CAISIP v PEOPLE

Category: Property, Ownership and Its Modifications

CAISIP v PEOPLE

FACTS:

Spouses Gloria Cabalag and Marcelino Guevarra are people who cultivated a parcel of land known as Lot 105-A of Hacienda Palico situated in sitio Bote-bote, barrio Tampisao, Nasugbu, Batangas. The overseer of the hacienda is petitioner Felix Casipi and the owner of the same is Roxas y Cia. The latter acquired a court ruling against the spouses Gloria and Marcelino for forcible entry which orders them to vacate the premises within 20 days. The order was carried out June 6, 1959 (so they had until June 26 to vacate it.) On June 17, Gloria was seen by Felix Caisip harvesting their crops in Lot 105-A. The Latter bade her to stop what she was doing and to leave the premises. When Gloria refused, Caisip called for Sgt. Rjales and Cpl. Villadelrey to help him shoo her away. Gloria stuck to her attitude and still refused to stop and leave so the two police officers, by means of force, stopped her and dragged her away (they also tried to threaten her by drawing their guns :). As a result, the clothes of Gloria got torn. One of Gloria’s neighbours caught sight of the event and asked the officers to release her. Gloria was later turned over to the police on duty for interrogation.

A case filed against the petitioners, Caisip and the officers, for Grave Coercion (Petitioners also filed grave coercion and unjust vexation against Gloria after 8 days maybe just to get back at her- just in case sir asks.) One of their defenses was ART. 429 (including the doctrine of self help.) The petitioners were found guilty by the lower court thus this appeal.

ISSUE:

1) Whether or not Art. 429 can be used as a defense? [More relevant issue to property:]
2) Whether or not the petitioners liable for Grave Coercion? [Main Issue-this case is really a criminal case]

RULING:

1. NO, Art 429 cannot be used as a defense of the petitioner to justify their action.
The order to vacate was until June 26 (or 20 days from the execution of the decision.) On June 17, the spouses REMAINED in possession of the said lot. At the very least the owner of the hacienda is just a co-possessor of the land, thus the spouses still had rights over it.

Although the spouses were ordered to vacate the land, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t have rights to the land (they still have right to necessary expenses they used to till the land)
What petitioner did was not ―repel or prevent in actual or threatened x x x physical invasion or usurpation.‖ They EXPELLED Gloria from a property which they were still in possession of. (more detailed enumeration of reason in page 23)

2. YES, they are guilty! Caisip is guilty of grave coercion as a co-conspirator, apart from being a principal by induction
> By trying to stop her the first time showed that he intended to stop her
> By calling the police and not stopping them when they were already dragging Gloria and threatening her by drawing their guns.

Aggravating circumstances: abuse of superior strength and disregard of sex were appreciated in the case of Caisip and an additional aggravating: taking advantage of position as a members of the local police force were appreciated on the two police officers’ case