THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 175085. June 1, 2016.]

TAN SIOK 1 KUAN and PUTE CHING, petitioners, vs.

FELICISIMO "BOY" HO, RODOLFO C. RETURTA, 2 VICENTE M.
SALAS, and LOLITA MALONZO, respondents.

DECISION

PEREZ, J : p

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 3 assailing the

Decision 4 dated June 29, 2006 and the Resolution 5 dated October 17, 2006
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 92107, which rulings reversed
the Consolidated Decision 6 dated May 6, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) in Civil Case Nos. Q-04-53505 to Q-04-53511 and the Joint Decision 7
dated July 8, 2004 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) in Civil Case Nos.
30272 to 30278 and, in effect, dismissed for lack of merit the complaints for
unlawful detainer filed by herein petitioners.
Antecedent Facts
The case at bar stems from seven (7) separate complaints for unlawful
detainer filed by petitioners Tan Siu Kuan and Pute Ching against defendants
Avelino Bombita (Bombita), Felix Gagarin (Gagarin), Bernardo Napolitano
(Napolitano), Felicisimo "Boy" Ho (Ho), Rodolfo Returta (Returta), Vicente
Salas (Salas), and Lolita Malonzo (Malonzo).
In their Complaints, 8 petitioners averred that they are the owners of a
parcel of land, along with the improvements therein, located at Apollo Street,
San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, and covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) Nos. 279014 and 279015; that they have been leasing portions of
said property to the defendants since 1972; and that on February 7, 2003
they notified defendants in writing of their failure to pay rentals, as follows:
- defendant AVELINO BOMBITA that his rentals from March 1997 to
the present have not been paid in the total sum of Php17,500.00
as of December, 2002;
- defendant FELIX GAGARIN that his rentals from September 1997
to the present have not been paid in the total sum of
Php16,000.00 as of December, 2002;
- defendant FELICISIMO "BOY" HO that his rentals from December
1996 to the present have not been paid in the total sum of
Php28,700.00 as of December, 2002;
- defendant LOLITA MALONZO that her rentals from January, 1997
to the present have not been paid in the total sum of
Php21,600.00 as of December, 2002;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 - defendant BERNARDO NAPOLITANO that his rentals from
September, 1997 to the present have not been paid in the total
sum of Php16,000.00 as of December, 2002;
- defendant RODOLFO RETURTA that his rentals from July, 1996 to
the present have [not] been [paid in] the total sum of
Php23,700.00 as of December, 2002; and
- defendant VICENTE SALAS [that] his rentals from August, 1997 to
the [present have] not been paid in the total sum of
Php22,750.00 as of December, 2002. 9
Defendants were given ten (10) days to pay the rentals due or else to
vacate the premises and turn over the possession thereof to petitioners, but
defendants allegedly ignored petitioners' demand, warranting the filing of
the complaints for unlawful detainer. 10
For their part, Bombita, Gagarin, and Napolitano (defendants) argued
that the lease agreements they have executed with petitioners are void ab
initio, petitioners being Chinese nationals who are not entitled to own real
property in the Philippines. Moreover, they claimed to have been in
possession of the subject premises since 1968 or some 35 years ago, thus
plaintiff's action cannot be one for ejectment or unlawful detainer, but accion
publiciana which must be filed before the RTC. 11
On the other hand, Ho, Returta, Salas, and Malonzo, herein
respondents, maintained that they have been in possession of the subject
premises for 37 years without any rentals being paid to any landlord or his
agents, and that there are no existing lease contracts between respondents
and petitioners. In fact, in separate letters to petitioners, in response to the
latter's demand letters, respondents categorically denied renting the subject
premises. 12 Respondents also asserted that they have started possessing
said property in 1966 by building residential houses, and that they have
been in continuous possession since then. Additionally, respondents claimed
that petitioners presented only photocopies of the subject TCTs and that
when they presented such to the Register of Deeds of Quezon City for
verification as to how such were transferred from the mother titles TCT Nos.
12505 and 12506, said office informed them that there is no single
transaction recorded in the aforesaid mother titles. 13 Lastly, respondents
argued that even assuming that petitioners' titles are authentic, their cause
of action should have been accion publiciana considering that respondents
are in possession and that no lease contract exists between the parties. CAIHTE

