Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > January 1906 Decisions > G.R. No. 2587 January 8, 1906 - CARMELO FLOR BAGO v. DOMINGA GARCIA

005 Phil 524:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 2587. January 8, 1906. ]

CARMELO FLOR BAGO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DOMINGA GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

Isabelo Artacho, for Appellant.

W.H. Kitchens, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. REALTY; ACTION; FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER. — One who claims the right of possession to real property and who finds another in actual possession of the same, has no right by force and violence personally to eject the latter, but must resort for his remedy to the court. A decision of the courts granting the right of possession to real property under section 80 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions, if the action is brought within one year, does not prevent the parties from subsequently bringing an action for the purpose of setting the title to said lands.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


This is an action by the plaintiff to recover of the defendant a certain parcel of land composed of 4 hectares, more or less, in the barrio of Matik- Matik, in the pueblo of Santa Barbara, in the Province of Pangasinan. The action was first brought in the court of the justice of the peace of said pueblo. The justice of the peace decided that the plaintiff had a right to the possession of said parcel of land. The defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance of said province; the Court of First Instance decided also that the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the land. The defendant appealed to this court. The action was brought under the provisions of section 80 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions and was brought within the period of one year from the time the plaintiff alleges that he was dispossessed of said property. There is some confusion in the testimony adduced during the trial of said cause in the Court of First Instance with reference to the identity of the parcel of land in question. The plaintiff claims that he had been dispossessed and forced out of the possession of said land by the defendant and that he, the plaintiff, was the owners of said land and had been in quiet and peaceable possession of the same for several years.

The evidence on the part of the defendant shows that she, the defendant, had brought her son, dispossessed the plaintiff of a certain tract of land, claiming that she was the owner of said land and had been in possession of it for many years theretofore.

Admitting that the plaintiff and defendant each in their respective allegations and proof have reference to the same land, there is a preponderance of evidence that the defendant did dispossess the plaintiff of said land, by force, in the manner alleged by the plaintiff. The judgment of the inferior court is therefore affirmed with costs to the defendant.

Of course this decision does not affect the right of the defendant to institute an action for the purpose of establishing her title to said land and for the purpose of recovering possession of the same. If as is claimed by defendant, the plaintiff was found in possession of said land to recover possession of the same, instead of forcibly ejecting the said plaintiff from such possession. It was her duty to resort to the courts for the purpose of obtaining peacefully her rights to said land. Under the conditions disclosed by the proof in said cause, the defendant was not justified in taking the law into her own hands and forcibly ejecting the plaintiff, and after the expiration of twenty days judgment shall be entered in accordance herewith and the case remanded to the court below for execution. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Carson and Willard, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1906 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 2070 January 2, 1906 - W.H. TIPTON v. RAMON A. MARTINEZ

    005 Phil 477

  • G.R. No. 2227 January 2, 1906 - MAXIMINO ESPIRITU v. JOSE LUIS

    005 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 3021 January 2, 1906 - LEONISA YTURRALDE, ET AL. v. ALBINO SANTOS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 2030 January 4, 1906 - ALFRED DAVID OEHLERS v. ROBERT HARTWIG

    005 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. 2050 January 4, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ROHILLA MARU

    005 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 2236 January 4, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. NETA SHIYOKISHI

    005 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. 2397 January 4, 1906 - LO SUI v. HARDEE WYATT

    005 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 2555 January 4, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES SALAZAR

    005 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 2567 January 4, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. GERMAN DE TORRES, ET AL.

    005 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 1449 January 5, 1906 - VICENTE GOMEZ GARCIA, ET AL. v. JACINTA HIPOLITO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 2021 January 5, 1906 - ANICETO LORENZO v. JOSE NAVARRO

    005 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. 2151 January 6, 1906 - SALVADOR BROCAL v. JUAN VICTOR MOLINA

    005 Phil 507

  • G.R. No. 2178 January 6, 1906 - SONS OF ISIDRO DE LA RAMA v. TEODORO BENEDICTO

    005 Phil 512

  • G.R. No. 1973 January 8, 1906 - TAN DIANGSENG TAN SUI PIC v. LUCIO ECHAUZ TAN SUICO

    005 Phil 516

  • G.R. No. 2542 January 8, 1906 - MARGARITA TORIBIO, ET AL. v. MODESTA TORIBIO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. 2587 January 8, 1906 - CARMELO FLOR BAGO v. DOMINGA GARCIA

    005 Phil 524

  • G.R. No. 1993 January 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM GEORGE HOLLIS

    005 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 1994 January 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM GEORGE HOLLIS

    005 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 2038 January 13, 1906 - A.M. ESSABHOY v. SMITH, BELL & CO.

    005 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 2235 January 15, 1906 - THOMAS PEPPERELL v. B.F. TAYLOR

    005 Phil 536

  • G.R. No. 2244 January 18, 1906 - LEONCIO PANAGUITON v. JAMES J. WATKINS

    005 Phil 539

  • G.R. No. 1641 January 19, 1906 - GERMAN JABONETA v. RICARDO GUSTILO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 2253 January 19, 1906 - MARIANO GARCIA MARTINEZ v. CORDOBA & CONDE

    005 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. 2260 January 19, 1906 - PAULA ROCO v. ESTEFANIA R. VILLAR

    005 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 2345 January 19, 1906 - ROBERT M. LOPER v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY

    005 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 2586 January 19, 1906 - TOMAS GUISON v. MARIA CONCEPCION

    005 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 2580 January 20, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO SEVILLA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. 1810 January 22, 1906 - J.W. MARKER v. EULOGIO GARCIA

    005 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. 2239 January 22, 1906 - WILLIAM GITT v. MOORE & HIXSON

    005 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 2300 January 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO MALLARI

    005 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. 2606 January 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO DE LOS SANTOS

    005 Phil 565

  • G.R. No. 2426 January 24, 1906 - FERNANDO MONTANO LOPEZ v. PEDRO MARTINEZ ILUSTRE

    005 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 2597 January 24, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN GLEFONEA

    005 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. 2285 January 25, 1906 - FREDERICK GARFIELD WAITE v. WILLIAMS, CHANDLER & CO.

    005 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. 2295 January 31, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO CRUZ

    005 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. 2323 January 31, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. NATIVIDAD PAREJA

    005 Phil 576

  • G.R. No. 2387 January 31, 1906 - OLIVER & TRILL v. W.E. SHERMAN

    005 Phil 577