Tamio v.
Ticson (Short title) ISSUE/S
G.R. No. 154895 | | November 18, 2004
Petitioner: JOSIE GO TAMIO
Respondents: ENCARNACION TICSON
DOCTRINE
Estoppel applies even though the lessor had no title at the time the relation of lessor
and lessee was created and may be asserted not only by the original lessor, but also
by those who succeed to his title.
FACTS
1. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila (RCAM) is the owner of an
apartment unit originally leased to Fernando Lopez Lim. When Fernando
died, Valentine Lim, daughter of Fernando, asked Encarnacion Ticson for
financial assistance, to purchase the apartment unit. Thus, Valentine
executed a waiver in favor of Ticson.
2. Ticson executed a contract of lease with Josie Tamio for 3 months.
However, after signing the contract and paying the rentals, Tamio discovered
that the apartment was owned by RCAM and not by Ticson.
3. When the lease expired, Ticson demanded to vacate the apartment.
However, Tamio failed to comply. Thus, Ticson filed a case for unlawful
detainer.
4. MTC DISMISSED the complaint because it found Ticson guilty of
concealment when she misrepresented that she was the owner or
authorized lessor of the apartment. Thus, the contract did not produce any
legal effect.
5. RTC REVERSED the decision. It held that the concealment did not amount
to fraud. Ticson’s honest belief that she became or will eventually become
the owner of the property by reason of the said waiver does not amount to
fraud.
6. CA AFFIRMED the decision of RTC. It held that Ticson acquired legal
possession over the apartment unit as an assignee, considering the
waiver/assignment executed in her favor by the previous lessees.
7. CA also held that Tamio had been negligent in not immediately
communicating with RCAM regarding her discovery, thereby implying her
acknowledgment of respondents right to sublease the property.
Hence, this Petition.
Tamio’s Contention:
-she is not bound by her lease agreement with respondent, because the latter never
acquired legal possession of the property.
1. W/N Ticson is entitled to the rentals.
2. W/N Tamio is etopped from disputing the title of the landlord.
RULING & RATIO
- NO
1. Under Art. 1649, The lessee cannot assign the lease without the consent of
the lessor, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary.
2. In the instant case, RCAM never assented to the assignment of the lease.
This is apparent from the letter of its counsel, Atty. Socrates R. Rivera,
stating that Fernando Lim was no longer its tenant for his failure to pay the
rentals.
3. To allow Ticson to receive rental arrearages, it would constitute unjust
enrichment at the expense of Tamio.
- YES
1. The relation of lessor and lessee does not depend on the formers title but on
the agreement between the parties, followed by the possession of the
premises by the lessee under such agreement.
2. As long as the Lessee remains in undisturbed possession, it is immaterial
whether the lessor has a valid title at the time of the contract.
3. Between the present parties, the lease -- which was actually a sublease --
was effective. And respondent had a colorable right to lease the premises by
virtue of the assignment even if, as against the owner, both the assignment
and the sublease were ineffectual.
DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the assailed Decision and Resolution
SET ASIDE. The dispositive portion of the August 14, 1998 Decision of the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila is hereby REINSTATED. No costs.
Page 1 of 1