Case 1::: Nenita Quality Foods V Galabo, G.R. No

CASE 1: Metro Manila Transit Corpo v DM Consortium, Ejectment case will not necessarily be decided in
Inc., G.R. No. 147594. March 7, 2007 favor of one who presented proof of ownership of the
subject property. A requisite for a valid cause of action
1. DMCI availed of the MMTC program of lease-
is that possession was initially lawful. Carbonilla failed
purchase program to aid private bus operators
to prove this or the claimed tolerance. Mere silence or
in acquiring new bus units. DMCI bought 228
inaction is negligence, not tolerance¹³ Rollo, p. 91.
buses.
2. In the lease-purchase agreement (LPA), MMTC
will repossess the buses upon failure of DMCI to
CASE 3: Dayot v Shell Chemical Company, G.R. No.
pay 3 executive payments.
156542. June 26, 2007
3. MMTC repossessed the buses after claiming
that DMCI failed to pay 3 installments. DMCI 1. Dayot bought the subject land from Traders
contended the contrary saying that MMTC Royal Bank which, prior to the sale, has
accepted its partial payments without protest. executed a writ of possession over said land.
4. When MMTC took the steps to sell the 2. Original owner of the said land is Panay Railway
repossessed buses, DMCI filed a petition for and after it was foreclosed and bough by TRB, a
injunction which the RTC granted and the CA writ of possession was issued.
affirmed. 3. RTC issued a Notice to Vacate against Shell for
occupying one of the lands of PRI.
ISSUE: Can an owner be ordered to return a thing it
4. The CA reversed the decision. Shell was able to
repossessed?
present proof that it is not a successor-in-
RULNG: Yes. Under the law, jus possidendi is a interest of PRI and it claims ownership over the
necessary incident of ownership. However, the land by virtue of a Deed of Sale.
owner cannot exercise this right to the prejudice of
ISSUE: Who has better right of possession between
a party whose possession is predicated on a
Dayot and Shell?
contract like lease
RULING: Shell has better right of possession. The
Also, Art. 539 of the Civil Code provides that
registration of the lots under Dayot does not
every possessor has a right to be respected in his
automatically entitle the latter to possession thereof.
possession and, if deprived of such right, the law shall
Dayot must resort to the appropriate judicial process to
restore it to him
recover the property.
Art. 433 provides that actual possession raises

CASE 2: Carbonilla v Abiera, G.R. No. 177637. July 26, disputable presumption of ownership which the true
2010 owner may assail through a judicial process for
recovery.
1. Carbonilla filed a complaint for ejectment
against the Abieras and claimed ownership over In this case, Dayot only relied on the ex-parte
the land on which the house of the Abieras is petition for possessory writ as initiated by its
built on. The claim is supported by a torrens predecessor-in-interest. Shell, on the other hand, was
title. able to prove ownership over the land through a deed
2. Carbonilla is also claiming ownership over the of sale.
house by virtue of a Deed of Extrajudicial
A 3rd person in possession of an extra-judicially
Settlement and alleged that the Abieras are
foreclosed property cannot be dispossessed on the
only staying due to their tolerance.
strength of a mere ex-parte possessory writ which
3. The Abieras claimed that they own the house as
would be tantamount to summary ejectment.
inheritance and had been living therein since
1960. They provided building permit when they
remodeled the house.
4. RTC favored the complainant but CA reversed CASE 4: Nenita Quality Foods v Galabo, G.R. No.
the decision as regards the house due to lack of 174191. January 30, 2013
evidence to prove better right of possession. 1. The Galabos filed an action for forcible entry
ISSUE: Did the complainant properly prove ownership against Nenita Quality (NQFC) for dispossessing
over the house and the land? them of Lot. No. 102 through force.
2. The Galabos claim ownership over said land and
RULING: No when it comes to better possession of the had built a house on it and fenced the area.
house but yes to the ownership of the land as Policemen of Toril, Davao assisted NQFC
supported by a Torrens title. entering the area through force.
3. Santos, on the other hand, who sold the land to ISSUE: is the purchaser entitled to the ejectment of the
NQFC, claims ownership over the lot after the lessee whose refusal to vacate was tolerated by
parents of the Galabos executed a deed of sale the previous owner?
in the 1970s. thereafter, Santos acquired a free RULING: Yes. The lease contracts were deemed
patent over said land. terminated when the land owner demanded
4. MTCC and RTC dismissed the action which the return of possession of the lands after the fire.
When Tan Te made a last written demand for
CA reversed.
petitioner to vacate and the latter breached her
ISSUE: Did NQFC prove prior physical possession in promise to leave upon demand, she lost her right
order to be absolved from the action of forcible to the physical possession of the lot.
entry?
RULING. No. In a forcible entry case, one only has to NOTES:

