GR L 21877; (February, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21877; February 28, 1966
J. M. TUASON and CO., INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. ENRIQUE TONGOL, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Plaintiff J. M. Tuason and Co., Inc. is the registered owner of the Santa Mesa Heights Subdivision in Quezon City. It filed an ejectment action against defendant Enrique Tongol, alleging that Tongol illegally entered and occupied a 100-square-meter portion of the land on December 5, 1957, without its consent. The Court of First Instance of Rizal ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering Tongol to vacate, remove his improvements, and pay monthly compensation until possession is restored. Tongol appealed, arguing that a compromise agreement between J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. and a group called the “Deudors” (who previously claimed ownership of areas within the titled land) legalized his occupation. The agreement involved the Deudors relinquishing their claims in exchange for certain considerations, with a reservation allowing third parties to whom the Deudors had sold possessory rights to purchase the land from Tuason. It was stipulated that the lot in question was part of an area sold in 1949 by Agustin de Torres (a Deudor) to Julian Lagman and Toribia Lagman Vda. de Pacia, who then permitted Tongol to occupy the lot and build a house.
ISSUE
Whether the compromise agreement between J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. and the Deudors legalized the occupation of the land by defendant-appellant Enrique Tongol.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that Tongol was a mere intruder. The compromise agreement did not legalize his occupation because: (1) Tongol was not one of the third parties for whom the reservation of the right to purchase was made in the agreement; (2) even assuming the Lagmans (his permitors) were among those with a reserved right to purchase, there was no allegation or evidence that they ever exercised that right with respect to the lot; and (3) according to the uncontradicted statement of the appellee, Tongol himself never signified any desire to purchase the lot. The case was distinguished from Evangelista vs. Deudor, where the occupant was a purchaser from the Deudors who had made payments and expressed a desire to buy the lot from Tuason.