After trial, the MeTC-Branch 40, Quezon City ruled in favor of

petitioners. As regards defendants, the MeTC held that they impliedly
admitted the existence of lease contracts between them and petitioners and,
as such, they cannot deny the consequent lessor-lessee relationship
following the rule that a tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his
landlord. As regards respondents, on the other hand, the MeTC ruled that
since petitioners were able to show that the property in question was
registered under their name, and since respondents merely denied the
existence of a lessor-lessee relationship between them and petitioners,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 petitioners' averments must prevail following the tenet that in weighing
contradictory declarations and statements, greater weight must generally be
given to positive testimony.
Thus, the MeTC disposed of the case in this manner: 14
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered in favor of the herein plaintiffs TAN SIU KUAN & PUTE CHING
as against all the above named defendants over that certain property
located at Apollo Street, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City
covered by TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NOS. 270014 and
279015, both of the Registry of Deeds for Quezon City, as follows:
IN CIVIL CASE NO. 30272:
a. ordering the defendant AVELINO BOMBITA and any and all
persons claiming rights under him [to] vacate the premises
in question, and to peacefully surrender and turn over the
possession of the same unto plaintiffs;
b. ordering said defendant to pay unto plaintiff the sum of
Php250.00 per month starting from February 7, 2003 until
they have completely vacated the premises;
c. ordering said [defendant to] pay unto plaintiff the sum of
Php10,000.00 pesos as and by way of attorney's fees, plus
costs of suit.
IN CIVIL CASE NO. 30273:
[a] ordering the defendant FELIX GAGARIN and any and all
persons claiming rights under him to vacate the premises
in question, and to peacefully surrender and turn over the
possession of the same unto plaintiffs;
b. ordering said defendant to pay unto plaintiff the sum of
Php250.00 per month starting from February 7, 2003 until
they have completely vacated the premises;
c. ordering said defendant to pay unto plaintiff the sum of
Php10,000.00 pesos as and by way of attorney's fees, plus
costs of suit.
IN CIVIL CASE NO. 30274:
a. ordering the defendant FELICISIMO "[BOY]" HO and any
and all persons [claiming] rights under him to vacate the
premises in question, and to peacefully surrender and turn
over the possession of the same unto plaintiffs;
b. ordering said defendant to pay unto plaintiff the sum of
Php350.00 per month starting from February 7, 2003 until
they have completely vacated the premises;
c. ordering said defendant to pay unto plaintiff the sum of
Php10,000.00 pesos as and by way of attorney's fees, plus
costs of suit.
IN CIVIL CASE NO. 30275:
a. ordering the defendant LOLITA MALONZO and any and all
persons claiming rights under her to vacate the premises in
question, and to peacefully surrender and turn over the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 possession of the same unto plaintiffs;
b. ordering said defendant to pay unto plaintiffs the sum of
Php300.00 per month starting from February 7, 2003 until
they have completely vacated the premises;
c. ordering said defendant to pay unto plaintiffs the sum of
Php10,000.00 pesos as and by way of attorney's fees, plus
costs of suit.
IN CIVIL CASE NO. 30276:
a. ordering the defendant BERNARDO NAPOLITANO and any
[and all] persons claiming rights under him to vacate the
premises in question, and to peacefully surrender and turn
over the possession of the same unto plaintiffs;
b. ordering said defendant to pay unto plaintiffs the sum of
Php250.00 per month starting from February 7, 2003 until
they have completely vacated the premises;
c. ordering said defendant to pay unto plaintiffs the sum of
Php10,000.00 pesos as and by way of attorney's fee[s],
plus costs of suit.
IN CIVIL CASE NO. 30277:
a. ordering the defendant RODOLFO RETURTA and any and all
persons claiming rights under him to vacate the premises
in question, and to peacefully surrender and turn over the
possession of the same unto plaintiffs;
b. ordering said defendant to pay unto plaintiffs the sum of
Php300.00 per month starting from February 7, 2003 until
they have completely vacated the premises;
c. ordering said defendant to pay unto plaintiffs the sum of
Php10,000.00 pesos as and by way of attorney's fees, plus
costs of suit.
-and-
IN CIVIL CASE NO. 30278:
[a] ordering the defendant VICENTE SALAS and any and all
persons claiming rights under him to vacate the premises
in question, and to peacefully surrender and turn over the
possession of the same unto plaintiffs;
b. ordering said defendant to pay unto plaintiffs the sum of
Php350.00 per month starting from February 7, 2003 until
they have completely vacated the premises; and
c. ordering said defendant to pay unto plaintiffs the sum of
Php10,000.00 pesos as and by way of attorney's fees, plus
costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
Upon appeal, the RTC-Branch 87, Quezon City affirmed the MeTC.
According to the RTC, the "defendant's common defense is that the
complaint states no cause of action against them on the grounds that
plaintiffs are [C]hinese nationals, hence, not entitled to own real properties
in the Philippines; occupancy since 1968, hence, the action should have
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 been accion publiciana; and absence of lessor/lessee relationship." 15 Said
court then went on to address these issues, as follows: "Relative to the first
three assigned errors, the Court finds that the matters have been thoroughly
and judiciously passed upon by the court a quo in arriving at the subject
decision, hence, this Court finds no compelling reason to disturb the same."
16

Thus, the RTC ruled: 17

In sum, the Court finds no reversible error in the decision of the
court a quo and hereby affirms the same en toto.
Costs against the defendant.
SO ORDERED.
On motion, the RTC issued a Writ of Execution dated January 16, 2006.
18 On February 24, 2006, the subject premises were turned over to
petitioners. 19
In the meantime, on November 18, 2005, respondents timely filed their
appeal before the CA, questioning the jurisdiction of the MeTC over the
consolidated cases, the finding of a lessor-lessee relationship between
petitioners and respondents in violation of the principle of res inter alios
acta, and the non-dismissal of the case despite the failure of petitioners and
their counsel to attend the pre-trial conference. 20
Petitioners, on the other hand, averred that the assailed decision has
already become final and executory for failure to file the Joint Motion for
Reconsideration of the RTC Decision within the prescribed period and, in
fact, a writ of execution has already been issued. Alternatively, they argued
that since respondents refused to pay their rentals from 1997 to present,
and since non-payment of rent is a valid ground for ejectment, then the
lower courts were correct in ruling in their favor. 21
After evaluating the merits of the case, the CA reversed the RTC.
Although the CA upheld the jurisdiction of the MeTC, saying that the
allegations in the complaints make a case for unlawful detainer and that the
complaints were filed within one year from respondents' receipt of the
demand letters, it nevertheless agreed with respondents that petitioners
have materially failed to prove their right to eject respondents on the
strength of being lessors. Moreover, the CA sustained respondents'
invocation of the principle of res inter alios acta. DETACa

Thus, the CA held: 22

WHEREFORE, the Consolidated Decision dated May 6, 2005 of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 87, Quezon City is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In its stead, a new one is entered
dismissing the actions for unlawful detainer for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 23 (Citation omitted.)
The Present Petition
Petitioners filed the present petition for review on certiorari, raising the
following issues:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 I. THE CONSOLIDATED DECISION DATED 6 MAY 2005 OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY BRANCH 87 IN CIVIL
CASE NOS. 04-53507, 53508, 04-53510 and 04-53511, WHICH
AFFIRMED IN TOTO THE EARLIER JOINT DECISION DATED 8 JULY
2004 OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, QUEZON CITY IN
CIVIL CASE NOS. 30272 TO 30278 HAD BECOME FINAL AND
EXECUTORY FOR FAILURE OF RESPONDENTS TO FILE THEIR JOINT
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WITHIN THE REGLEMENTARY
PERIOD OF FIFTEEN (15) DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF THE DECISION.
24

II. THE TENANCY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PETITIONERS AND

RESPONDENTS WAS PROPERLY ESTABLISHED. 25
The Ruling of the Court
Petitioners' arguments do not persuade.
Anent the first issue of whether the Joint Motion for Reconsideration of
the RTC Decision was timely filed, a close review of the records yields the
finding that it was.
Indeed, as capitalized on by petitioners, respondents stated in their
Joint Motion for Reconsideration that they received the Decision dated May
6, 2005 on May 15, 2005, and that they filed the Joint Motion for
Reconsideration only on June 29, 2005. 26 However, as explained by
respondents, the statement that they received the RTC Decision on May 15,
2005 was inadvertent and erroneous. 27 The records, particularly the
certified true copies of the registry return slips from the RTC, 28 show that
the RTC Decision was simultaneously mailed by the RTC to the parties only
on June 7, 2005. Thus, as correctly maintained by respondents, they could
not have received the RTC Decision on May 15, 2005 or before the said
decision was mailed to them. Respondents then clarified that they received
the RTC Decision on June 15, 2005. 29 As such, the filing of the Joint Motion
for Reconsideration on June 29, 2005 was timely and the RTC Decision was
not yet final and executory.
As to the second issue of whether a lessor-lessee relationship between
the parties was properly established, the evidence on record generates a
negative conclusion.
Except for petitioners' bare claims, they have not shown any evidence
of a lease between them and respondents, be it express or implied. As
keenly observed by the CA, there was no mention of how and when the
alleged contract of lease started, there was no proof of prior payment of
rentals or any prior demand for such payment considering petitioners'
allegation that respondents failed to pay rentals since 1997 and that the
case was instituted only in 2003.
Moreover, there is merit in respondents' invocation of the principle of
res inter alios acta or that principle which states that "the right of a party
cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of another, except
as hereinafter provided, among which are: (1) admission by third party, (2)
admission by co-partner or agent, (3) admission by conspirator, and (4)
admission by privies." 30
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 In the case of Tamargo v. Awingan, 31 the Court expounded on the
rationale behind the principle of res inter alios acta. Citing People v. vda. De
Ramos, the Court held that:
(O)n a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man's
own acts are binding upon himself, and are evidence against him. So
are his conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly
inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound
by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not
to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts or
conduct be used as evidence against him.
In the present case, petitioners failed to establish that the defendants'
32 alleged implied admission of a lessor-lessee relationship falls under the

