UY vs ESTATE OF VIPA FERNANDEZ

RAFAEL C. UY vs ESTATE OF VIPA FERNANDEZ

G.R No. 200612

April 5, 2017

FACTS:

Vipa Fernandez Lahaylahay is the registered owner of a parcel of land situated in Jaro, Iloilo City. Vipa and her husband Levi Lahaylahay have two children, Grace Joy and Jill Frances.

In 1990, a contract of lease was executed between Vipa and Rafael Uy over the subject property and the improvements thereon to which Rafael bound himself to pay the amount of P 3,000/mo with provision for a 10% every year thereafter.

On 1995, Vipa died leaving no will or testament whatsoever, Grace Joy became the de facto administrator of the estate of Vipa. In 1998, Rafael stopped paying the monthly rents. Consequently, the estate of Vipa filed a complaint for unlawful detainer with MTCC against Rafael. Accordingly, at the time of the filing of the complaint, unpaid rents amounted to P271,150.00.

MTCC rendered a decision ordering Rafael to vacate the premises and to pay the amount of unpaid rents with 12% interest per annum.

On appeal, RTC reversed the decision of MTCC and dismiss the complaint for unlawful detainer. According the RTC, Grace was the plaintiff not the estate and it had failed to the bring the dispute to the barangay conciliation; that the property is part of conjugal property and after Vipa’s death the conjugal partnership was terminated. Levi sold his property to Rafael, thus making him co-owner of the property.

Estate filed a petition for review to CA and reinstated the decision of MTCC.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA erred in reversing the RTC’s decision?

Ruling:

The petition is partly granted.

Complainants by and against corporations, partnerships, or other juridical entities may not filed with, received or acted upon by the barangay for conciliation. The Estate of Vipa, which is the complainant below, is a juridical entity that has a personality, separate and distinct from that of Grace Joy. Thus, there is no necessity to bring the dispute to the barangay conciliation prior to filing of the complaint for unlawful detainer with MTCC.

On the issue of ownership of Rafael, Levi had the right to freely dispose of his undivided interest. Thus the sale by Levi of his one-half undivided share in the subject property was not necessarily void, for his right as a co-owner thereof was effectively transferred, making the buyer Rafael, a co-owner of the subject property. Accordingly, Rafael could no-longer be directed to vacate the subject property since he is already a co-owner thereof. Nevertheless, Rafael is still bound to pay unpaid rentals from 1998 to 2003.