Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 144635 June 26, 2006
PROGRAMME INCORPORATED, Petitioner,
vs.
PROVINCE OF ATAAN,
1
Responent.
D E C I S I O N
CORONA, J.:
In this petition file uner Rule !" of the Rules of Court, petitioner Pro#ra$$e Incorporate
contests the Court of %ppeals &C%' ecision
(
an resolution
)
upholin# responent Province
of *ataan+s o,nership of Pia--a .otel an the lan on ,hich it stans. /he assaile
ecision in C%01.R. CV No. !21)" affir$e the ecision of the Re#ional /rial Court &R/C',
*ranch !, *alan#a, *ataan in a suit for preli$inar3 in4unction an su$ of $one3 file b3
petitioner a#ainst *ataan Ship3ar an En#ineerin# Co., Inc. &*%SECO'. /he case ,as
oc5ete as Civil Case No. 1(20M6. /he ispositive portion of the trial court ecision rea7
8.ERE9ORE, in vie, of all the fore#oin# consierations, 4u#$ent is hereb3 renere
is$issin# the co$plaint, ,ithout pronounce$ent as to costs.
Si$ilarl3, :*%SECO+s; counterclai$ is is$isse.
On the co$plaint in intervention, 4u#$ent is hereb3 renere orerin# :petitioner; to pa3
:responent; the rentals for the lease pre$ises in <uestion, na$el3, the Pia--a .otel an
the Mariveles 6o#e, situate at the *ataan E=port Processin# >one &*EP>' Co$poun in
Mariveles, *ataan, at the rate of si= thousan five hunre pesos &P?,"@@.@@' per $onth for
both establish$ents, startin# in %u#ust 12A2 ,ith le#al interest at ?B per annu$, up to an
until the le#al arreara#es shall have been full3 pai, an to pa3 the succeein# rentals
therefor at the sa$e rate.
SO ORDERED.
!
/he controvers3 arose fro$ the follo,in# facts.
*%SECO ,as the o,ner of Pia--a .otel an Mariveles 6o#e, both locate in Mariveles,
*ataan.
On Ma3 1!, 12A?, *%SECO #rante petitioner a contract of lease over Pia--a .otel at a
$onthl3 rental of P?,"@@ for three 3ears, i.e., fro$ Canuar3 1, 12A? to Canuar3 1, 12A2,
sub4ect to rene,al b3 $utual a#ree$ent of the parties. %fter the e=piration of the three03ear
lease perio, petitioner ,as allo,e to continue operatin# the hotel on $onthl3 e=tensions
of the lease.
In %pril 12A2, ho,ever, the Presiential Co$$ission on 1oo 1overn$ent &PC11' issue
a se<uestration orer a#ainst *%SECO pursuant to E=ecutive Orer No. 1 of for$er
Presient Cora-on C. %<uino.
"
%$on# the properties provisionall3 sei-e an ta5en over
,as the lot on ,hich Pia--a .otel stoo.
On Cul3 12, 12A2, ho,ever, Pia--a .otel ,as sol at a public auction for non0pa3$ent of
ta=es to responent Province of *ataan. /he title of the propert3 ,as transferre to
responent. *%SECO+s /ransfer Certificate of /itle &/C/' No. /0"2?)1 ,as cancelle an a
ne, one, /C/ No. /01(A!"?, ,as issue to the Province of *ataan.
On Cul3 (1, 12A2, petitioner file a co$plaint for preli$inar3 in4unction an collection of su$
of $one3 a#ainst *%SECO &Civil Case No. 1(20M6'.
?
Responent, as the ne, o,ner of the
propert3, file a $otion for leave to intervene on Nove$ber ((, 122@. %fter its $otion ,as
#rante, responent file a co$plaint0in0intervention pra3in#, inter alia, that petitioner be
orere to vacate Pia--a .otel an Mariveles 6o#e for lac5 of le#al interest.
Durin# the pre0trial of the co$plaint0in0intervention, the parties a#ree that the case
D
be
trie on the sole issue of ,hether responent province, as co$plainant0intervenor, ,as the
le#iti$ate o,ner of the Pia--a .otel an Mariveles 6o#e.
