Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
FACTS:
Veridiano
instituted
a
complaint for forcible entry against Ben
Babol before the City Court of Olongapo
City (Civil Case No. 926). In that case,
petitioner alleged that Ben Babol without
express consent of plaintiff and without
lawful authority, through scheme, strategy
and stealth, forcibly entered a portion on
the southwestern part of Lot No. 1641, Ts308, with the assistance of hired helpers,
started construction of riprap along the
Kalaklan River perimeter of said portion of
land; said entry was further augmented by
removing plaintiff's chain link, fence with
galvanized iron posts embedded in
concrete,
likewise
destroying
plants
introduced by plaintiff by removing
existing BL (Bureau of Lands) monuments
thereon, and by these actions, defendant
started exercising illegal possession of
said portion of land which contains an area
of 200 sq.m., more or less. City Court of
Olongapo City dismissed the case for
forcible entry because the area in
question to be outside Lot 1641 of the
plaintiff." CFI dismissed the appeal and
affirmed the findings of the City Court.
Facts:
The case involves a parcel of land
originally owned by Adriano Soriano but
passed the property on to his heirs who
leased the property to Sps. David de Vera
and Consuelo Villasista for a period of 15
yrs with Roman Soriano, one of the heirs,
acting as caretaker of the property during
the period of the lease. After an
extrajudicial settlement, the lot was
divided into 2. Lot No. 60052 was assigned
to Lourdes, Candido and the heirs of
Dionisia while Lot No. 8459 was assigned
to Francisca, Librada, Elocadio and Roman.
Lot No. 60052 was sold by Lourdes,
Candido and the heirs of Dionisia to
petitioner spouses Braulio and Aquilina
Abalos
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
petitioners), while, Elocadio, Francisca and
Librada sold their three-fourths shares in
Lot No. 8459 also to petitioners.
The de Vera spouses ousted Roman
Soriano as caretaker and appointed Isidro
& Vidal Versoza as his subs. Roma filed for
reinstatement.
The
agrarian
court
authorized the ejectment of Roman but on
appeal, the decision was reversed by the
CA which became final and executory.
Prior to execution, the parties entered into
a post-decisional agreement whereby the
de Vera sps allowed Roman to sublease
the property until the termination.
Agreement was approved by agrarian
court.
Petitioners filed an application for
registration of title over Lot No. 60052 and
Issue:
Whether Garcias possession
concept of an owner
is
in
Ruling:
No. Garcias possession which started only
in after the issuance of the writ of
possession in favor o PBCom could not
ripen into ownership. He has no valid title
thereto. His possession in fact was that of
an intruder, one done in bad faith (to
defeat PBCom's Writ of Possession). His
5. RODIL ENTERPRISES V. CA
[G.R. No. 129609. November 29, 2001]
RODIL ENTERPRISES, INC., petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, CARMEN BONDOC,
TERESITA
BONDOC-ESTO,
DIVISORIA
FOOTWEAR and CHUA HUAY SOON,
respondents.
[G.R. No. 135537. November 29, 2001]
7. CUSTODIO vs CA
SPOUSES
CRISTINO
and
BRIGIDA
CUSTODIO and SPOUSES LITO and MARIA
CRISTINA SANTOS, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF PACIFICO C.
MABASA and REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
PASIG, METRO MANILA, BRANCH 181,
respondents.
REGALADO, J.:
Facts:
the original plaintiff Pacifico Mabasa died
during the pendency of this case and was
substituted by Ofelia Mabasa, his surviving
spouse [and children].
ISSUE:
1. whether or not the grant of right of way
to the heirs is proper
2. whether or not the award of damages is
in order
HELD:
1. No. heirs are already barred from
raising the same. they did not appeal from
the decision of the court a quo granting
private respondents the right of way,
hence they are presumed to be satisfied
with the adjudication therein. With the
finality of the judgment of the trial court
as to heirs, the issue of propriety of the
grant of right of way has already been laid
to rest.
For failure to appeal the decision of the
trial court to the Court of Appeals, heirs
cannot obtain any affirmative relief other
than those granted in the decision of the
trial court. That decision of the court
below has become final as against them
and can no longer be reviewed, much less
reversed, by this Court. The rule in this
jurisdiction is that whenever an appeal is
taken in a civil case, an appellee who has
not himself appealed may not obtain from
the appellate court any affirmative relief
other than what was granted in the
decision of the lower court. The appellee
can only advance any argument that he
may deem necessary to defeat the
appellants claim or to uphold the decision
that is being disputed, and he can assign
errors in his brief if such is required to
strengthen the views expressed by the
court a quo. These assigned errors, in turn,
may be considered by the appellate court
solely to maintain the appealed decision
on other grounds, but not for the purpose
of reversing or modifying the judgment in
vs.
FELIX
PUNO, J.:
Petitioner Abejaron filed this petition for
review on certiorari to annul the
respondent
court's
Decision
and
Resolution reversing the trial court's
decision and declaring respondent Nabasa
the owner of the subject lot.
Facts: Petitioner Abejaron avers that he is
the actual and lawful possessor and
claimant of a 118-square meter portion of
a 175-square meter residential lot in
Silway, General Santos City described as
Block 5, Lot 1. In 1945, petitioner Abejaron
and his family started occupying the 118square meter land. At that time, the land
had not yet been surveyed. They fenced
the area and built thereon a family home
with nipa roofing and a small store. In
1949, petitioner improved their abode to
become a two-storey house .This house,
which stands to this day, occupies a
portion of Lot 1, Block 5 and a portion of
the adjoining Lot 2. Lot 2 belongs to
petitioners daughter, Conchita AbejaronAbellon. In 1950, the small store was
destroyed and in its stead, petitioner
Abejaron built another store which stands
up to the present. In 1951, he planted five
coconut trees on the property in
controversy.
