G.R. No. 179011 - REY CASTIGADOR CATEDRILLA, VS. MARIO AND MARGIE[1] LAURON.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff ordering the defendants: 1. To vacate the lot in question and restore possession to the plaintiff; 2. To pay plaintiff in the reduced amount of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) as Atty's fees, plus ONE THOUSAND (P1,000.00) per Court appearance; 3. To pay plaintiff reasonable compensation for the use of the lot in question ONE THOUSAND (P1,000.00) pesos yearly counted from the date of demand; 4. To pay the cost of litigation. No award of moral and exemplary damages. Defendants' counterclaim is hereby dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence. [12] The MTC found that from the allegations and evidence presented, it appeared that petitioner is one of the heirs of Lilia Castigador Catedrilla, the owner of the subject lot and that respondents are occupying the subject lot; that petitioner is a party who may bring the suit in accordance with Article 487 [13] of the Civil Code; and as a co-owner, petitioner is allowed to bring this action for ejectment under Section 1, Rule 70 [14] of the Rules of Court; that respondents are also the proper party to be sued as they are the occupants of the subject lot which they do not own; and that the MTC assumed that the house standing on the subject lot has been standing thereon even before 1992 and only upon the acquiescence of the petitioner and his predecessor-in-interest. The MTC found that respondents would like to focus their defense on the ground that Mildred is an indispensable party, because she is the owner of the residential building on the subject lot and that there was already a perfected contract to sell between Mildred and Maximo because of an amicable settlement executed before the Office of the Punong Barangay. However, the MTC, without dealing on the validity of the document and its interpretation, ruled that it was clear that respondent Margie was representing her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Bienvenido Loraña, in the dispute presented with the Punong Barangay. It also found that even Mildred's letter to petitioner's father Maximo recognized the title of petitioner's father over the subject lot and that it had not been established by respondents if Teresito Castigador, the person who signed the receipt evidencing Mildred's downpayment of P10,000.00 for the subject lot, is also one of the heirs of Lilia. The MTC concluded that respondents could not be allowed to deflect the consequences of their continued stay over the property, because it was their very occupation of the property which is the object of petitioner's complaint; that in an action for ejectment, the subject matter is material possession or possession de facto over the real property, and the side issue of ownership over the subject lot is tackled here only for the purpose of determining who has the better right of possession which is to prove the nature of possession; that possession of Lot 183 should be relinquished by respondents to petitioner, who i