REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
MAKATI CITY
BRANCH ____
HEIRS OF VITO CORLEONE,
Plaintiffs,
CIVIL CASE NO. _____
For: Unlawful Detainer
- versus SPOUSES BRUNO AND MARIA
TATTAGLIA,
Defendants.
x-------------- ------------- -x
DECISION
---------------------------This an action for unlawful detainer filed by plaintiffs against defendants..
In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged that: they are brothers and sisters, being the
heirs of Vito Corleone; they inherited a house and lot valued at P18,000,000.00;
sometime in January 2005, defendant spouses approached Michael and expressed
interest to buy the house and lot; sometime in January 2006, the parties agreed and
executed a Deed of Absolute Sale whereby the said house and lot was sold by plaintiffs
to defendants for P2,500,000.00;. pursuant to the Deed of Absolute Sale, defendants
were allowed to take over possession of the premises but the title to the property shall
transfer only upon full payment, defendants however failed to pay the agreed purchase
price in full, leaving a balance of P338,000.00.;on August 2,2010, a demand letter
demanding payment of the unpaid balance was sent to the defendants, the latter
however failed to pay the same; on April 15,2013, a final demand letter was sent to
defendants demanding payment of the balance of the purchase price and to vacate
the premises; likewise, the Deed of Absolute Sale was cancelled by plaintiffs for failure
of defendants to pay the balance and a demand for payment of monthly rentals were
also made; despite these demands made by the plaintiffs, defendants failed to vacate
and refuses to vacate the premises and pay the balance and the monthly rentals; on
December 15, 2013 plaintiffs filed a complaint with the barangay for conciliation

purposes, However, no settlement was reached and a certificate to file action was
issued by the barangay, hence this recourse to this Court.
By way of Answer to the complaint, the defendants alleged that: they were
forcefully ejected by the plaintiff from the said property located at 789 Mafia St., Makati
City.. The defendants did not receive any of the demand letters on August 2, 2010 and
on April 15,2013; without the knowledge and consent of answering defendants, the
principal condition of the sale was changed and the term of payment thereof was
unreasonably extended by the plaintiff which resulted to the balance of P338,000.00 to
the prejudice of answering defendants. There was undue delay on the part of the
plaintiff in enforcing the payment of the obligation, and the balance orally agreed upon
could have been paid immediately at maturity had there been prompt and timely
notification to answering defendants of the non-payment of the balance by defendant
spouses.
At the preliminary conference, no settlement was reached by the parties, for
which reason this court terminated the preliminary conference and directed the parties
to file their respective position papers.
The issue to be resolved in this case is who between the parties has the better
right of possession?
It is clear from the foregoing that the allegations in the Complaint succeeded to
constitute a case for unlawful detainer. In Cabrera v. Getaruela, the Court held that a
complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it recites the
following:
(1) initially, possession of property by the defendant was by contract with or by
tolerance of the plaintiff;
(2) eventually, such possession became illegal upon notice by plaintiff to
defendant of the termination of the latters right of possession;
(3) thereafter, the defendant remained in possession of the property and
deprived the plaintiff of the enjoyment thereof; and
(4) within one year from the last demand on defendant to vacate the property, the
plaintiff instituted the complaint for ejectment (Ruben C. Copuz, rep. by Atty.-infact Wenifreda C. Agullana Vs. Sps. Hilarion Agustin and Justa Agustin,
G.R. No.
183822. January 18, 2012 ).
In the instant case, plaintiffs were able to allege and prove by preponderance of
evidence that they were the lawful owners and that possession by defendants were by
virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale subject to the condition that the title to the property
shall transfer only to defendants upon full payment. With defendants dafaulting in their

payments as agreed upon. by the parties, their possession became illegal after they
refused to vacate the premises upon demands by plaintiff..

Thus, under the rubric of the prayer for the present judgment is rendered in favor
of herein plaintiffs heirs of Vito Corleone. Because defendants arguments are
meritorious and devoid of merit. Clearly, defendants have no interest or right over the
disputed property and must vacate the same.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against
defendants, ordering defendants, spouses Bruno and Maria Tattaglia, their heirs and
assigns and all persons acting in their behalves to vacate the premises and to surrender
possession thereof to the plaintiff. Defendants are likewise ordered to pay One
Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos as reasonable compensation for the use of the land and
Attorneys fees in the amount of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos.
SO ORDERED.