Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

Article 524 – Possession may be exercised in one’s own name or in that of another SARDIA

CASE TITLE FACTS


118. PARTIES as registered owner of the property, refused to vacate the premises and
 Action for forcible entry and damages filed by Yu’s against surrender its possession to petitioners.
Ernesto Yu Pacleb  MTC: [respondent PACLEB ] and other persons claiming right under
and Elsie Yu  In Sept 1992, Ruperto Javier allegedly o²ered to sell Lot No. him are hereby ordered to surrender physical possession of Lot No.
(Pet) 6853-D to petitioners (ERNESTO V. YUand ELSIE O. YU) 6853-D in favor of the [petitioners] and to pay the sum of
For P75 per sq.m. The lot was approximately 18,000 square (P25,000.00) PESOS as attorney’s fees.
Vs. meters and was located in Barangay Langkaan, Dasmariñas,  RTC: affirmed the MTC decision in toto.
Cavite.  CA: The decision of the MTC are set aside and the case of forcible
Baltazar  Javier supposedly purchased the lot From one Rebecca del entry and damages is hereby ordered DISMISSED.
Pacleb (Res) Rosario who, in turn, acquired it From respondent
(BALTAZAR PACLEB) and his wife. ISSUE: W/N the appellate court erred in finding that respondent had
 The title of the property (TCT No. T-118375), however, prior physical possession of the subject property to justify a forcible
remained in the names of respondent and his wife. entry against respondent.
 The instruments in support of the series of alleged sales were
not registered. RULING: NO.
 On September 11, 1992, petitioners accepted the offer and gave  The petitioners were never placed in possession of the subject
Javier P200,000 as down payment for the lot. property on which was planned to be a site of a piggery, nor were
 Javier then delivered his supposed muniments/ documents of they given a clearance or certification from the Municipal Agrarian
title to petitioners. After the execution of a contract to sell, he Reform Officer.
formally turned over the property to petitioners.  The claim that the lot was turned over to petitioners in 1992 was self-
 At the time of the turn-over, a portion of the lot was occupied serving in the face of this factual finding. On the other hand, the tax
by Ramon C. Pacleb, respondent’s son and his wife as tenants. declarations and receipts in the name of respondent in 1994 and 1995
 On September 12, 1992, Ramon and his wife allegedly established the possession of respondent.19 The payment of real
surrendered possession of their portion to petitioners. Later on, estate tax is one of the most persuasive and positive indications
petitioners appointed Ramon as their trustee over the subject showing the will of a person to possess in concepto de dueño or with
lot. claim of ownership.
 Petitioners also caused the annotation on TCT No. T-118375 of  Possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to
a decision rendered in their favor in Civil Case No. 741-93. This have his feet on every square meter of the ground before he is
decision attained finality on April 19, 1995. deemed in possession."21 In this case, Ramon, as respondent’s son,
 Petitioners alleged that they exercised ownership rights as well was named caretaker when respondent left for the United States in
as enjoyed open, public and peaceful possession over the 1983.22 Due to the eventual loss of trust and confidence in Ramon,
property From September 12, 1992 until the early part of however, respondent transferred the administration of the land to his
September 1995. During this time, respondent was in the other son, Oscar, in January 1995 until his return in May 1995.23 In
United States. Upon respondent’s return to the Philippines in other words, the subject land was in the possession of the
May 1995, he allegedly entered the property by means of force, respondent’s sons during the contested period.
threat, intimidation, strategy and stealth thereby ousting WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The decision of the Court
petitioners and their trustee, Ramon. of Appeals dated March 18, 1997 in CA-G.R. SP No. 42604 is
 Despite repeated demands, respondent, asserting his rights AFFIRMED.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi