Teodoro v Espino
G.R. No. 189248 February 5, 2014
TEODORO S. TEODORO (Deceased), Substituted by his heirs/sons NELSON TEODORO and ROLANDO TEODORO, Petitioners, vs. DANILO ESPINO, ROSARIO SANTIAGO, JULIANA CASTILLO, PAULINA LITAO, RAQUEL RODRIGUEZ, RUFINA DELA CRUZ, and LEONILA CRUZ, Respondents.
FACTS:
The case is for Forcible Entry filed by the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners heirs of Teodoro S. Teodoro (Teodoro Teodoro), against respondents a squabble for physical possession of a portion of a real property, the ownership of which is traceable to Genaro Teodoro (Genaro).
The subject property is a portion within Cadastral Lot No. 2476 with a total area of 248 square meters, covered by Tax Declaration No. 99-05003-0246, registered in the name of Genaro, long deceased ascendant of all the parties. The subject property pertains to the vacant lot where the old ancestral house of Genaro stood until its demolition in June 2004, at the instance of Teodoro Teodoro.
G.R. No. 189248 February 5, 2014
TEODORO S. TEODORO (Deceased), Substituted by his heirs/sons NELSON TEODORO and ROLANDO TEODORO, Petitioners, vs. DANILO ESPINO, ROSARIO SANTIAGO, JULIANA CASTILLO, PAULINA LITAO, RAQUEL RODRIGUEZ, RUFINA DELA CRUZ, and LEONILA CRUZ, Respondents.
FACTS:
The case is for Forcible Entry filed by the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners heirs of Teodoro S. Teodoro (Teodoro Teodoro), against respondents a squabble for physical possession of a portion of a real property, the ownership of which is traceable to Genaro Teodoro (Genaro).
The subject property is a portion within Cadastral Lot No. 2476 with a total area of 248 square meters, covered by Tax Declaration No. 99-05003-0246, registered in the name of Genaro, long deceased ascendant of all the parties. The subject property pertains to the vacant lot where the old ancestral house of Genaro stood until its demolition in June 2004, at the instance of Teodoro Teodoro.
Of all Genaro’s children, only Petra occupied the subject property, living at the ancestral house. Genaro’s other children,
specifically Santiago, Maria and Mariano were bequeathed, and stayed at, a different property within the same locality, still
from the estate of their father.
After Petra’s death, her purported will, a holographic will, was probated in Special Proceedings No. 1615-M before RTC, Branch 8, Malolos, Bulacan, which Decision on the will’s extrinsic validity has become final and executory. In the will, Petra, asserting ownership, devised the subject property to Teodoro Teodoro, her nephew. Teodoro Teodoro effected the demolition of the ancestral house, intending to use the subject property for other purposes.
Respondents, who resided at portions of Lot No. 2476 that surround the subject property on which the ancestral house previously stood, erected a fence on the surrounding portion, barricaded its frontage, and put up a sign thereat, effectively dispossessing Teodoro Teodoro of the property bequeathed to him by Petra.
After Teodoro Teodoro’s demand for respondents to vacate the subject property went unheeded, he filed the complaint for forcible entry against respondents.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) MTC: against Teodoro, dismissing the complaint and the counterclaim interposed in relation thereto, without pronouncement as to costs.
(2) RTC: ruled in favor of Teodoro, vacated & set aside the decision of the MTC.
(3) CA: against Teodoro, reversed & set aside the decision of the RTC, found that Teodoro Teodoro (substituted by his heirs Nelson and Rolando Teodoro at that juncture) "failed to discharge the burden of proof that he had prior actual physical possession of the subject [property] before it was barricaded by [respondents] to warrant the institution of the forcible entry suit."
ISSUE:
whether or not the act of respondents in barricading the frontage of the portion of Lot No. 2476 on which stood the ancestral house occupied by Petra amounted to Teodoro Teodoro’s unlawful dispossession thereof through the forcible entry of respondents.
RULING:
Yes, there was unlawful dispossession.
The ground rules in forcible entry cases (1) One employs force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth to deprive another of physical possession of real property.
The whole of Lot No. 2476 including the portion now litigated is, owing to the fact that it has remained registered in the name of Genaro who is the common ancestor of both parties herein, co-owned property. All, or both Teodoro Teodoro and respondents are entitled to exercise the right of possession as co-owners. Neither party can exclude the other from possession.
Although the property remains unpartitioned, the respondents in fact possess specific areas. Teodoro Teodoro can likewise point to a specific area, which is that which was possessed by Petra. Teodoro Teodoro cannot be dispossessed of such area, not only by virtue of Petra's bequeathal in his favor but also because of his own right of possession that comes from his co- ownership of the property. As the RTC concluded, petitioners, as heirs substituting Teodoro Teodoro in this suit, should be restored in the lawful possession of the disputed area.
OTHER NOTES:
1. Art. 484. There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons.
Art. 1078. When there are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the decedent is, before its partition, owned in common by such heirs, subject to the payment of debts of the deceased.
After Petra’s death, her purported will, a holographic will, was probated in Special Proceedings No. 1615-M before RTC, Branch 8, Malolos, Bulacan, which Decision on the will’s extrinsic validity has become final and executory. In the will, Petra, asserting ownership, devised the subject property to Teodoro Teodoro, her nephew. Teodoro Teodoro effected the demolition of the ancestral house, intending to use the subject property for other purposes.
Respondents, who resided at portions of Lot No. 2476 that surround the subject property on which the ancestral house previously stood, erected a fence on the surrounding portion, barricaded its frontage, and put up a sign thereat, effectively dispossessing Teodoro Teodoro of the property bequeathed to him by Petra.
After Teodoro Teodoro’s demand for respondents to vacate the subject property went unheeded, he filed the complaint for forcible entry against respondents.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) MTC: against Teodoro, dismissing the complaint and the counterclaim interposed in relation thereto, without pronouncement as to costs.
(2) RTC: ruled in favor of Teodoro, vacated & set aside the decision of the MTC.
(3) CA: against Teodoro, reversed & set aside the decision of the RTC, found that Teodoro Teodoro (substituted by his heirs Nelson and Rolando Teodoro at that juncture) "failed to discharge the burden of proof that he had prior actual physical possession of the subject [property] before it was barricaded by [respondents] to warrant the institution of the forcible entry suit."
ISSUE:
whether or not the act of respondents in barricading the frontage of the portion of Lot No. 2476 on which stood the ancestral house occupied by Petra amounted to Teodoro Teodoro’s unlawful dispossession thereof through the forcible entry of respondents.
RULING:
Yes, there was unlawful dispossession.
The ground rules in forcible entry cases (1) One employs force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth to deprive another of physical possession of real property.
The whole of Lot No. 2476 including the portion now litigated is, owing to the fact that it has remained registered in the name of Genaro who is the common ancestor of both parties herein, co-owned property. All, or both Teodoro Teodoro and respondents are entitled to exercise the right of possession as co-owners. Neither party can exclude the other from possession.
Although the property remains unpartitioned, the respondents in fact possess specific areas. Teodoro Teodoro can likewise point to a specific area, which is that which was possessed by Petra. Teodoro Teodoro cannot be dispossessed of such area, not only by virtue of Petra's bequeathal in his favor but also because of his own right of possession that comes from his co- ownership of the property. As the RTC concluded, petitioners, as heirs substituting Teodoro Teodoro in this suit, should be restored in the lawful possession of the disputed area.
OTHER NOTES:
1. Art. 484. There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons.
Art. 1078. When there are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the decedent is, before its partition, owned in common by such heirs, subject to the payment of debts of the deceased.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment