G.R. Nos. 154391-92 - SPOUSES ISMAEL AND TERESITA MACASAET, VS. SPOUSES VICENTE AND ROSARIO MACASAET. DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS : 1. Vicente and Rosario should reimburse Ismael and Teresita one-half of the value of the useful improvements introduced in the premises prior to demand, which is equivalent to P 475,000.00. In case the former refuse to reimburse the said amount, the latter may remove the improvements, even though the land may suffer damage thereby. They shall not, however, cause any more impairment upon the property leased than is necessary. 2. The award of attorneys fees is DELETED . 3. The records of these consolidated cases are REMANDED to the Court of origin for further proceedings to determine the option to be taken by Vicente and Rosario and to implement the same with dispatch. [4] The assailed Resolution denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. The Facts Petitioners Ismael and Teresita [5] Macasaet and Respondents Vicente and Rosario Macasaet are first-degree relatives. Ismael is the son of respondents, and Teresita is his wife. [6] On December 10, 1997, the parents filed with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Lipa City an ejectment suit against the children. [7] Respondents alleged that they were the owners of two (2) parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. T-78521 and T-103141, situated at Banay-banay, Lipa City; that by way of a verbal lease agreement, Ismael and Teresita occupied these lots in March 1992 and used them as their residence and the situs of their construction business; and that despite repeated demands, petitioners failed to pay the agreed rental of P 500 per week. [8] Ismael and Teresita denied the existence of any verbal lease agreement. They claimed that respondents had invited them to construct their residence and business on the subject lots in order that they could all live near one other, employ Marivic (the sister of Ismael), and help in resolving the problems of the family. [9] They added that it was the policy of respondents to allot the land they owned as an advance grant of inheritance in favor of their children. Thus, they contended that the lot covered by TCT No. T-103141 had been allotted to Ismael as advance inheritance. On the other hand, the lot covered by TCT No. T-78521 was allegedly given to petitioners as payment for construction materials used in the renovation of respondents house. [10] The MTCC [11] ruled in favor of respondents and ordered petitioners to vacate the premises. It opined that Ismael and Teresita had occupied the lots, not by virtue of a verbal lease agreement, but by tolerance of Vicente and Rosario. [12] As their stay was by mere tolerance, petitioners were necessarily bound by an implied promise to vacate the lots upon demand. [13] The MTCC dismissed their contention that one lot had been allotted as an advance inheritance, on the ground that successional rights were inchoate. Moreover, it disbelieved petitioners allegation that the other parcel had been given as pay