
DEPRA v. DUMLAO
Category: Property, Ownership and Its Modifications
DEPRA v. DUMLAO
FACTS:
Dumlao is the owner of a parcel of land in Iloilo, while Depra owns the lot adjoining his. Dumlao built his house on his own land, but the kitchen encroached about 34 sq.m on Depra’s property. Upon finding this, Depra’s mom ordered Dumlao to move back from his encroachment, then subsequently filed an action for unlawful detainer against Dumlao.
The lower court found that Dumlao was a builder in good faith, and ordered him to pay rent (PhP5.00/month) – forced lease between the parties. Depra refused to accept the rentals so Dumlao deposited this with the MTC. Neither party appealed judgment so this became final and executory.
1 year later, though, Depra filed an complaint for Quieting of Title. Dumlao contested this, stating that the suit is barred by res judicata. But Depra averred that the lower court did not have jurisdiction to rule on encumbrances of real property – only the CFI has jurisdiction.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not res judicata would apply to the case at bar?
2. Whether or not the land owner can be compelled to accept rent payments by the court (with both LO and BPS being in good faith)?
HELD:
In the first issue, res judicata would not apply should the first case be one for ejectment and the other for quieting of title. Article 448 of the Civil Code provides that the land owner has 2 options – to buy the building or to sell/rent his land. This is so because the rights of the owner of the land is older, and by the principle of accession, he also has a right to the accessories.
The Court remanded the case to the RTC to determine the fair price of the land, the expenses incurred by the BPS (Dumlao), the increase in value of the land, and whether the value of the land is considerably more than the value of the kitchen built on it. The RTC shall then give Depra 15 days to exercise such option.
Related Philippine Law Resources:
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
Additional Law Reading:
DEPRA v. DUMLAO
Category: Property, Ownership and Its Modifications
DEPRA v. DUMLAO
FACTS:
Dumlao is the owner of a parcel of land in Iloilo, while Depra owns the lot adjoining his. Dumlao built his house on his own land, but the kitchen encroached about 34 sq.m on Depra’s property. Upon finding this, Depra’s mom ordered Dumlao to move back from his encroachment, then subsequently filed an action for unlawful detainer against Dumlao.
The lower court found that Dumlao was a builder in good faith, and ordered him to pay rent (PhP5.00/month) – forced lease between the parties. Depra refused to accept the rentals so Dumlao deposited this with the MTC. Neither party appealed judgment so this became final and executory.
1 year later, though, Depra filed an complaint for Quieting of Title. Dumlao contested this, stating that the suit is barred by res judicata. But Depra averred that the lower court did not have jurisdiction to rule on encumbrances of real property – only the CFI has jurisdiction.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not res judicata would apply to the case at bar?
2. Whether or not the land owner can be compelled to accept rent payments by the court (with both LO and BPS being in good faith)?
HELD:
In the first issue, res judicata would not apply should the first case be one for ejectment and the other for quieting of title. Article 448 of the Civil Code provides that the land owner has 2 options – to buy the building or to sell/rent his land. This is so because the rights of the owner of the land is older, and by the principle of accession, he also has a right to the accessories.
The Court remanded the case to the RTC to determine the fair price of the land, the expenses incurred by the BPS (Dumlao), the increase in value of the land, and whether the value of the land is considerably more than the value of the kitchen built on it. The RTC shall then give Depra 15 days to exercise such option.
Related Philippine Law Resources:
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
Additional Law Reading:
BATASnatin The Firm
Latest @ Forums
-
-
- Shema Corporation legal ba?
- In General Discussion
- 6 days, 5 hours ago
-
-
-
- foreclosed property, i need guides please help me
- In I Need A Lawyer!
- 2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
-
-
- i cant access even the demo
- In Law MCQuizzer
- 2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
Popular
- 1
- 2
- 3
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 moreOral 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 moreArticle 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 moreRandom
- 1
- 2
- 3
GERMAN MANAGEMENT …
GERMAN MANAGEMENT & SERVICES, INC. V COURT OF APPEALSFACTS:Spouses Jose are residents of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA are owners of the land situated in sitio Inarawan, San Isidro, Antipolo, Rizal (the land being disputed in the case at bar.) The ...
Read moreDOROMA VS. SANDIGAN…
G. R. No. 85468, September 07, 1989 DOROMA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, Ombudsman and Special ProsecutorFACTS: Quintin S. Doromal, a former Commissioner of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Pr...
Read moreFilipino Merchants …
Filipino Merchants v. CA- Insurable Interest 179 SCRA 638 Facts: > The Chao Tiek Seng a consignee of the shipment of fishmeal loaded on board the vessel SS Bougainville and unloaded at the Port of Manila on or about December 11, 1976 and seek...
Read moreFeatured
- 1
- 2
- 3
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 morePeople 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 morePerfection 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

