Llobrera Vs. Fernandez [G.R. No. 142882.

May 2, 2006] 488 SCRA 509

Facts: Respondent, as one of the registered co-owners of the land, served a written demand letter upon petitioners Spouses
Llobrera, et al., to vacate the premises within 15 days from notice. Petitioners refused to vacate.

Respondent then filed a Complaint for ejectment and damages against the petitioners before the MTCC of Dagupan City.

By way of defense, petitioners alleged in their Answer that they had been occupying the property in question beginning the year
1945 onwards, when their predecessors-in-interest, with the permission of Gualberto de Venecia, one of the other co-owners of
said land, developed and occupied the same on condition that they will pay their monthly rental of P20.00 each. From then on,
they have continuously paid their monthly rentals to Gualberto de Venecia or his representatives, such payments being duly
acknowledged by receipts. Beginning sometime June 1996, however, the representative of Gualberto de Venecia refused to accept
their rentals, prompting them to consign the same to Banco San Juan, which bank deposit they continued to maintain and update
with their monthly rental payments.

MTCC: in favor of respondents

RTC: affirmed

Issue: Whether or not petitioners possession of the subject property is founded on contract

SC: No.

Affirmed CAs finding that petitioners failed to present any written memorandum of the alleged lease arrangements between
them and Gualberto De Venecia. The receipts claimed to have been issued by the owner were not presented on the excuse that
the March 19, 1996 fire burned the same. Simply put, there is a dearth of evidence to substantiate the averred lessor-lessee
relationship.

From the absence of proof of any contractual basis for petitioners possession of the subject premises, the only legal implication is
that their possession thereof is by mere tolerance.

A person who occupies the land of another at the latters tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is
necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing which, a summary action for ejectment
is the proper remedy against him.

The alleged consignation of the P20.00 monthly rental to a bank account in respondents name cannot also be considered because
of the absence of any contractual basis for their claim to rightful possession of the subject property. Consignation based on Article
1256 of the Civil Code indispensably requires a creditor-debtor relationship between the parties, in the absence of which, the legal
effects thereof cannot be availed of.

In the present case, the possession of the property by the petitioners being by mere tolerance as they failed to establish through
competent evidence the existence of any contractual relations between them and the respondent, the latter has no obligation to
receive any payment from them. Since respondent is not a creditor to petitioners as far as the alleged P20.00 monthly rental
payment is concerned, respondent cannot be compelled to receive such payment even through consignation under Article 1256.