Digna Consumido vs Ramon Saura, Jr. and Fatima Saura G.R. NO. 166875, July 31, 2007

Digna Consumido vs Ramon Saura, Jr. and Fatima Saura G.R. NO. 166875, July 31, 2007 is a decisions 2007 of the Supreme Court.
Tinga
== Issues ==
Hence, the instant petition ascribing the following errors to the Court of Appeals:
       
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS REVERSIBLE ERROR OF FACT AND LAW WHEN IT RULED THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST TO FILE THE EJECTMENT SUIT, AS SUCH RULING IS BASED ON PURE CONJECTURES AND PRESUMPTIONS.
        
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT RULED THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS HAD THE RIGHT TO EJECT PETITIONER HAVING ESTABLISHED A BETTER RIGHT OF POSSESSION.
* After summary proceedings, the MeTC rendered a decision on 19 April 2002 dismissing the ejectment suit. The MeTC found that the ownership of the leased premises had been the subject of a pending litigation between respondent Ramon Saura, Jr. on one hand and SREDC, VGFC, and the other heirs of the late Ramon Saura, Sr. on the other. It also found that SREDC, as successor-in-interest of VGFC, had previously instituted an ejectment suit against petitioner and other lessees occupying the other units but the same had been dismissed with finality pending the determination of ownership of the leased premises. Based on the foregoing and the findings that VGFC was the lessor and respondents had acted merely as administrators and/or representatives of VGFC upon the execution of the lease agreements, the MeTC declared respondents as not the real parties-in-interest.
* Respondents were able to establish only as far as accepting the rental payments from petitioner.
* Respondents cannot assert that they did not know for a fact that they were never parties to the lease agreement. The fact that petitioner initially thought respondents were the owners of the leased premises does not put her in estoppel because respondents were expected to know in what capacity they accepted the payments.
== Decision ==
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED and the Decision dated 13 September 2004 and Resolution dated 24 January 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 75285 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 28 of Manila in Civil Case No. 170458 is REINSTATED. Costs against respondents.