2014, the RTC affirmed the MeTC ruling. [20] The RTC held that respondents failed to show the applicability of the rule on possession by builder in good faith, considering that they did not adduce any positive evidence that would establish a claim of actual or constructive permission to occupy the subject property. The RTC also found that the MeTC did not commit any reversible error in concluding that the subject property is registered under petitioner's name and that respondents' possession was by mere tolerance. Hence, petitioner, as the registered owner, had the right to recover the possession of the property. [21] Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, but was denied. [22] Undaunted, they filed a Petition for Review Under Rule 42 [23] before the CA. The CA Ruling In a Decision [24] dated May 11, 2018, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC Decision and accordingly, dismissed the complaint for unlawful detainer. [25] In so ruling, the CA found that petitioner is not the owner of the subject property covered by TCT No. (70115) 123145, pointing out that the original owner thereof is PIOA, whose SEC registration was revoked by the SEC due to noncompliance of reportorial requirements. [26] According to the CA, since said revocation resulted in PIOA 's dissolution that ceased as a body corporate to conduct the business for which it was established, its assets must then undergo liquidation and legal titles of the remaining corporate properties should be transferred to the stockholders who became co-owners thereof. [27