G.R. No. 109595.

April 27, 2000

CHUA-BURCE VS. CA
FACTS
A bank cash custodian was found guilty by the
trial court in the criminal case charging her of the
crime of estafa and was also adjudged liable for
the amount of P150,000 in a civil case. Petitioner
seasonably appealed her conviction in the
criminal case to the Court of Appeals and filed a
separate appeal in the civil case. The CA affirmed
the trial court’s decision in toto, hence, the
present petition. Petitioner questions the validity
of trial procedures in the criminal proceeding and
insists that there can be no presumption of
misappropriation when there were other persons
who had access to the cash in vault.
ISSUE

Whether all the elements of estafa were

proven beyond reasonable doubt.
HELD
Among these, the Court finds the first element absent. It requires that the
offender acquires both material or physical possession and juridical
possession of the thing received.Juridical possession means a possession which
gives the transferee a right over the thing which the transferee may set up even
against the owner, which is absent in this case. The petitioner was not an agent
of the bank but a cash custodian who was primarily responsible for the cash-in-
vault. Her possession of the cash belonging to the bank is akin to that of a bank
teller, both being mere bank employees. They are mere custodian or keeper of
the funds received, and has no independent right or title to retain or possess the
same as against the bank. In comparison, an agent can assert, as against his own
principal, an independent, autonomous, right to retain money or goods received
in consequence of the agency; as when the principal fails to reimburse him for
advances he has made, and indemnify him for damages suffered without his
fault.

In other words, petitioner being a mere cash custodian had no juridical

possession over the missing funds.Hence, the element of juridical possession
being absent, petitioner cannot be convicted of the crime of estafa.
G.R. NO. 204626, JUNE 9, 2014

GABRIEL VS CRISOLOGO
FACTS
Carmelita Crisologo alleged that she was the registered
owner of two parcels of land (TCT) Nos. T-13935 and T-
13936 properties were covered by an assessment of real
property and payments of realty taxes were updated. She
discovered that petitioners unlawfully entered and
occupied her properties by stealth, force and without her
prior consent and knowledge and constructed houses on
the said lots. Upon the discovery, Atty Carmelita
Crisologo(daughter of Carmeling Crisologo) demanded that
petitioners vacate the premises and remove their structures
thereon. Petitioners promised to be the said properties but
failed to do so.Petitioners refused to vacate the said
properties despite repeated demands made by Crisologo.
Crisologo filed a complaint for recovery of possession
and/or ownership with damages against petitioners.
ISSUE

Whether the petitioners have a better right of

possession over the subject parcels of land.
HELD

Crisologo has a better right of possession over

the subject parcels of land.

The nature and purpose of Accion Publiciana:

This is also known asAccion Plenaria de Posesion. It is

an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better
right of possession of realty independently of title.
It refers to an ejectment suit filed after the expiration
of one & year from the accrual of the cause of action or
from the unlawful withholding of possession of the
realty.The objective of the plaintiffs inaccion
publicianais to recoverpossession only,not ownership.
September 29, 2014 G.R. No. 193426

SUBIC BAY LEGEND RESORTS

AND CASINOS INC. VS.
FERNANDEZ
FACTS
On July 1, 1997, Bernard Fernandez, a brother of
Ludwig and Deoven, filed a complaint for recovery of
sum of money and damages against the company.
According to him, he went to the casino on June 13,
1997; he handed to his brothers $6,000.00 worth of
chips belonging to him, for use at the casino.
Thereat, the company personnel accosted his
brothers and confiscated his casino chips worth
$5,900.00, and failed to return the same to him
despite demand. Brothers Deoven and Ludwig
Fernandez was accused of stealing casino chips from
Subic Bay Legend Resorts and Casinos Inc. They
were made to confess that the chips were supplied
by a casino employee, Michael Cabrera.
ISSUE

Whether or not Bernard is the lawful

possessor of the casino chips entitling him to
collect from the casino and award of
damages.
HELD

There is no basis to suppose that the casino chips

found in Ludwin and Deoven’s possession were
stolen; petitioner acted arbitrarily in confiscating
the same without basis. If it cannot be proved, in
the first place, that Cabrera stole the chips, then
there is no more reason to suppose that Ludwin
and Deoven were dealing in or possessed stolen
goods; unless the independent fact that Cabrera
stole the chips can be proved, it cannot be said
that they must be confiscated when found to be
in Ludwin and Deoven’s possession.
Though casino chips do not constitute legal
tender, there is no law which prohibits their use
or trade outside of the casino which issues them.
Since casino chips are considered to have been
exchanged with their corresponding
representative value – it is with more reason that
the Court should require the casino to prove
convincingly and persuasively that the chips it
confiscated from Ludwin and Deoven were
indeed stolen from it. If Subic Bay Legend cannot
prove its loss, then Article 599 cannot apply; that
the presumptions that the chips were exchanged
for value remains.
Nov. 24, 2014, GR No. 161589

PENTA PACIFIC REALTY CORP.

VS LEY CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT CORP
FACTS

Penta Pacific leased its properties to Ley

Construction. Both parties then entered into
a contract to sell. Ley Construction failed to
pay its amortizations prompting Penta Pacific
to file an action for ejectment. The CA
affirmed the ruling of the RTC that the MeTC
had no jurisdiction over the case.
ISSUE

Whether the complaint was for unlawful

detainer, or accion publiciana, or accion
reivindicatoria.
HELD

The SC ruled that a defendant’s claim of

possession de jure or his averment of ownership
does not render the ejectment suit either accion
publiciana or accion reivindicatoria. The suit
remains accion interdictal, a summary
proceeding that can proceed independently of
any claim of ownership. Even when the question
of possession cannot be resolved without
deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of
ownership is to be resolved only to determine
the issue of possession.