G.R. No. 154895 - JOSIE GO TAMIO, VS. ENCARNACION TICSON.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and DISMISSED. The Decision, dated March 24, 1999, is hereby AFFIRMED. [4] The assailed Resolution denied reconsideration of the foregoing disposition. The March 24, 1999 Decision [5] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) [6] of Manila, upheld by the CA, disposed as follows: WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby affirmed with modification, to wit: 1) Ordering [petitioner] to pay [respondent] the amount of P86,000 as payment for rental arrearages covering the period September, 1996 to June, 1997 and from July, 1997 to December, 1997 at a monthly rate of P5,000 and P6,000 respectively. 2) [Petitioners] counterclaim is hereby dismissed for lack of merit. [7] On the other hand, the Decision [8] of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) [9] of Manila (Branch 5), which was affirmed with modification by the RTC, dismissed respondents complaint for unlawful detainer against the petitioner. The Facts The CA summarized the facts in this manner: The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila (RCAM) is the owner of an apartment unit originally leased to Mr. Fernando Lopez Lim. After the demise of Mr. Fernando Lim, [his] children became the occupants thereof. One of [them, Valentine Lim] requested respondent Encarnacion Ticson, for financial assistance [in order] to purchase the apartment unit from RCAM. In exchange, Valentine Lim executed a waiver in favor of respondent. On June 15, 1996, respondent executed a contract of lease [in favor of petitioner], on the basis of the waiver from Valentine Lim respecting the apartment unit, for a period of three (3) months. After signing the contract and paying the rentals, [petitioner] discovered that the apartment was actually owned by RCAM. Meanwhile, after the expiration of the three (3) month lease, respondent demanded petitioner to vacate the premises for the use of the formers family members. Petitioner failed to comply, giving rise to the instant case for unlawful detainer. After trial, the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) found respondent guilty of concealment [amounting to] fraud when she misrepresented that she was the owner or authorized lessor of the apartment. Consequently, the contract did not produce any legal effect, much less, rights or obligations. Thus, the MTC ordered the dismissal of the complaint for unlawful detainer. Unsatisfied therewith, respondent appealed the dismissal with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). After review thereof, the RTC found that the concealment did not amount to fraud, but [was merely due] to respondents honest belief that she became or will eventually become the owner of the property by reason of the said waiver. Moreover, the RTC found that if [petitioner] has indeed questioned the [respondents] title, she should have communicated with RCAM immediately since she came to know of RCAMs ownership over the subject property early on . On the basis thereof, the RTC ordered petitioner to pay respondent P86,000.0