exceptions to the principle of res inter alios acta as to make such admission
binding upon respondents. Although defendants and respondents were all
defendants in the complaints for unlawful detainer filed by petitioners, it is
very clear that defendants and respondents espoused different defenses.
Contrary to defendants' position, respondents, as early as the filing of their
response to petitioners' demand letter, firmly and consistently denied the
existence of any lease contract between them and petitioners over the
subject land.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the assailed rulings, the
Court resolves to DENY the present petition. Accordingly, the Decision dated
June 29, 2006 and the Resolution dated October 17, 2006 of the Court of
Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED and the complaints for unlawful detainer
filed by petitioners Tan Siu Kuan and Pute Ching against respondents
Felicisimo "Boy" Ho, Rodolfo Returta, Vicente Salas, and Lolita Malonzo are
DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Peralta and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Jardeleza, J., * is on wellness leave.
Footnotes
* On Wellness Leave.
1. Sometimes spelled as "Siu."

2. Sometimes spelled as "Retorta."

3. Rollo, pp. 2-12.
4. Id. at 86-97; penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon and concurred
in by Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Rosalinda Asuncion-
Vicente.
5. I d . at 105-108; penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon and
concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and
Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente.
6. Id. at 46-53; penned by Judge Fatima Gonzales-Asdala.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 7. Id. at 35-44; penned by Presiding Judge Fernando T. Sagun, Jr.
8. Id. at 13-20.

9. Id. at 35-44; MeTC Joint Decision.

10. Supra note 8.
11. Supra note 9 at 32.
12. CA rollo, pp. 61, 62, and 64; the letters identically state:
Buong galang po naming ipinababatid sa inyo na ang nasabing demand letter
ay maari pong nagkamali ng [pinagpadalhan] sapagkat kami po ay hindi
umuupa sa aming bahay na tinitirahan [sapagkat] kami po o ang mga
magulang namin ang nagtirik ng mga nabanggit na bahay at wala po
kaming nakilalang may-ari na naningil ng paupa sa amin.

Alalaong baga, ang [nabanggit] ninyong mga kliyente ninyong sina Tan Siok
Kuan at Pute Ching ay ni minsan sa loob ng mahigit na tatlumpung taon
naming paninirahan sa mga nabanggit na address ay hindi man lamang
namin nakausap o nakatanggap ng anumang pabatid o pagpapakilala
upang pagbayaran ng anumang uri ng upa o bayad

13. Id. at 4; per verification letter dated April 17, 1997 of Mr. Samuel Cleofe,
Register of Deeds of Quezon City; as alleged in the Petition for Review
before the Court of Appeals.
14. Rollo, pp. 41-43.

15. Id. at 47-48; RTC Consolidated Decision.

16. Id. at 51.
17. Id. at 53.
18. RTC records, Vol. 7 pp. 341-346.
19. Id. at 349-350; Certification dated February 24, 2006 of Deputy Sheriff
Marcelino E. Cabigao.
20. CA rollo, pp. 7-8; Petition for Review on Certiorari.

21. Id. at 71; Comment.

22. Rollo, pp. 96-97.
23. There appears to be a mix-up in the RTC records. In the Order dated January
5, 2012 (RTC records, Vol. 7, pp. 434-435), the RTC stated that there was
already an Entry of Judgment in this case by the CA of the Decision dated
June 29, 2006. A review of the CA records shows, however, that there is as
yet no entry of judgment in the said case and that petitioners timely filed
the present petition on November 6, 2006, having received the notice of
denial of the motion for reconsideration on October 23, 2006.

24. Rollo, p. 5.
25. Id. at 7.
26. Supra note 18 at 230.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 27. CA rollo, p. 123; Opposition.
28. Supra note 18 at 215-A.
29. Rollo, p. 111.

30. RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, Secs. 28-31.

31. 624 Phil. 312, 327 (2010).
32. Dependants below, other than the respondents herein.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com