Petitioner's wife, Matilde
Abejaron, harvested coconuts from these
trees. Petitioner Abejaron also planted
banana and avocado trees. He also put up
a pitcher pump. All this time that the
Abejarons introduced these improvements
on the land in controversy, respondent
Nabasa did not oppose or complain about
the improvements. Knowing that the
disputed land was public in character,
petitioner declared only his house, and not
the disputed land, for taxation purposes.
In 1955, respondent Nabasa resided on
the remaining 57-square meter portion of
Lot 1, Block 5.
Before 1974, employees of the Bureau of
Lands surveyed the area in controversy.
Abejaron merely watched them do the
survey and did not thereafter apply for
title of the land on the belief that he could
not secure title over it as it was
government property.
Without his
knowledge and consent, however, Nabasa
"clandestinely, willfully, fraudulently, and
unlawfully applied for and caused the
titling in his name" of the entire Lot 1,
Block 5, including petitioner Abejaron's
118-square meter portion. Petitioner
imputes bad faith and fraud on the part of
Nabasa because in applying for and
causing the titling in his name of Lot 1,
Nabasa represented himself to be the
actual and lawful possessor of the entire
Lot 1, Block 5, including petitioner
Abejaron's 118-square meter portion
despite knowledge of Abejaron's actual
occupation and possession of said portion.
On September 24, 1974, Nabasa was
issued Original Certificate of Title pursuant
to Free Patent covering Lot 1, Block 5. As
the title included petitioner Abejarons
118-square meter portion of the lot, his
son, Alejandro Abejaron filed a protest
with the Bureau of Lands which was
dismissed for their failure to attend the
hearings.
On March 12, 1982, petitioner Abejaron
filed against respondent Nabasa an action
for reconveyance with damages seeking
reconveyance of his 118-square meter
portion of Lot 1, Block 5; which was ruled
in favor of him. Respondent Nabasa's
motion for reconsideration having been
denied, he appealed to the Court of
Appeals. On April 26, 1988, the Court of
Appeals rendered a decision in favor of
respondent Nabasa. Petitioner Abejaron
filed a motion for reconsideration of the
MANAGEMENT
&
vs.
HON.
COURT
OF
ERNESTO VILLEZA
APPEALS
and
APPEALS
and
FERNAN, C.J.:
FACTS:
Spouses Cynthia Cuyegkeng and Manuel
Rene Jose (Sps. Jose) were residents of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA who own
a 232, 942 square meters of land in Sitio
Inarawan, San Isidro, Antipolo, Rizal. They
executed a special power of attorney (SPA)
authorizing German Management Services
(GMS) to develop their property into a
residential subdivision. Consequently, GMS
obtained a Development Permit from the
Human
Settlements
Regulatory
Commission for said development. Finding
that part of the property was occupied by
Villeza and Gernale (private respondents)
and 20 other persons, GMS advised the
occupants to vacate the premises but the
latter
refused.
Nevertheless,
GMS
proceeded with the development of the
subject property which included the
portions occupied and cultivated by
private respondents. (Note: GMS acted
without a court order.)
Private respondents filed an action for
forcible entry against GMS before MTC
Antipolo, Rizal. They are mountainside
farmers of Sitio Inarawan, San Isidro,
Antipolo, Rizal and members of the
Concerned
Citizens
of
Farmer's
Association. Among others, they allege
that GMS deprived them of their property
without due process of law by: (1) forcibly
removing and destroying the barbed wire
fence enclosing their farmholdings without
notice; (2) bulldozing the rice, corn fruit
bearing trees and other crops of private
respondents by means of force, violence
and intimidation, in violation of P.D. 1038
and
(3)
trespassing,
coercing
and
threatening to harass, remove and eject
private respondents from their respective
farmholdings in violation of P.D. Nos. 316,
583, 815, and 1028.
MTC dismissed
private
respondents'
complaint for forcible entry. On appeal,
RTC sustained the dismissal. Private
respondents then filed a petition for
review with the CA which reversed the
decisions of the MTC and RTC. It held that
since private respondents were in actual
possession of the property at the time
they were forcibly ejected by GMS, private
respondents have a right to commence an
action for forcible entry regardless of the
legality or illegality of possession. GMS
filed an MR but it was denied. Hence, this
recourse.
ISSUE: Whether or not the doctrine of selfhelp is applicable in the instant case?
( Art. 429, CC)
HELD: NO, the doctrine of self-help is not
applicable in the instant case.
of
the
Philippines
vs.
rendered
in
the
7.
Petitioners appealed from that
order to the Intermediate Appellate Court.
Appellate Court promulgated a decision
affirming the questioned order of the trial
court.
8.
Petitioners contend that the trial
court and the Appellate Court erred in
dismissing Civil Case since it is predicated
on a quasi-delict.
ISSUE: whether a corporation, which has
built through its agents, waterpaths, water
conductors and contrivances within its
land, thereby causing inundation and
damage to an adjacent land, can be held
civilly liable for damages under Articles
2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on quasidelicts such that the resulting civil case
can proceed independently of the criminal
case.
HELD: YES.