Salonga vs Farrales 105 SCRA 359, 369 (1981)

 

SALONGA plaintiff-appellant VS FARRALES, defendant-appellee 105 SCRA 359, 369 (1981)

 

FACTS:

 

The defendant Julia B. Farrales is the titled owner of a residential lot in Sta. Rita Olongapo City. Within the owned parcel of land by the defendant, the plaintiff, spouses Salonga are the lessees of the 156 sq. meters of land where the latter erected a house and is paying rentals to the defendant.

Sometimes before 1968, the Salonga failed to pay rental and that as a result, Farrales filed an ejectment case for non-payment of rentals against the Salonga. Salonga then offered that they will just buy their occupied parcel of land instead of vacating the land and the house of strong materials, however, despite the insistence, farrales refused to accept the offer, thus there is no contract of sale or sell in the aforesaid land was realized.

Salonga then, after a strict refusal from the Farrales to sell her land, filed for petition for relief. The case was heard and elevated until the CA, praying for ordering Farrales to sell her parcel of land where the house of the Salonga was erected and that the plaintiff invoke their right to be subjected under Section 6, (9) Article II of the new constitution, referring to the application of social justice which they contended that it delimits and regulated property rights and private gains.

 

 

ISSUE:

 

Was the contention of the Salonga correct such that by invoking for the promotion of social justice, provided in article 6 (9) Article II of the constitution, they could gain their contention for relief and force the Farrales to sell her land?

 

 

RULING:

 

No, the contention of social justice cannot be invoked by the plaintiff just to gain relief and force the defendant to sell her land where the plaintiff's house was erected.

Social Justice is said to be for promotion of economic development and proper equilibrium between the relationship of all units of the society. However Social Justice cannot be invoked to trample on the rights of property owners who under the constitution and laws are also entitled for protection. Social justice is not intended to take away rights from a person and give them to another who is not entitled thereto.

In the case at bar, the plaintiff cannot force the defendant to sell her title by invoking equity and justice rather, the plaintiff 's may remove the improvements should the lessor refuse to reimburse, by the lessee do not have the right to buy the land. The right of property of the defendant over her owned land cannot be simply override by invoking social justice, since the right of property is also protected by the state. Thus, judgment affirmed in favor of the defendant.