SC dismisses unlawful detainer case against lawyer

CEBU, Philippines - The Supreme Court has dismissed the case filed by a woman against a lawyer who refused to return a lot in Cebu City she claimed to be her property.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin, the case for unlawful detainer filed by Fe Quijano against lawyer Daryll Amante is an “improper remedy.”

Quijano alleged that she and her three siblings inherited a 15,790-square-meter parcel of land from their late father Bibiano Quijano.

However, she said that prior to the partition among the heirs, her elder brother Eliseo sold a portion of his share in Punta Princesa, Cebu City measuring 600 square meters to Amante.

Fe further said that on July 25, 1991, Eliseo sold additional one third of the property to Amante, with the deed of absolute sale stating that the sale was with the approval of Eliseo’s siblings.

On 1992, Fe said, they executed a deed of extrajudicial partition to divide their father’s estate. The portion sold by Eliseo to Amante was adjudicated to her, she said.

She claimed to be the registered owner of the parcel of land covered by TCT No. 6555, a portion of which was being occupied by Amante, who had constructed a residential building by the “mere tolerance of Eliseo when the property she and her siblings had inherited from their father had not yet been subdivided and was thus still co-owned by them.”

Fe demanded Amante to vacate the lot, but the lawyer refused to do so despite several demands, prompting her to file a complaint for ejectment and damages before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities.

Amante, for his part, claimed to be the owner of the property after buying it from Eliseo.

The MTCC ruled in favor of Fe and ordered Amante to vacate the property.

The lawyer appealed the case before the Regional Trial Court, which ruled to reverse MTCC’s judgment, citing the summary proceeding for ejectment was not proper as the serious question of ownership of the disputed property was involved.

Fe moved for reconsideration, but this was denied by the RTC. She then appealed the case before the Court of Appeals, but it was also dismissed.

She raised the matter before the SC, but was likewise dismissed.

“Considering that the allegation of the petitioner’s tolerance of the respondent’s possession of the disputed property was not established, the possession could very well be deemed illegal from the beginning. In that case, her action for unlawful detainer has to fail,” the decision reads. — (FREEMAN)