On 9ebruar3 ), 122", after trial on the $erits, the trial court renere 4u#$ent in favor of
responent.1avvphi l.net
On appeal, the C% aresse the issue of o,nership of Pia--a .otel an Mariveles 6o#e
as follo,s7
!"#e $%%&'( )*e )'&$+ ,ou')-. 'u+&n/ )*$) !'e.0on1en)# P'o2&n,e o% $)$$n *$.
e.)$3+&.*e1 34 0'e0on1e'$n,e o% e2&1en,e &). ,+$&( o% o5ne'.*&0 o% P&$66$ 7o)e+ $n1
M$'&2e+e. 8o1/e. In %$,), !0e)&)&one'# *$. no) 0'e.en)e1 e2&1en,e 0'o2&n/ &).
o5ne'.*&0 o% )*e .$&1 3u&+1&n/.!, 5*e'e$. 'e.0on1en) 0'e.en)e1# $ )$9 1e,+$'$)&on
$n1 ,e')&%&,$)e o% )&)+e o2e' )*e .$(e 0'o0e')&e., o2e' 5*&,* &) no5 e9e',&.e. %u++
,on)'o+ $n1 1o(&n&on. /he fact that the sub4ect properties ,ere place uner
se<uestration is of no $o$ent for the PC11 is not an o,ner but a conservator ,ho can
e=ercise onl3 po,ers of a$inistration over propert3 se<uestere, fro-en or provisionall3
ta5en over. %s the o,ner of sai properties, :responent0intervenor; is entitle to the
pa3$ent of the $onthl3 rental in the su$ of P?,"@@.@@ as rule b3 the trial court.
A
&e$phasis
ours'
8e a#ree ,ith the appellate court.
/i$e an a#ain, ,e have rule that factual $atters are best evaluate b3 trial courts ,hich
can scrutini-e evience an hear testi$on3 presente an offere b3 the parties &in this
case, on the issue of o,nership of the sub4ect propert3'. %ll the $ore oes this principle rin#
true in this petition since such factual eter$ination b3 the R/C ,as uphel b3 the
C%.
2
Onl3 <uestions of la, are the proper sub4ect of a petition for revie, on certiorari in this
Court, unless an3 of the 5no,n e=ceptions is e=tant in this case.
1@
/here is none.
/he evience clearl3 establishe responent+s o,nership of Pia--a .otel.
11
9irst, the title of
the lan on ,hich Pia--a .otel stans ,as in the na$e of responent.
1(
Secon, /a=
Declaration No. 1(DA( ,as in the na$e of responent as o,ner of Pia--a .otel.
1)
% note at
the bac5 of the ta= eclaration rea7
T'$n.%e''e1 34 2&')ue o% $ %&n$+ 3&++ o% .$+e e9e,u)e1 34 )*e P'o2&n,&$+ !T'e$.u'e'# o%
$)$$n &n %$2o' o% )*e P'o2&n,&$+ Go2e'n(en) on 9eb. 1), 12A2:, a; 3ear after the
e=piration of the ree$ption perio fro$ ate of auction sale hel on 9eb. 1(, 12AA of all
real propert3 eclare in the na$e of :*%SECO;.
1!
&e$phasis ours'
/hir, petitioner ,as oubtlessl3 4ust a lessee. In the lease contract anne=e to the
co$plaint, petitioner in fact a$itte *%SECO+s &responent+s preecessor0in0interest'
o,nership then of the sub4ect propert3. % stipulation in the contract rea7
8.ERE%S, )*e +e..o' :ASECO; &. )*e o5ne' o% )*e 3u&+1&n/ PIA<<A 7OTE8 an its
outlet M%RIVE6ES 6OD1E locate at *%SECO, Mariveles, *ataan ===
1"
&e$phasis ours'
/he Rules of Court states that E:a;n a$ission, verbal or ,ritten, $ae b3 a part3 in the
course of the proceein#s in the sa$e case, oes not re<uire proof. /he a$ission $a3 be
contraicte onl3 b3 sho,in# that it ,as $ae throu#h palpable $ista5e or that no such
a$ission ,as $ae.E
1?
