117.
MORALIDAD v PARTIES INVOLVED: ISSUE: Whether or not respondents’ right to possess the land had
PERNES Petitioner: Mercedes Moralidad, registered owner of the parcel of land in Davao City been terminated
Respondent: Sps. Diosdado and Arlene Pernes, (pamangkin of Mercedes)
HELD: Yes.
HOW THE CASE STARTED The document executed by the petitioner constitutes the title
Petitioner worked in the USA until her retirement. She would spend her 2-month creating and sets forth the conditions of the usufruct.
summer vacation in Mandug, Davao City, and would usually stay in the house of Petitioner had given the respondents the usufructuary rights
her niece, respondent Arlene Pernes. over the portion of the land and the duration of which being
Respondent Arlene informed petitioner that Mandug was infested by NPA rebels, dependent on how long respondents would like to occupy the
thereafter petitioner sent money to buy a lot in Davao City proper where property.
respondents could transfer and settle down The term or period of the usufruct originally specified
The subject lot was initially for the respondents’ benefit but later petitioner wanted provides only one of the bases for the right of a usufructuary
the property to also be available to any of her family members thus she executed a to hold and retain possession of the thing given in usufruct.
document which provides the ff: The occurrence of any of the following: the loss of the
o Sps Pernes may build their house therein & stay as long as they like atmosphere of cooperation, the bickering or the cessation of
o Anybody of Mercedes’ kins who wishes to stay on the real property harmonious relationship among the family members
should maintain an atmosphere of cooperation, live in harmony and must constitutes a resolutory condition which, by express wish of
avoid bickering with one another the petitioner, extinguishes the usufruct.
o Anyone of Mercedes’ kins may enjoy the privilege to stay therein and The continuing animosity between the petitioner and
may avail the use thereof respondents are enough factual bases to consider the usufruct
Petitioner came back to the Phil. to stay with respondents however in the course of as having been terminated.
time their relations turned sour
o There were incidents with violent confrontations wherein petitioner FALLO:
claimed that she sustained cuts and wounds Wherefore, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and
Resolution of the CA are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly,
PETITIONER FILED AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER SUIT AGAINST RESPONDENTS the decision of the MTCC is REINSTATED with MODIFICATION that
Alleged that she is the registered owner of the land on which respondents build all of respondents’ counterclaims are dismissed, including their
their house; that she demanded respondents to vacate the premises but they claims for reimbursement of useful and necessary expenses.
refused
Respondents contention: Petitioner had full knowledge and express consent of
their stay in the property as stipulated in the document she executed
RULING OF THE MTCC: In favor of petitioner
Respondents’ continued possession of the premises become unlawful upon the
petitioner’s demand to vacate
RULING OF THE RTC: Reversed MTCC decision
Respondents’ possession of the property was not be mere tolerance but rather by
express consent
RULING OF THE CA : Dismissed the case
The ejectment suit was premature: the issue of whether respondents’ right to
possess a portion of petitioner’s land had already expired or was terminated was
not yet resolved
What governs the right of the parties is the law on usufruct but petitioner failed to
establish that respondents’ right to possess had already ceased
