529 Phil. 523
GARCIA, J.:
At the heart of this controversy is a parcel of land located in Davao City and registered in the name of petitioner Mercedes Moralidad under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-123125 of the Registry of Deeds of Davao City.
- Decision dated September 27, 2001,[1] affirming an earlier decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City which reversed that of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Davao City, Branch 1, in an action for unlawful detainer thereat commenced by the petitioner against the herein respondents; and
- Resolution dated February 28, 2002,[2] denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
I, MERCEDES VIÑA MORALIDAD, of legal age, single, having been born on the 29th day of January, 1923, now actually residing at 8021 Lindbergh Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., wishes to convey my honest intention regarding my properties situated at Palm Village Subdivision, Bajada, Davao City, 9501, ... and hereby declare:Following her retirement in 1993, petitioner came back to the Philippines to stay with the respondents' on the house they build on the subject property. In the course of time, their relations turned sour because members of the Pernes family were impervious to her suggestions and attempts to change certain practices concerning matters of health and sanitation within their compound. For instance, Arlene's eldest son, Myco Pernes, then a fourth year veterinary medicine student, would answer petitioner back with clenched fist and at one time hurled profanities when she corrected him. Later, Arlene herself followed suit. Petitioner brought the matter to the local barangay lupon where she lodged a complaint for slander, harassment, threat and defamation against the Pernes Family. Deciding for petitioner, the lupon apparently ordered the Pernes family to vacate petitioner's property but not after they are reimbursed for the value of the house they built thereon. Unfortunately, the parties could not agree on the amount, thus prolonging the impasse between them.
- That it is my desire that Mr. and Mrs. Diosdado M. Pernes may build their house therein and stay as long as they like;
- That anybody of my kins who wishes to stay on the aforementioned real property should maintain an atmosphere of cooperation, live in harmony and must avoid bickering with one another;
- That anyone of my kins may enjoy the privilege to stay therein and may avail the use thereof. Provided, however, that the same is not inimical to the purpose thereof;
- That anyone of my kins who cannot conform with the wishes of the undersigned may exercise the freedom to look for his own;
- That any proceeds or income derived from the aforementioned properties shall be allotted to my nearest kins who have less in life in greater percentage and lesser percentage to those who are better of in standing.
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of herein plaintiff and against the defendants, as follows:Dissatisfied, the respondent spouses appealed to the RTC of Davao City.Defendants counterclaim are hereby dismissed except with respect to the claim for reimbursement of necessary and useful expenses which should be litigated in an ordinary civil actions. (sic)
- Directing the defendants, their agents and other persons acting on their behalf to vacate the premises and to yield peaceful possession thereof to plaintiff;
- Ordering defendants to pay P2,000.00 a month from the filing of this complaint until they vacate premises;
- Sentencing defendants to pay the sum of P120,000.[5] as attorney's fees and to pay the cost of suit.
Since the defendants-appellees [respondents] are admittedly possessors of the property by permission from plaintiff [petitioner], and builders in good faith, they have the right to retain possession of the property subject of this case until they have been reimbursed the cost of the improvements they have introduced on the property.and accordingly dismissed petitioner's appeal, as follows:
Indeed, this is a substantive right given to the defendants by law, and this right is superior to the procedural right to [sic] plaintiff to immediately ask for their removal by a writ of execution by virtue of a decision which as we have shown is erroneous, and therefore invalid. (Words in brackets supplied),
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision appealed from is REVERSED and declared invalid. Consequently, the motion for execution pending appeal is likewise denied.Therefrom, petitioner went to the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 61610.
Counter-claims of moral and exemplary damages claimed by defendants are likewise dismissed. However, attorney's fees in the amount of fifteen thousand pesos is hereby awarded in favor of defendants-appellants, and against plaintiffs.
SO ORDERED.[8]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for review is hereby denied for lack of merit. Accordingly, the petitioner's complaint for Unlawful Detainer is DISMISSED.With the CA's denial of her motion for reconsideration in its Resolution of February 28, 2002, petitioner is now before this Court raising the following issues:
SO ORDERED.
ART. 562. Usufruct gives a right to enjoy the property of another with the obligation of preserving its form and substance, unless the title constituting it or the law otherwise provides.Usufruct, in essence, is nothing else but simply allowing one to enjoy another's property.[9] It is also defined as the right to enjoy the property of another temporarily, including both the jus utendi and the jus fruendi,[10] with the owner retaining the jus disponendi or the power to alienate the same.[11]
xxx Section 1, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides xxxWe disagree with the CA's conclusion of law on the matter. The term or period of the usufruct originally specified provides only one of the bases for the right of a usufructuary to hold and retain possession of the thing given in usufruct. There are other modes or instances whereby the usufruct shall be considered terminated or extinguished. For sure, the Civil Code enumerates such other modes of extinguishment:xxx xxx xxx
From the foregoing provision, it becomes apparent that for an action for unlawful detainer to prosper, the plaintiff [petitioner] needs to prove that defendants' [respondents'] right to possess already expired and terminated. Now, has respondents' right to possess the subject portion of petitioner's property expired or terminated? Let us therefore examine respondents' basis for occupying the same.
It is undisputed that petitioner expressly authorized respondents o occupy portion of her property on which their house may be built. Thus – "it is my desire that Mr. and Mrs. Diosdado M. Pernes may build their house therein and stay as long as they like." From this statement, it seems that petitioner had given the respondents the usufructuary rights over the portion that may be occupied by the house that the latter would build, the duration of which being dependent on how long respondents would like to occupy the property. While petitioner had already demanded from the respondents the surrender of the premises, this Court is of the opinion that the usufructuary rights of respondents had not been terminated by the said demand considering the clear statement of petitioner that she is allowing respondents to occupy portion of her land as long as the latter want to. Considering that respondents still want to occupy the premises, petitioner clearly cannot eject respondents.[12]
ART. 603. Usufruct is extinguished:The document executed by the petitioner dated July 21, 1986 constitutes the title creating, and sets forth the conditions of, the usufruct. Paragraph #3 thereof states "[T]hat anyone of my kins may enjoy the privilege to stay therein and may avail the use thereof. Provided, however, that the same is not inimical to the purpose thereof" (Emphasis supplied). What may be inimical to the purpose constituting the usufruct may be gleaned from the preceding paragraph wherein petitioner made it abundantly clear "that anybody of my kins who wishes to stay on the aforementioned property should maintain an atmosphere of cooperation, live in harmony and must avoid bickering with one another." That the maintenance of a peaceful and harmonious relations between and among kin constitutes an indispensable condition for the continuance of the usufruct is clearly deduced from the succeeding Paragraph #4 where petitioner stated "[T]hat anyone of my kins who cannot conform with the wishes of the undersigned may exercise the freedom to look for his own." In fine, the occurrence of any of the following: the loss of the atmosphere of cooperation, the bickering or the cessation of harmonious relationship between/among kin constitutes a resolutory condition which, by express wish of the petitioner, extinguishes the usufruct.
(1) By the death of the usufructuary, unless a contrary intention clearly appears;
(2) By expiration of the period for which it was constituted, or by the fulfillment of any resolutory condition provided in the title creating the usufruct;
(3) By merger of the usufruct and ownership in the same person;
(4) By renunciation of the usufructuary;
(5) By the total loss of the thing in usufruct;
(6) By the termination of the right of the person constituting the usufruct;
(7) By prescription. (Emphasis supplied.)