IV.

RULES OF LAW

A. CASE LAW
The contract of lease entered into by and between the lessor Edgar Torrico
and the lessee Manuel Branzuela which the parties agreed to be valid and
proper during the preliminary Conference indicated no issue to prior
possession and established prior possession of the Plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court held in the case of the Estate of Soledad Manatan vs
Somera, G.R. No. 145867, April 7, 2009
Unlawful Detainer is a summary action for the recovery of possession
of real property. This action may be filed by a lessor, vendor, vendee,
or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is
unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to
hold possession by virtue of any contract, express or implied.

The issue of rightful possession is the thing to be decided by the Court, for in
this situation the defendant is partly in actual possession and the plaintiffs
cause of action is the termination of the defendants right to continue in
possession (Sumulong vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108817, May 10, 1994).

B. STATUTORY LAW
The continued possession of the defendant to the property after the latters
right to possess ceases, constitute a case of Unlawful Detainer.
In Delos Reyes vs Spouses Odenes G.R No. 178096, March 23, 2011 define
the nature and scope of an unlawful detainer suit, as follows:
Unlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real property
from one who illegally withholds possession after the expiration or
termination of his right to hold possession under any contract, express
or implied. The possession by the defendant in unlawful detainer is
originally legal but became illegal due to the expiration or termination
of the right to possess.

V. APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACT

The plaintiffs having evidence of establishing prior possession, the contract
which is valid; may convince the Courts decision in their favor. Contrary to
this fact with the existence of the valid contract of lease, the defendants
offered evidence of Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 5, 2011, may run
counter to defendants action, the accepted fact that the latter diligently
observed the terms of the contract from February 2011 to the period of
expiration which is December 2011.
The certification issued by the Barangay Captain certifying that Edgar Torrico
was the absolute owner of the parcel of land in dispute, may not be binding in
the Court to establish such ownership nor the record indicated in the Home
Owners Association iligan Sunriser Dwellers Association Inc (ISDAI) that the
registered member Tadiaque as the owner thereof, may also not binding with
the Court; which the latter document/evidence can not rise to give a right to
sell a property.