G.R. No. 125375 - SPOUSES ELPIDIO APOSTOL AND AMELIA APOSTOL, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND SPOUSES EMMANUEL CHUA AND EDNA L. CHUA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that after a summary hearing, judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, as follows: Ordering the defendants and all persons claiming under them to immediately vacate the above-mentioned parcel of land; Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P5,000.00 per month from the filing of the complaint until they finally vacate and turn over completely the above-mentioned parcel of land representing the reasonable compensation for the use and occupancy of the above-mentioned parcel of land; Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P10,000.00 for and as attorneys fees, plus the sum of P1,000.00 appearance fee for every court attendance of plaintiffs counsel; and Ordering defendants to pay plaintiffs the costs of suit. PLAINTIFFS further pray for such other reliefs and remedies as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises. [3] In their answer with special and affirmative defenses and compulsory counterclaim, the respondents alleged, inter alia, that Luz B. Pascua was the owner of the parcel of land located in Quezon City covered by TCT No. 198936 with an area of 315 square meters. She sold a portion of the property, an area of 285.32 square meters, to the respondents on July 8, 1976 for P45,548 of which P15,548 was paid. On the same day, the parties executed a memorandum agreement covering the property, in which the respondents agreed that the balance of the purchase price would be paid in installments. Thereafter, a deed of absolute sale was executed in favor of the respondents over an unsegregated portion of the property, with an area of 29.68 square meters, for P7,350 and, later, a deed of confirmation of deed of absolute sale with waiver over the said property. On June 20, 1979, the respondents executed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim over the property, stating, inter alia , that they could not cause the registration of the said deeds because the owners duplicate of TCT No. 198936 was in the possession of Teresita B. Jimenez, a former co-owner of the property. The respondents further alleged that Luz Pascua, in her letter to the Register of Deeds dated August 6, 1979, confirmed that she failed to turn over the owners duplicate of TCT No. 198936 because the same was in the possession of Jimenez, who, in turn, gave it to Jose J. Burgos. Thereafter, on May 15, 1980, Luz Pascua filed a Complaint against the petitioners in the RTC of Quezon City for rescission and damages docketed as Civil Case No. 29895 but the same was dismissed on December 19, 1983 for lack of interest to prosecute. Paulo Pascua filed a similar complaint against the petitioners in the RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 88-523, but the same was, likewise, dismissed. Finally, the petitioners alleged that the Spouses Pascuas possession of the property after the sale thereof to the respondents was by mere tolerance. In the meantime, the pe