Fullido vs. Grilli

Fullido vs. Grilli, 785 SCRA 278, G.R. No.
215014 February 29, 2016
Facts:
Grilli financially assisted Fullido in procuring a lot from her parents which was registered
in her name. On the said property, they constructed a house, which was funded by
Grilli. Upon completion, they maintained a common-law relationship and lived there
whenever Grilli was on vacation in the Philippines twice a year.
In 1998, Grilli and Fullido executed a contract of lease, to define their respective rights
over the house and lot. The lease contract stipulated, among others, that Grilli as the
lessee, would rent the lot, registered in the name of Fullido, for a period of fifty (50)
years, to be automatically renewed for another fifty (50) years upon its expiration in the
amount of P10,000.00 for the whole term of the lease contract; and that Fullido as the
lessor, was prohibited from selling, donating, or encumbering the said lot without the
written consent of Grilli.
Their harmonious relationship turned sour after 16 years of living together. Both
charged each other with infidelity. They could not agree who should leave the common
property, and Grilli sent formal letters to Fullido demanding that she vacate the
property, but these were unheeded. On September 8, 2010, Grilli filed a complaint for
unlawful detainer with prayer for issuance of preliminary injunction against Fullido
before the MCTC.
Fullido argues that she could not be ejected from her own lot based on the contract of
lease and the MOA because those documents were null and void for being contrary to
the Constitution, the law, public policy, morals and customs; that the MOA prevented
her from disposing or selling her own land, while the contract of lease favoring Grilli, a
foreigner, was contrary to the Constitution as it was a for a period of fifty (50) years,
and, upon termination, was automatically renewable for another fifty (50) years.
Grilli, on the other hand, contends that Fullido could not question the validity of the said
contracts in the present ejectment suit unless she instituted a separate action for
annulment of contracts. Thus, the Court is confronted with the issue of whether a
contract could be declared void in a summary action of unlawful detainer.
The MCTC dismissed the case after finding that Fullido could not be ejected from their
house and lot. The MCTC opined that she was a co-owner of the house as she
contributed to it by supervising its construction. The RTC reversed and set aside the
MCTC decision. The RTC was of the view that Grilli had the exclusive right to use and
possess the house and lot by virtue of the contract of lease executed by the parties.
The CA upheld the decision of the RTC emphasizing that in an ejectment case, the only
issue to be resolved would be the physical possession of the property. The CA was also
of the view that as Fullido executed both the MOA and the contract of lease, which
gave Grilli the possession and use of the house and lot, the same constituted as a
judicial admission that it was Grilli who had the better right of physical possession.
Issue:
May patently null and void contracts be a basis of an ejectment order?
Held:
No. A void or inexistent contract may be defined as one which lacks, absolutely either
in
fact or in law, one or some of the elements which are essential for its validity. It is one
which has no force and effect from the very beginning, as if it had never been entered
into; it produces no effect whatsoever either against or in favor of anyone. Quod nullum
est nullum producit effectum. Article 1409 of the New Civil Code explicitly states that
void contracts also cannot be ratified; neither can the right to set up the defense of
illegality be waived. Accordingly, there is no need for an action to set aside a void or
inexistent contract.
A review of the relevant jurisprudence reveals that the Court did not hesitate to set
aside a void contract even in an action for unlawful detainer. In Spouses Alcantara v.
Nido, which involves an action for unlawful detainer, the petitioners therein raised a
defense that the subject land was already sold to them by the agent of the owner. The
Court rejected their defense and held that the contract of sale was void because the
agent did not have the written authority of the owner to sell the subject land.
Clearly, contracts may be declared void even in a summary action for unlawful detainer
because, precisely, void contracts do not produce legal effect and cannot be the source
of any rights. To emphasize, void contracts may not be invoked as a valid action or
defense in any court proceeding, including an ejectment suit. The next issue that must
be resolved by the Court is whether the assailed lease contract and MOA are null and
void.
Doctrine:
A void or inexistent contract may be defined as one which lacks, absolutely either in
fact or in law, one or some of the elements which are essential for its validity. It is one
which has no force and effect from the very beginning, as if it had never been entered
into; it produces no effect whatsoever either against or in favor of anyone.

Fullido vs. Grilli

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fullido vs. Grilli

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fullido vs. Grilli

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fullido vs. Grilli, 785 SCRA 278, G.R. No.

215014 February 29, 2016

May patently null and void contracts be a basis of an ejectment order?

You might also like