SPS. RICARDO AND LYDIA LLOBRERA, SPS. BENJAMIN AND ESTHER LLOBRERA, SPS.

MIKE AND
RESIDA MALA, SPS. OTOR AND DOLINANG BAGONTE, SPS. EDUARDO AND DAMIANA ICO, SPS.
ANTONIO AND MERLY SOLOMON, SPS. ANSELMO AND VICKY SOLOMON, SPS. ALEX AND
CARMELITA CALLEJO, SPS. DEMETRIO AND JOSEFINA FERRER, SPS. BENJAMIN AND ANITA
MISLANG, SPS. DOMINGO AND FELICIDAD SANCHEZ, SPS. FERNANDO AND CARMELITA QUEBRAL,
SPS. BERNARDO AND PRISCILLA MOLINA, PRISCILLA BAGA AND BELEN SEMBRANO, petitioners, vs.
JOSEFINA V. FERNANDEZ,respondent.

Facts:

- Josefina Fernandez, one of the registered co-owners of land in Dagupan City,

sent a demand letter to Sps Llobrera et al to vacate premises within 15 days.
Petitioners refused and no settlement was reached on the barangay level.
- Fernandez then filed a complaint for ejectment and damages in the MTCC pf
Dagupan
- Petitioners defended that they occupied lot since beginning of 1945 with the
permission of Gualberto de Venecia, one of co-owner, on condition of
payment of 20Php monthly rental. The representative of Gualberto refused
to receive the payments of rentals so in June 1996, they were prompted to
consign the same and pay it to Banco San Juan instead which they maintained
and update their payment.
- MTCC, RTC and CA favored Fernandez.

Issue: WON possession of the subject property is founded on contract

Held:

No. Petitioners failed to present any written memo of the alleged lease
arrangements between them and De Venecia. There is dearth (aba dearth. Jima.) of
evidence to substantiate the averred lessor-lessee relationship. (ang ilaha excuse
kay naa daw sunog na nadala ang receipts that’s why wa sila ka present sa receipts
na giissue ni De Venecia. Jima na pod)
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. . . . . 3

Absent such proof of any contractual basis for their possession, the legal
implication is that they were possessing by mere tolerance. Therefore, the
person occupying is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he/she will
vacate upon demand.

The bank deposits made, as consignation, has no legal effect insofar as the
respondent is concerned since there is no contractual relationship. Therefore,
Fernandez cannot be compelled to receive such deposits.