Published — April 16, 2021
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of your own lawyer to address your legal concerns, if any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
After this article, LESSEE IS NOT ALLOWED TO DENY THE TITLE OF HIS LESSOR, read also: Ejectment of unlawful occupant from leased premises
-
The lessor and lessee relationship does not depend on the former’s title
-
An action for unlawful detainer exists when a person unlawfully withholds possession of any land or building after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession
-
When the lessor-lessee relationship is established in an unlawful detainer case, any attempt to inject the question of ownership into the case is futile
May a person, who does not own the property, enter into a lease agreement over the same property?
For a better understanding, let us take the case of Samelo vs. Manotok Services, Inc., G.R.No. 170509, June 27, 2012
In this case, Manotok Services, Inc. (Manotok) said that it is the administrator of a certain parcel of land located at Tondo, Manila. On January 13, 1997, Manotok entered into a contract with Samelo for the lease of said parcel of land. The lease contract was for a period of one (1) year with a monthly rental of P3,960.00. After the expiration of the lease contract on December 31, 1997, Samelo continued occupying the subject premises without paying the rent. On August 5, 1998, Manotok, through its President, sent a letter to Samelo demanding that she vacate the subject premises and pay compensation for its use and occupancy. Samelo, however, refused to heed those demands.
On November 18, 1998, Manotok filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Samelo. Manotok asked the court, among others, that Samelo and those claiming rights under her be ordered to vacate the subject premises and to pay compensation for its use and occupancy.
Samelo, in her answer said that Manotok had no right to collect rentals because the subject premises are located inside the property of the Philippine National Railways (PNR). She also added that Manotok had no certificate of title over the subject premises. Samelo further claimed that her signature in the contract of lease was obtained through Manotok’s misrepresentation. She likewise maintained that she is now the owner of the subject premises as she had been in possession since 1944.
May Samelo, the lessee, allowed to deny the title of Manotok, her lessor?
The Supreme Court said:
No.
An action for unlawful detainer exists when a person unlawfully withholds possession of any land or building against or from a lessor, vendor, vendee or other persons, after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied. The only issue to be resolved in an unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties involved. Thus, when the relationship of lessor and lessee is established in an unlawful detainer case, any attempt of the parties to inject the question of ownership into the case is futile, except insofar as it might throw light on the right of possession.
Indeed, the relation of a lessor and lessee does not depend on the former’s title but on the agreement between the parties, followed by possession of the premises by the lessee under such agreement. As long as the latter remains in undisturbed possession, it is immaterial whether the lessor has a valid title or any title at all at the time the relationship was entered into.
In this case, Samelo was not permitted to question the right of Monotok over the subject property. It was explained that in action involving possession of the subject premises, a tenant cannot controvert the title of his landlord or assert any rights adverse to that title. As a result, Samelo was ordered to pay the sum required and vacate the premises.
Also, to answer the first question above, yes, a person may lease a property he or she does not own.
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.
SUBSCRIBE NOW FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES!
[email-subscribers-form id=”4″]