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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 107 views

    Chua-Burce vs. Ca: G.R. No. 109595. April 27, 2000

    Uploaded by

    ALain Rascid G. Harun
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner cash custodian could not be convicted of estafa because she did not have juridical possession over the missing funds. Juridical possession requires that the offender has both physical and legal possession and a right to retain the property even against the owner. As a mere employee, the petitioner did not have an independent right to retain the funds against the bank. The element of juridical possession, which is necessary for an estafa conviction, was therefore absent.

    Copyright:

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

    Chua-Burce vs. Ca: G.R. No. 109595. April 27, 2000

    Uploaded by

    ALain Rascid G. Harun
    107 views17 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner cash custodian could not be convicted of estafa because she did not have juridical possession over the missing funds. Juridical possession requires that the offender has both physical and legal possession and a right to retain the property even against the owner. As a mere employee, the petitioner did not have an independent right to retain the funds against the bank. The element of juridical possession, which is necessary for an estafa conviction, was therefore absent.

    Original Description:

    Property Cases

    Original Title

    Property

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner cash custodian could not be convicted of estafa because she did not have juridical possession over the missing funds. Juridical possession requires that the offender has both physical and legal possession and a right to retain the property even against the owner. As a mere employee, the petitioner did not have an independent right to retain the funds against the bank. The element of juridical possession, which is necessary for an estafa conviction, was therefore absent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    107 views17 pages

    Chua-Burce vs. Ca: G.R. No. 109595. April 27, 2000

    Uploaded by

    ALain Rascid G. Harun
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner cash custodian could not be convicted of estafa because she did not have juridical possession over the missing funds. Juridical possession requires that the offender has both physical and legal possession and a right to retain the property even against the owner. As a mere employee, the petitioner did not have an independent right to retain the funds against the bank. The element of juridical possession, which is necessary for an estafa conviction, was therefore absent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 17

    G.R. No. 109595.

    April 27, 2000

    CHUA-BURCE VS. CA
    FACTS
    A bank cash custodian was found guilty by the
    trial court in the criminal case charging her of the
    crime of estafa and was also adjudged liable for
    the amount of P150,000 in a civil case. Petitioner
    seasonably appealed her conviction in the
    criminal case to the Court of Appeals and filed a
    separate appeal in the civil case. The CA affirmed
    the trial court’s decision in toto, hence, the
    present petition. Petitioner questions the validity
    of trial procedures in the criminal proceeding and
    insists that there can be no presumption of
    misappropriation when there were other persons
    who had access to the cash in vault.
    ISSUE

    Whether all the elements of estafa were


    proven beyond reasonable doubt.
    HELD
    Among these, the Court finds the first element absent. It requires that the
    offender acquires both material or physical possession and juridical
    possession of the thing received.Juridical possession means a possession which
    gives the transferee a right over the thing which the transferee may set up even
    against the owner, which is absent in this case. The petitioner was not an agent
    of the bank but a cash custodian who was primarily responsible for the cash-in-
    vault. Her possession of the cash belonging to the bank is akin to that of a bank
    teller, both being mere bank employees. They are mere custodian or keeper of
    the funds received, and has no independent right or title to retain or possess the
    same as against the bank. In comparison, an agent can assert, as against his own
    principal, an independent, autonomous, right to retain money or goods received
    in consequence of the agency; as when the principal fails to reimburse him for
    advances he has made, and indemnify him for damages suffered without his
    fault.

    In other words, petitioner being a mere cash custodian had no juridical


    possession over the missing funds.Hence, the element of juridical possession
    being absent, petitioner cannot be convicted of the crime of estafa.
    G.R. NO. 204626, JUNE 9, 2014

