Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 72 views

    39 Gabrito v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 77976, 24 November1988

    Uploaded by

    loschudent
    The spouses Tan filed a complaint against defendants Gabrito et al. for unlawful detainer, alleging the defendants were leasing and constructing buildings on land owned by the Tans in Olongapo City. Gabrito et al. claimed they were the lawful owners based on a decision from the Bureau of Lands. However, the Court ruled (1) the authority of the Lands Department over public lands does not deprive courts of jurisdiction over possessory actions, and (2) the exhaustion of administrative remedies principle applies to disputes over the disposition of public lands, not possessory actions determining actual possession. Therefore, the Tans' contention that the pending Bureau of Lands decision did not affect the possessory case was correct.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    39 Gabrito v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 77976, 24 November1988

    Uploaded by

    loschudent
    72 views2 pages
    The spouses Tan filed a complaint against defendants Gabrito et al. for unlawful detainer, alleging the defendants were leasing and constructing buildings on land owned by the Tans in Olongapo City. Gabrito et al. claimed they were the lawful owners based on a decision from the Bureau of Lands. However, the Court ruled (1) the authority of the Lands Department over public lands does not deprive courts of jurisdiction over possessory actions, and (2) the exhaustion of administrative remedies principle applies to disputes over the disposition of public lands, not possessory actions determining actual possession. Therefore, the Tans' contention that the pending Bureau of Lands decision did not affect the possessory case was correct.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The spouses Tan filed a complaint against defendants Gabrito et al. for unlawful detainer, alleging the defendants were leasing and constructing buildings on land owned by the Tans in Olongapo City. Gabrito et al. claimed they were the lawful owners based on a decision from the Bureau of Lands. However, the Court ruled (1) the authority of the Lands Department over public lands does not deprive courts of jurisdiction over possessory actions, and (2) the exhaustion of administrative remedies principle applies to disputes over the disposition of public lands, not possessory actions determining actual possession. Therefore, the Tans' contention that the pending Bureau of Lands decision did not affect the possessory case was correct.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    72 views2 pages

    39 Gabrito v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 77976, 24 November1988

    Uploaded by

    loschudent
    The spouses Tan filed a complaint against defendants Gabrito et al. for unlawful detainer, alleging the defendants were leasing and constructing buildings on land owned by the Tans in Olongapo City. Gabrito et al. claimed they were the lawful owners based on a decision from the Bureau of Lands. However, the Court ruled (1) the authority of the Lands Department over public lands does not deprive courts of jurisdiction over possessory actions, and (2) the exhaustion of administrative remedies principle applies to disputes over the disposition of public lands, not possessory actions determining actual possession. Therefore, the Tans' contention that the pending Bureau of Lands decision did not affect the possessory case was correct.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    GABRITO V. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 77976, 24 NOVEMBER1988.

    FACTS:

    The spouses Roberto Tan and Benita Ching-Tan filed a complaint against defendants
    Maximo Gabrito, et al., alleging that they are the possessors and legal owners of the
    property situated in Olongapo City. The defendants are leasing portions of this parcel of
    land, each paying the corresponding monthly rentals due thereon. On the leased portion,
    the defendants constructed buildings and have allowed other persons to sublease the same
    for commercial purposes. The spouses Tan wanted to construct a residential house on the
    subject property; and so, the spouses Tan notified the defendants and gave defendants
    three (3) months to vacate the premises and remove the structures and improvements
    which defendants had constructed thereon.

    Defendants requested for an extension of time within which to vacate, which was granted
    by the spouses Tan. However, from that time on, defendants also stopped paying monthly
    rentals due on the land they leased. Hence, the Tans filed an action for unlawful detainer
    with damages against Gabrito, et al.

    In answer to the complaint, Gabrito, et al. denied the material allegations of the complaint.
    In a later development, they filed a supplemental memorandum submitting the decision of
    the Bureau of Lands dated June 7, 1987. In view thereof, they maintain that they are the
    lawful owners of the buildings and the legal possessors of subject land and that the records
    of the court proceedings show the pendency of the administrative protest before the
    Bureau of Lands between the same litigating parties.

    Respondents countered that the decision of the Bureau of Lands granting preferential right
    to the petitioners (Gabito et. al.) to apply for the subject parcel of land is still on
    appeal before the Department of Natural Resources. Hence, said decision, which is not yet
    final, cannot affect the outcome of this case because the authority given to the land
    department over the disposition of public land does not exclude the courts from their
    jurisdiction over possessory actions, the character of the land notwithstanding.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not private respondents’ contention is correct.

    RULING:

    YES. The contention of private respondents is well taken.

    This issue has long been laid to rest by this Court. As early as the case of Pitarque v.
    Sorilla this Court ruled that:
    The vesting of the Lands Department with authority to administer, dispose of,
    and alienate public lands must not be understood as depriving the other
    branches of the Government of the exercise of their respective functions of
    powers thereon, such as the authority to stop disorders and quell breaches of
    peace by the police and the authority on the part of the courts to take
    jurisdiction over possessory actions arising therefrom not involving, directly or
    indirectly, alienation and disposition.

    On the other hand, the application of the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies
    as a condition precedent to the filing of a juridical action is confined to controversies
    arising out of the disposition of public lands, alienation of public lands or to the
    determination of the respective rights of rival claimants to public lands and not to
    possessory actions involving public lands which are limited to the determination of who
    has the actual, physical possession or occupation of the land in question.

    You might also like