Pagbibigay-linaw sa tinatawag na “estoppel of tenant”

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta - @Magtanong Kay Attorney | May 21, 2021

Dear Chief Acosta,

Umuupa ako ng maliit na kuwarto na malapit sa aking pinagtatrabahuhan. Hindi ako sigurado kung ang may-ari ng gusali kung saan naroon ang kuwarto ay siyang may hawak ng titulo nito at kung nararapat bang sa kanya ako nagbabayad ng buwanang upa. Gusto kong kuwestiyunin ang titulo niya. Maaari ko bang gawin iyon bilang nangungupahan? – Rose

Dear Rose,

Ang sagot sa inyong katanungan ay hindi. Binigyang-diin ng Korte Suprema sa kasong Viegely Samelo, Represented By Attorney-In-Fact Cristina Samelo vs. Manotok Services, Inc., Allegedly Represented By Perpetua Bocanegra [Deceased] (G.R. No. 170509, June 27, 2012), na isinulat ni Honorable former Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion, ang tinatawag na “estoppel of tenant.” Sa nasabing kaso, nakasaad ang sumusunod:

“We find no merit in the petitioner’s allegation that the respondent had no authority to lease the subject premises because the latter failed to prove that it is its owner or administrator.

The Rules of Court protects the respondent, as lessor, from being questioned by the petitioner, as lessee, regarding its title or better right of possession over the subject premises. Section 2(b), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court states that the tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. Article 1436 of the Civil Code likewise states that a lessee or a bailee is estopped from asserting title to the thing leased or received, as against the lessor or bailor.

These provisions bar the petitioner from contesting the respondent’s title over the subject premises. "The juridical relationship between x x x [a] lessor and x x x [a lessee] carries with it a recognition of the lessor’s title. As [lessee, the petitioner is] estopped [from denying the] landlord’s title, or to assert a better title not only in [herself], but also in some third person while [she remains] in possession of the subject premises and until [she surrenders] possession to the landlord. This estoppel applies even though the lessor had no title at the time the relation of [the] lessor and [the] lessee was created, and may be asserted not only by the original lessor, but also by those who succeed to his title.” xxx”

Sa madaling salita, noong nagsimula ang inyong pangungupahan ay kinilala na ninyo ang pagmamay-ari ng lessor sa gusali, kabilang ang kuwartong inyong tinutuluyan. Hindi ninyo maaaring itanggi ang nasabing titulo dahil itinuturing ito ng batas na conclusive presumption.

Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang inyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa impormasyon na inyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng inyong salaysay.

Maraming salamat sa inyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.