    GABRIEL VS CRISOLOGO
    FACTS
    Carmelita Crisologo alleged that she was the registered
    owner of two parcels of land (TCT) Nos. T-13935 and T-
    13936 properties were covered by an assessment of real
    property and payments of realty taxes were updated. She
    discovered that petitioners unlawfully entered and
    occupied her properties by stealth, force and without her
    prior consent and knowledge and constructed houses on
    the said lots. Upon the discovery, Atty Carmelita
    Crisologo(daughter of Carmeling Crisologo) demanded that
    petitioners vacate the premises and remove their structures
    thereon. Petitioners promised to be the said properties but
    failed to do so.Petitioners refused to vacate the said
    properties despite repeated demands made by Crisologo.
    Crisologo filed a complaint for recovery of possession
    and/or ownership with damages against petitioners.
    ISSUE

    Whether the petitioners have a better right of


    possession over the subject parcels of land.
    HELD

    Crisologo has a better right of possession over


    the subject parcels of land.

    The nature and purpose of Accion Publiciana:

    This is also known asAccion Plenaria de Posesion. It is


    an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better
    right of possession of realty independently of title.
    It refers to an ejectment suit filed after the expiration
    of one & year from the accrual of the cause of action or
    from the unlawful withholding of possession of the
    realty.The objective of the plaintiffs inaccion
    publicianais to recoverpossession only,not ownership.
    September 29, 2014 G.R. No. 193426

    SUBIC BAY LEGEND RESORTS


    AND CASINOS INC. VS.
    FERNANDEZ
    FACTS
    On July 1, 1997, Bernard Fernandez, a brother of
    Ludwig and Deoven, filed a complaint for recovery of
    sum of money and damages against the company.
    According to him, he went to the casino on June 13,
    1997; he handed to his brothers $6,000.00 worth of
    chips belonging to him, for use at the casino.
    Thereat, the company personnel accosted his
    brothers and confiscated his casino chips worth
    $5,900.00, and failed to return the same to him
    despite demand. Brothers Deoven and Ludwig
    Fernandez was accused of stealing casino chips from
    Subic Bay Legend Resorts and Casinos Inc. They
    were made to confess that the chips were supplied
    by a casino employee, Michael Cabrera.
    ISSUE

    Whether or not Bernard is the lawful


    possessor of the casino chips entitling him to
    collect from the casino and award of
    damages.
    HELD

    There is no basis to suppose that the casino chips


    found in Ludwin and Deoven’s possession were
    stolen; petitioner acted arbitrarily in confiscating
    the same without basis. If it cannot be proved, in
    the first place, that Cabrera stole the chips, then
    there is no more reason to suppose that Ludwin
    and Deoven were dealing in or possessed stolen
    goods; unless the independent fact that Cabrera
    stole the chips can be proved, it cannot be said
    that they must be confiscated when found to be
    in Ludwin and Deoven’s possession.
    Though casino chips do not constitute legal
    tender, there is no law which prohibits their use
    or trade outside of the casino which issues them.
    Since casino chips are considered to have been
    exchanged with their corresponding
    representative value – it is with more reason that
    the Court should require the casino to prove
    convincingly and persuasively that the chips it
    confiscated from Ludwin and Deoven were
    indeed stolen from it. If Subic Bay Legend cannot
    prove its loss, then Article 599 cannot apply; that
    the presumptions that the chips were exchanged
    for value remains.
    Nov. 24, 2014, GR No. 161589

    PENTA PACIFIC REALTY CORP.


    VS LEY CONSTRUCTION AND
    DEVELOPMENT CORP
    FACTS

    Penta Pacific leased its properties to Ley


    Construction. Both parties then entered into
    a contract to sell. Ley Construction failed to
    pay its amortizations prompting Penta Pacific
    to file an action for ejectment. The CA
    affirmed the ruling of the RTC that the MeTC
    had no jurisdiction over the case.
    ISSUE

    Whether the complaint was for unlawful


    detainer, or accion publiciana, or accion
    reivindicatoria.
    HELD

    The SC ruled that a defendant’s claim of


    possession de jure or his averment of ownership
    does not render the ejectment suit either accion
    publiciana or accion reivindicatoria. The suit
    remains accion interdictal, a summary
    proceeding that can proceed independently of
    any claim of ownership. Even when the question
    of possession cannot be resolved without
    deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of
    ownership is to be resolved only to determine
    the issue of possession.

    You might also like