prove prior material and physical possession of a GENERAL RULE: upon failure of lessee to pay or to
property in litigation and undue deprivation of it vacate upon expiration of contract, his legal
through force, intimidation, stealth, threat, or possession becomes illegal.
strategy. EXCEPT: possession by tolerance – lessor tolerated it
and allowed lessee to continue indefinitely
As a general rule, ownership carries the right of
possession, but this right is not the same REMEDIAL NOTES:
possession contemplated in a forcible entry case GEN RULE: findings of facts of the CA are final and
which only involves possession de facto, or actual conclusive, hence cannot be reviewed by the SC
possession. This is not about possession flowing under Rule 45, Sec. 1
out of ownership. EXCEPT: if the CA’s factual findings contradict those of
the RTC, and there was an asseveration that the
Hence, in a forcible entry case, a party who can prove court a quo went beyond the issues of the case.
prior possession can recover even against the
owner himself.
CASE 6: Suarez v Emboy, G.R. No. 187944. March 12,
NQFC could not have tacked its possession to that of its 2014
predecessors-in-interest. 1. Suarez claims ownership over a land based
on a sale with the heirs of Dionisia.
2. However, the same land has been occupied
RELEVANT RULES: by Emboy, heir of Dionisia’s brother,
Vicente.
GENERAL RULE: tacking of possession to that of the 3. The heirs of Dionisia are cousins of Emboy
predecessors-in-interest is allowed by law who had ordered the latter to transfer to
EXCEPT: possession de facto because tacking only another land.
applies to possession de jure for the purpose of 4. Suarez instituted an action for unlawful
completing the time required for acquisitive or detainer after Emboy refused to vacate.
extinctive prescription. 5. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of Emboy.
ISSUE: does the action of Suarez have merit?
GENERAL RULE: issue of ownership is immaterial in RULING: No. In an action for unlawful detainer, the
resolving an issue of possession complainant must prove, inter alia, how the
EXCEPT: if the issue of possession is closely intertwined defendant dispossessed him of the property and
with the issue of ownership how the initial legal possession of the defendant
became illegal or tolerated. None of these were
proved by Suarez.
CASE 5: dela Cruz v CA, G.R. No. 139442. December 6, Also, an old document found in an old chest in
2006 the ancestral house showed how Dionisia waived
1. Reyes owned a land on which dela Cruz built a his hereditary rights over the said land due to a loan
house as a lessee for over 40 years. After a fire which was paid off by his brother Vicente, the
destroyed the house, Reyes made a verbal predecessor-in-interest of Emboy.
demand to vacate with which Cruz did not
comply.
2. Reyes, who never made any judicial action to
eject the lessee, sold the land to Tan Te.
3. Tan Te files an action for ejectment after failed
conciliation and written demands.
4. MTC favored Tan Te which the RTC reversed. CA
reinstated MTC decision.

Case 1::: Nenita Quality Foods V Galabo, G.R. No

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1::: Nenita Quality Foods V Galabo, G.R. No

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1::: Nenita Quality Foods V Galabo, G.R. No

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE 1: Metro Manila Transit Corpo v DM Consortium, Ejectment case will not necessarily be decided in

Art. 433 provides that actual possession raises

RULING. No. In a forcible entry case, one only has to NOTES:

You might also like