LLOBRERA V.

FERNANDEZ (2006)
Topic: Possession - tolerance
Presented by: Maria Analyn Ilagan
 ISSUE
CONCLUSION RULES
CONCLUSION ANALYSIS
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION

Whether or not petitioners Spouses Llobrera, et al., are in possession of the lot by mere tolerance of
respondent Fernandez - YES

Whether or not the possession of the lot by petitioners Spouses LLobrera, et al., is founded on a contract –
NO

Petitioners Sps. Llobrera, et al., claim that they are in possession of the lot by virtue of a lease agreement
and not by mere tolerance of respondent Fernandez.
 ISSUE
CONCLUSION RULES
CONCLUSION ANALYSIS
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION

NCC 537 NCC 1256 Roxas v. CA (2002)

Acts which do not give rise to Consignation Possession of lot by virtue of
possession tolerance of owner
(not mentioned in the case)
 ISSUE
CONCLUSION RULES
CONCLUSION ANALYSIS
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION

Property in dispute:
A 1,849 sq. m. lot in Dagupan City

Petitioners: Respondent
“Sps. Llobrera, et al.”: Josefina Fernandez
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
 ISSUE
CONCLUSION RULES
CONCLUSION ANALYSIS
CONCLUSION
Respondent Fernandez
sent a written demand Petitioners Sps.
letter to petitioners Sps. Llobrera, et al., refused
Llobrera, et al., to to vacate.
vacate the lot within 15
days.
Respondent Fernandez
MTC ruled in favor of filed a complaint for
respondent Fernandez. ejectment and damages
RTC and CA affirmed against petitioners Sps.
the MTC ruling. Llobrera, et al., before
the MTC.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
Respondent Fernandez
filed a formal
complaint with the
barangay captain.
The negotiations failed.
The barangay captain
issued the requisite
certification to file an
action.
 ISSUE
CONCLUSION RULES
CONCLUSION ANALYSIS
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
Petitioners: Sps. Llobrera, et al. Respondent: Fernandez
They have been occupying the property since 1945. There was no lessor-lessee relationship. The
possession of the lot by the petitioners Sps. Llobrera,
Their possession of their property was through their et al., was only through mere tolerance. (Not
predecessors-in-interest who were given permission by explicitly mentioned in the case)
one Gualberto de Venecia to develop and occupy the
land by paying a monthly rental of P20 each.

Since then, petitioners have paid the monthly rental of

P20 to Gualberto de Venecia or Rosita de Venecia or
their representatives. Their payments were all
acknowledged with receipts.

In 1996, Gualberto’s representative suddenly refused to

accept the rental payments. This prompted them to
consign the amounts to a bank through an account which
they continued to update with their monthly payments.
 ISSUE
CONCLUSION RULES
CONCLUSION ANALYSIS
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
On the basis of Property law, Respondent Fernandez has a stronger argument because:

• The Supreme Court affirms the finding of the lower courts that the possession of the lot by petitioners Sps. Llobrera, et al.,
is not based on a contract. Petitioners Sps. Llobrera failed to substantiate their claim of a lessor-lessee relationship:
• They failed to present as evidence any written document of the alleged lease agreement.
• The receipts allegedly given by the De Venecias as acknowledgement of the rental payments were also not
presented, on the excuse that these were burned by a fire.
• The unanimous decision of the lower courts on this factual issue is final and conclusive upon the Supreme Court. This
factual finding is relevant as regards two things: (1) possession by tolerance, and (2) propriety of consignation.

(1) Possession by tolerance:

• Absent any proof of the alleged lessor-lessee relationship, the only available conclusion as regards the arrangement
is that their possession is by mere tolerance by respondent Fernandez.
• Roxas v. Court of Appeals (2002): A person who occupies the land of another person, without any form of contract
between them and only through the latter’s tolerance or permission, is bound by an implied promise to vacate the
property upon the latter’s demand. Upon his failure to vacate the property upon demand, the latter can file a
summary action for ejectment as proper remedy.
 ISSUE
CONCLUSION RULES
CONCLUSION ANALYSIS
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
On the basis of Property law, Respondent Fernandez has a stronger argument because:

(2) Propriety of consignation:

• The absence of any contractual relationship between petitioners Sps. Llobrera, et al., and respondent Fernando
precludes any legal efficacy of the consignation done by the former.
• NCC 1256 on consignation requires that in order for valid consignation to take place, there must be a creditor-
debtor relationship between the parties. NCC 1256 applies only when there is unjust refusal by a creditor to
accept payment from a debtor. NCC 1256 provides:
• Art. 1256. If the creditor to whom tender of payment has been made refuses without just cause to accept it, the
debtor shall be released from responsibility by the consignation of the thing or sum due.
• Respondent Fernandez has no obligation to receive any payment from petitioners Sps. Llobrero, et al., absent
any contractual relationship between them. As such, the bank deposit done by petitioners Sps. Llobero has no legal
effect insofar as respondent Fernandez is concerned.