!Su,* $1(&..&on.# ($4 3e ($1e &n :$; )*e 0+e$1&n/. %&+e1 34 )*e 0$')&e., :3; &n )*e
,ou'.e o% )*e )'&$+ e&)*e' 34 2e'3$+ o' 5'&))en ($n&%e.)$)&on. o' .)&0u+$)&on., o' :,; &n
o)*e' .)$/e. o% )*e =u1&,&$+ 0'o,ee1&n/, $. &n )*e 0'e>)'&$+ o% )*e ,$.e. %$issions
obtaine throu#h epositions, ,ritten interro#atories or re<uests for a$ission are also
consiere 4uicial a$issions.
1D
&e$phasis ours'
E/o be consiere as a 4uicial a$ission, the sa$e $ust be $ae in the sa$e case in
,hich it is offere.E
1A
In its o,n co$plaint
12
for preli$inar3 in4unction an su$ of $one3, petitioner ac5no,le#e
that it ,as not the o,ner of the propert3 ,hen it state that E:*%SECO; lease:; to
:petitioner; the builin# Pia--a .otel an its outlet Mariveles 6o#e === for $onthl3 rentals
of P?,"@@.@@.E
(@
Petitioner coul not possibl3 be the o,ner of a builin# $erel3 lease to it.
(1
9urther$ore, petitioner+s reference to %rticle !!A
((
of the
Civil Coe to 4ustif3 its suppose ri#hts as Epossessor in #oo faithE ,as erroneous.
/he benefits #rante to a possessor in #oo faith cannot be $aintaine b3 the lessee
a#ainst the lessor because, such benefits are intene to appl3 onl3 to a case ,here one
buils or so,s or plants on lan ,hich he believes hi$self to have a clai$ of title an not to
lans ,herein one+s onl3 interest is that of a tenant uner a rental contract, other,ise, it
,oul al,a3s be in the po,er of a tenant to i$prove his lanlor out of his propert3.
*esies, as bet,een lessor an lessee, the Coe applies specific provisions esi#ne to
cover their ri#hts.
.ence, the lessee cannot clai$ rei$burse$ent, as a $atter of ri#ht, for useful
i$prove$ents he has $ae on the propert3, nor can he assert a ri#ht of retention until
rei$burse. .is onl3 re$e3 is to re$ove the i$prove$ent if the lessor oes not choose to
pa3 its valueF but the court cannot #ive hi$ the ri#ht to bu3 the lan.
()
Petitioner+s assertion that Pia--a .otel ,as constructe Eat &its' e=penseE foun no support
in the recors. Neither i an3 ocu$ent or testi$on3 prove this clai$. %t best, ,hat ,as
confir$e ,as that petitioner managed and operated the hotel. /here ,as no evience that
petitioner ,as the one ,hich spent for the construction or renovation of the propert3. %n
since petitioner+s alle#e e=penitures ,ere never proven, it coul not even see5
rei$burse$ent of one0half of the value of the i$prove$ents upon ter$ination of the lease
uner %rticle 1?DA
(!
of the Civil Coe.
9inall3, both the trial an appellate courts eclare that the lan as ,ell as the i$prove$ent
thereon &Pia--a .otel' belon#e to responent. 8e fin no reason to overturn this factual
conclusion.
Since this petition for revie, on certiorari ,as clearl3 ,ithout le#al an factual basis,
petitioner+s counsel shoul not have even file this appeal. It is obvious that the intention
,as $erel3 to ela3 the isposition of the case.
"7EREFORE, the petition is hereb3 DENIED. /he ecision an resolution of the Court of
%ppeals in C%01.R. CV No. !21)" are AFFIRMED.
Costs a#ainst petitioner. Sa$e costs a#ainst %tt3. *enito R. Cuesta I, petitioner+s counsel,
for filin# this fli$s3 appeal, pa3able ,ithin ten &1@' a3s fro$ finalit3 of this ecision.
SO ORDERED.