A+ A A-

SPOUSES LUIS CRUZ V. SPOUSES ALEJANDRO FERNANDO SR. DECEMBER 9, 2005

SPOUSES  LUIS  CRUZ  V.  SPOUSES  ALEJANDRO  FERNANDO SR.

DECEMBER 9, 2005

 

FACTS:

Spouses  Cruz  were  the  occupants  of  a  front  portion  of  a  property.    An accion publiciana was filed against them by spouses Fernando, alleging that they  are  the  rightful  owners  thereof  and  asking  that  the  Cruz  spouses vacate  the  land  and  pay  reasonable  rent  for  the  use  thereof.    The  RTC ruled in favor of the spouses Fernando.   
 

HELD:

The absence of any formal deed of conveyance is a strong indication that the parties didn’t intend immediate transfer of ownership.
 
Petitioners don’t have a superior right of ownership or possession to speak of.  Their occupation of the property was merely through the tolerance of the  owners.    Evidence  on  record  shows  that  petitioners  and  their predecessors  were  able  to  live  and  build  their  house  on  the  property through the permission and kindness of the previous owner.  They have no title or at the very least, a contract of lease over the property.  Based as it is  was  on  mere  tolerance,  petitioner’s  possession  could  neither  ripen  into ownership  nor  operate  to  bar  any  action  by  respondents  to  recover absolute possession thereof.  A person who occupies the land of another at the latter’s forebearance or permission without any contract between them is  necessarily  bound  by  an  implied  promise  that  he  will  vacate  upon demand.  

SPOUSES LUIS CRUZ V. SPOUSES ALEJANDRO FERNANDO SR. DECEMBER 9, 2005

SPOUSES  LUIS  CRUZ  V.  SPOUSES  ALEJANDRO  FERNANDO SR.

DECEMBER 9, 2005

 

FACTS:

Spouses  Cruz  were  the  occupants  of  a  front  portion  of  a  property.    An accion publiciana was filed against them by spouses Fernando, alleging that they  are  the  rightful  owners  thereof  and  asking  that  the  Cruz  spouses vacate  the  land  and  pay  reasonable  rent  for  the  use  thereof.    The  RTC ruled in favor of the spouses Fernando.   
 

HELD:

The absence of any formal deed of conveyance is a strong indication that the parties didn’t intend immediate transfer of ownership.
 
Petitioners don’t have a superior right of ownership or possession to speak of.  Their occupation of the property was merely through the tolerance of the  owners.    Evidence  on  record  shows  that  petitioners  and  their predecessors  were  able  to  live  and  build  their  house  on  the  property through the permission and kindness of the previous owner.  They have no title or at the very least, a contract of lease over the property.  Based as it is  was  on  mere  tolerance,  petitioner’s  possession  could  neither  ripen  into ownership  nor  operate  to  bar  any  action  by  respondents  to  recover absolute possession thereof.  A person who occupies the land of another at the latter’s forebearance or permission without any contract between them is  necessarily  bound  by  an  implied  promise  that  he  will  vacate  upon demand.  

BATASnatin The Firm

Lawyers in the Philippines

Latest @ Forums

Popular

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

SUGGESTED ANSWERS …

ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW ARRANGED BY TOPIC (1990 – 2006) Edited and Arranged by:Silliman University College of Law Batch 2005Updated by:DondeeD’ BAR-Retake 2007 From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHO...

Read more

Oral Defamation l S…

Kinds and Definition of Slander or Oral Defamation   Definition: Speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood   Two kinds of oral or verbal defamation: (1) Grave Slander (2) Simple Slander   A. Factor...

Read more

Article I – THE NAT…

Article I – THE NATIONAL TERRITORYThe national territory of the Philippines comprises:1) the Philippine archipelago;2) all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdictionPHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO – that body of water studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of...

Read more

Random

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

RAMOS V. DIRECTOR O…

RAMOS V. DIRECTOR OF LANDS39 PHIL 175FACTS:Ramos was a holder of a possession information title which he later conveyed to Romero. Romero applied for the registration of the land.HELD:The possession and cultivation of a portion of a tract of land und...

Read more

Bautista v. Capital…

Bautista v. Capital Insurance - Insurance Policy 1 CA Rep. 228 Facts: >  In 1952, a contract of insurance was entered by the parties, upon PIlar Bautista’s house. >  The policy described the building as “occupied as dwelling only”. >  There ...

Read more

VDA DE ALBAR v. CAR…

VDA DE ALBAR v. CARANDANG, 106 PHIL 855- UsufructThe reparation or indemnity given in exchange for the destruction of the building is the substitute for the building itself. The indemnity is the capital which belongs to the naked owner while the inte...

Read more

Featured

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

Right to Strike

SSSEA v. CA – right to strike – At present, in the absence of any legislation in government employees the right to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of such right, they are prohibited form striking by express prohi...

Read more

People vs. Tolentin…

G.R. No. 176385, February 26, 2008 FACTS: On 13 February 1998, three separate informations of Murder and two counts of Frustrated Murder were filed before the RTC against appellants, together with accused Jimmy Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad. The murd...

Read more

Perfection Of A Con…

In Oesmer, Jr., et al. v. Paraiso Dev. Corp., G.R. No. 157493, February 5, 2007, a contract to sell was entered into by the owners of a real property. They affixed their signatures but contested its validity later contending that their co-owner had n...

Read more


BATASnatin.com- The Best Philippine Law Library

Login

Sign in with Facebook