Estopped

This is another case where the court once more reiterated the rule that the lessee cannot dispute the title or ownership of the lessor over the property leased.

The property subject of the case is one of the three apartments built on a subdivision lot containing an area of 300 square meters and covered by TCT No. 464511 registered in the name of Fely married to Simon.

Starting 1995, Jimmy leased the property for P2,300 a month plus P200 for water supply. He dealt with Simon and paid rentals to him until Simon died on October 15, 1996 survived by his two children, Jun and Tess. Thereafter Jun took over the administration of the apartment and collected rentals thereon. During his administration Jimmy incurred rentals in arrears covering the whole year of 1998 amounting to P35,000.

When Jun himself died on December 17, 1998, Tess was appointed as administratrix of the estate of her father Simon. After her appointment, Jimmy also paid two months rent to Tess for the months of January and February 1999 and promised her that he would pay the whole 1998 arrears. But Jimmy made no further payments thereafter.

When Jimmy still failed to pay after signing a promissory note to do so before the Lupon Tagapamayapa, Tess demanded that Jimmy vacate the premises. Since Jimmy refused, Tess filed the case of ejectment.

In his answer, Jimmy said that Tess had no personality to file the case as she was not the legal representative of the estate of Simon since she was merely adopted and her adoption was not legal. He also said that the estate of Simon had no cause of action to eject him from the property as it was owned by the estate of Fely which had an administrator to whom he had been paying rentals. Was Jimmy correct? Can he not be ejected?

Jimmy is not correct and he can be ejected. After Simon and his son Jun died, Tess was appointed as the administratrix of his estate. As administratrix of the estate, Tess had the unquestionable personality to file an ejectment suit against Jimmy. The subject property is part of Simon’s estate.

Jimmy dealt with Simon while he was still alive, and thereafter with his known children, Jun and Tess. He paid the rentals of the property to them. Jimmy’s Promissory Note and his payment of two months rent to Tess are eloquent proofs of his recognition of Tess as Simon’s lawful successor. Lessees who have had undisturbed possession for the entire term under the lease, like Jimmy, are estopped to deny their landlord’s title or to assert a better title not only in themselves but also in some third person, while they remain in possession of the leased premises and until they surrender possession to the landlord. It is of no significance that Jimmy is not claiming title to the property for himself. Estoppel still applies to him as he enjoyed the use of the property without interruption from 1995.

It is futile for Jimmy to raise the issue of the legality of Tess’ adoption by Simon. These proceedings are not the proper venue to ventilate the legality of her adoption. As a rule, ejectment proceedings are limited to the solitary issue of legality of possession. This issue affects the peace of the community and should be resolved with dispatch. It should not be delayed by peripheral issues appropriate to be resolved by other courts.

The only issue in ejectment proceedings is the legality of Jimmy’s physical possession of the premises – his possession de facto and not his possession de jure. Consequently it is untenable for Jimmy to demand that Tess should first prove herself to be the true and lawful owner of the property before she asserts her right to its possession. An action for unlawful detainer may be filed even by one who is not an owner of the property in dispute (Julag-ay vs. Estate of Buenaventura, Sr. etc. G.R. 149788, May 31, 2006).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]