This is a petition for review filed with the Supreme Court seeking to reverse a decision of the Court of Appeals. The petition involves a dispute between two co-owners of a property over its use. Specifically, the petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals misinterpreted provisions of the Civil Code in ruling that the respondent could use the jointly-owned property for her business contrary to the parties' agreement restricting such use, and in finding an implied modification of that agreement. The petitioner requests that the Supreme Court reinstate the original trial court decision in his favor.
This is a petition for review filed with the Supreme Court seeking to reverse a decision of the Court of Appeals. The petition involves a dispute between two co-owners of a property over its use. Specifically, the petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals misinterpreted provisions of the Civil Code in ruling that the respondent could use the jointly-owned property for her business contrary to the parties' agreement restricting such use, and in finding an implied modification of that agreement. The petitioner requests that the Supreme Court reinstate the original trial court decision in his favor.
This is a petition for review filed with the Supreme Court seeking to reverse a decision of the Court of Appeals. The petition involves a dispute between two co-owners of a property over its use. Specifically, the petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals misinterpreted provisions of the Civil Code in ruling that the respondent could use the jointly-owned property for her business contrary to the parties' agreement restricting such use, and in finding an implied modification of that agreement. The petitioner requests that the Supreme Court reinstate the original trial court decision in his favor.
PETITION FOR REVIEW ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI (under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court)
Petitioner, by way of undersigned counsel, respectfully avers unto this Honourable Supreme Court, that:
Nature of Action 1. This is a petition for review on writ of certiorari, as provided for in Rule 45 of our Rules of Court, dated 31 January 2012;
Parties 2. Petitioner FEDERICO ROSARIO, is of legal age, single, Filipino, with residence at ABCDEFG Don Vicente Madrigal Street, Corinthian Gardens, Quezon City and that private respondent JANE WADE, is also of legal age, single, Filipino, with residence at 11116 Flamingo Street, Greenmeadows Subdivision, Quezon City;
Statement of Facts
3. The following, in brief, are the facts of this case:
3.1 The petitioner and respondent-hereinafter referred to as the parties are both the true, lawful, and registered owners of a piece of land located in 16061980 Banawe Street, Quezon City measuring eight hundred (800) square meters (under Transfer Certificate of Title Number 131106, a certified true copy of which is herein attached as Annex A), hereinafter referred to as the Banawe Lot, having been devisees in a last will and testament (Annex B) duly executed by their distant relative, Drake Carter III, and probated in a decision rendered by Branch 09, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, dated the nineteenth of April, Two Thousand and One (19 April 2001, Special Proceedings 32006-F-1990, Annex C);
3.2 The parties entered into an Agreement (Annex D) on the thirtieth of June, Two Thousand And One (30 th June 2001) to ... observe the status quo and that no structure shall be built nor any enterprise- aside from the necessary activities for preservation- be conducted on the premises for a period of fifteen years (the thirtieth of June, Two Thousand Sixteen, 30 th June, 2016, Paragraph D, Annex D) and that the parties shall ...equally share the burden of taxes and other similar expenses (Paragraph E, Annex D);
2
3.3 Contrary to the agreement, the Banawe Lot was then used by the respondent as a parking lot to house her fleet of buses (Photographs, taken on the sixth of August, Two Thousand And One- 6 th of August 2001- of which are attached herein as Annex E, Annex F and Annex G);
3.4 As a matter of goodwill and generosity on the part of petitioner, a Letter, dated the fifteenth of August, Two Thousand And One (15 th August 2001, Annex H) was sent to and duly received (Annex H) by respondent, giving the same fifteen (15) days to cease and desist from using the Banawe Lot as a parking area for her transportation business;
3.5 On the expiration of the grace period granted by the petitioner, respondent herein still failed to comply with her obligation, resulting in the institution of a case for a writ of preliminary injunction, specific performance and damages by petitioner (Complaint attached as Annex I) with Branch 32 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, pursuant to Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, Articles 486 (quoted in verbatim : Each co-owner may use the thing owned in common, provided he does so in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended and in such a way as not to injure the interest of the co-ownership or prevent the other co-owners from using it according to their rights. The purpose of the co-ownership may be changed by agreement, express or implied.), 1168 (quoted in verbatim: When the obligation consists in not doing, and the obligor does what has been forbidden him, it shall also be undone at his expense) and the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code in relation to damages;
3.6 On the eleventh of November, Two Thousand and Three, Branch 32 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City rendered a favourable decision for the petitioner (Civil Case No. 22121232, 11 th
November, 2003, Annex J), issuing the prayed for writ, ordering respondent to immediately comply with the terms of the agreement between the parties and awarding moral damages for petitioner in the amount of one million pesos (PhP 1,000,000) and attorneys fees and the costs of litigation;
3.7 Respondent timely exercised her right of appeal, and on the twentieth of January, Two Thousand Twelve, the respondent Court of Appeals, in CA GR CR 190490, rendered a decision adverse to the petitioner herein (20 th January, 2012, Annex K), dissolving the injunctive writ and dismissing the complaint, stating ... pursuant to Article 428 on the rights afforded to by ownership and 486 of the Civil Code, a co-owner may use the thing owned in common... (Paragraph E, Annex K) and ... the agreement was impliedly modified with the acquiescence of plaintiff-appellee Federico Rosario for more than a month to the use of defendant-appellant Jane Wade of the commonly owned property as a parking area for her transportation business (Paragraph G, Annex K).
Assignment of Error
4. The foregoing facts raise a sole question of law, namely:
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely misinterpreted Article 486, in relation to the rights afforded by Article 428 of the Civil Code to the prejudice of petitioner Federico Rosario as co-owner of the Banawe property?
3
Arguments
5. The answer should be in the affirmative.
5.1 Firstly, Article 486 of the Civil Code states that Each co-owner may use the thing owned in common, provided he does so in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended and in such a way as not to injure the interest of the co-ownership or prevent the other co-owners from using it according to their rights (emphasis supplied). Subsequently, this provision should be construed as a limitation to the rights of a co-owner, in relation to Article 428, which in turn, states that: The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations than those established by law (emphasis supplied). In Cruz v Catapang, G.R. No. 164110, February 12, 2008, this Honourable Supreme Court held that: ...that a co-owner cannot devote common property to his or her exclusive use to the prejudice of the co-ownership (emphasis supplied). As such, contrary to the interpretation of respondent Court of Appeals, the usage of a co-owner of the commonly held property is not absolute.
5.2 Accordingly, the intended usage of the property can be clearly determined from the express agreement executed between the parties: to ... observe the status quo and that no structure shall be built nor any enterprise- aside from the necessary activities for preservation- be conducted on the premises for a period of fifteen years (emphasis supplied, Annex D). The use therefore by respondent of the Banawe Lot as a parking lot for her fleet of buses is in contravention of the parties agreement.
5.3 Moreover, the contention of the respondent Court of Appeals with regard to the implied modification of the aforementioned agreement is not well-founded. The observations of noted jurist Arturo M. Tolentino, in the 2004 reprinting of his famous Commentaries on the Civil Code, in relation to Article 486 should be given more import, to wit: Mere tolerance on the part of the co- owners cannot legalise the change in the use of a thing from that intended by the parties (emphasis supplied, page 168). The erroneous conclusion therefore by respondent Court of Appeals that the passage of a period slightly more than a month before petitioner demanded that respondent cease her conduct immediately equated to an implied modification of the agreement is an unwarranted and baseless non-sequitur. Additionally, it should be noted that such a construction is not in consonance with Article 1159 of the Civil Code, which states: Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.
6. In summation, respondent Court of Appeals, in misconstruing the meaning of Article 486 in light of Article 428 of the Civil Code, committed a glaring error in the exercise of its jurisdiction to the detriment of petitioner Federico Rosario.
7. Attached to this petition is a certified copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals herein sought to be reviewed (marked as Annex K), together with twenty (20) printed copies of the record of appeal.
4
Prayer
WHEREFORE, after due process, it is respectfully prayed that the Petition for Review on Writ of Certiorari (Exhibit A) be granted and that the Honourable Supreme Court reinstate the decision of Branch 32 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in Civil Case No. 22121232, dated 11 th November, 2003 (Annex J) in toto.
Petitioner further prays for incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
31 January 2012.
Counsel for the Petitioner 123456 Main Street Rolling Stone Towers Fort Bonifacio, Taguig 1234 ROA 10192506 PTR 10192506 19 April 2011 Taguig City (63)1235678 (63)9171234567 RO.C@Felaw.com
5
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, Federico Rosario, of legal age, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, depose and state that:
1. I am the petitioner in the above-stated case; 2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint; 3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true and correct of my personal knowledge and/or on the basis of copies of documents and records in my possession; 4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; 5. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; 6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honourable Court.
___________________________
Federico Rosario
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of __________ 200_ at _________________ affiant exhibiting to me his Community Tax Certificate No.____________________ issued on ________________ 200_ at ______________ City.
The State Corporation Commission of the State of Kansas, Keith R. Henley, Chairman, Rich Kowalewski, Commissioner, and Margalee Wright, Commissioner, as Constituent Members v. Interstate Commerce Commission and the United States of America, Greyhound Lines, Inc., Intervenor, 933 F.2d 827, 10th Cir. (1991)