Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1915 > August 1915 Decisions > G.R. No. 8841 August 17, 1915 - PAULO DILINILA, ET AL v. MANUEL SABADO

031 Phil 306:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 8841. August 17, 1915. ]

PAULO DILINILA and ISABEL CULATON, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MANUEL SABADO, Defendant-Appellant.

Bernardo de la Peña for Appellant.

Abad Santos, Manglapus & Pinzon for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. EJECTMENT. — Held: Under the facts stated in the opinion, that the plaintiffs are the owners and entitled to recover the possession of the land described in the complaint.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


This was an action brought in the Court of First Instance of the Province of La Union, for the purpose of recovering the possession of a parcel of land, which is particularly described in paragraph 2 of the complaint, together with damages for its illegal detention.

After hearing the evidence, the lower court found that the plaintiffs were the owners of the land in question, and ordered the defendant to deliver the possession of the same to them. From that judgment the defendant appealed to this court.

The only question presented by the appellant is one of fact. From an examination of the record brought to this court, while there is some conflict in the evidence, we believe that the following facts are fully sustained:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. That in the year 1902 or 1903, the plaintiffs herein had some litigation in the courts of the Province of La Union relating to the parcel of land in question with Geronimo and Isidro Ballas; that that litigation resulted in favor of the plaintiffs herein.

2. That the defendant, Manuel Sabado, during the pendency of the litigation between the plaintiffs and Geronimo and Isidro Ballas, rendered the plaintiffs herein some assistance, the exact nature and extent of which does not appear of record.

3. That soon after the termination of the litigation between the plaintiffs herein and Geronimo and Isidro Ballas, in order to compensate Manuel Sabado for the services which he had rendered them, the plaintiffs turned over to him a portion of the land in question, in order that he might cultivate it and pay himself for his trouble out of the products of the land. By virtue of an agreement, the defendant was to retain possession of the land three or four years. Later the plaintiffs demanded the possession of the land of the defendant, but he refused to deliver the possession of it to them.

4. Later, or some time in the year 1907 or 1908, by mutual agreement, the plaintiffs declared the land in question for taxation, and have been paying the taxes upon the same since the year 1910. It appears from the declaration of the parties, that soon after the land was delivered to the defendant, he declared the same for the purpose of taxation. In the year 1908, from the record it appears by an affidavit of both Paulo Dilinila and the defendant (see Exhibit C), that the land in question was resold by the defendant to the plaintiffs.

The defendant attempted to show that the land had been sold to him in the year 1902 by the plaintiffs in payment of a sum of money which he had loaned the plaintiffs. That fact was stoutly denied by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant had obtained the possession of the land in question, in order that he might pay himself out of the rents and profits, for the services which he had rendered the plaintiffs in the litigation with the said Ballas. Whatever the method was by which the defendant obtained possession of the land in question, we ,think the record clearly demonstrates that he either promised to return the same to the plaintiffs or resold it to the plaintiffs (see Exhibit C) and is no longer entitled to withhold the possession of the same from the plaintiffs.

From all of the foregoing, we think that a preponderance of the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause clearly shows that the plaintiffs are entitled to the possession of the, land in question, and that the judgment of the lower court should be and is hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson, Trent and Araullo, 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






August-1915 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10299 August 3, 1915 - UNITE STATES v. ONG YEC SO

    031 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 10397 August 3, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. GO SENG

    031 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 10562 August 3, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. LAMBERTO ANTONIO

    031 Phil 205

  • G.R. No. 9629 August 4, 1915 - DOMINGO DIAZ v. PANTALEON AZCUNE

    031 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 9651 August 4, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINADOR GOMEZ JESUS

    031 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. 10379 August 5, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS JAVIER, ET AL

    031 Phil 235

  • G.R. No. 10735 August 5, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO MENDAC

    031 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. 10255 August 6, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE POMPEYA

    031 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 10564 August 6, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS MACABABBAG, ET AL

    031 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. 9608 August 7, 1915 - DIEGO LIÑAN v. MARCOS P. PUNO ET AL.

    031 Phil 259

  • G.R. No. 9941 August 7, 1915 - VICENTE RODRIGUEZ v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    031 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. 10189 August 7, 1915 - PEDRO VILLA ABRILIE Y CALIVARA, ET AL. v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, ET AL

    031 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. 10433 August 7, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE R. GOROSPE

    031 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 10578 August 9, 1915 - MAURICIA SOTTO v. GEORGE R. HARVEY

    031 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. 10486 August 10, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE DEDULO

    031 Phil 298

  • G.R. No. 10492 August 12, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. YAO SIM

    031 Phil 301

  • G.R. No. 10481 August 14, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. CHENG CHUA

    031 Phil 302

  • G.R. No. 8841 August 17, 1915 - PAULO DILINILA, ET AL v. MANUEL SABADO

    031 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 10678 August 17, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL BAUTISTA

    031 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 10690 August 17, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. REGINO NORIEGA, ET AL

    031 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 10747 August 17, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS MACALINGAG

    031 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 10566 August 20, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. REGINO TORRES

    034 Phil 994

  • G.R. No. 9393 August 20, 1915 - FEDERICO LOPEZ, ET AL. v. YU SEFAO, ET AL

    031 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. 9527 August 23, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE TAMPARONG, ET AL.

    031 Phil 321

  • G.R. No. 10676 August 25, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE VILLARTA

    031 Phil 335

  • G.R. No. 6889 August 26, 1915 - JOAQUIN IBAÑEZ DE ALDECOA Y PALET ET AL. v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORP., ET AL

    031 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 9699 August 26, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    031 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. 10243 August 26, 1915 - RAMON HONTIVEROS v. JOSE ALTAVAS

    031 Phil 356

  • G.R. No. 10950 August 26, 1915 - GEORGE WHALEN v. B. ROSE, ET AL.

    031 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. 7922 August 27, 1915 - MUNICIPALITY OF LAOAG v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    031 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. 7954 August 27, 1915 - FELIPE DE LA SERNA v. MATEA LIBRADILLA

    031 Phil 362

  • G.R. No. 10692 August 28, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. VICTOR GALEZA

    031 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. 10856 August 28, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. EUGENIO KILAYKO

    031 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. 10736 August 31, 1916

    UNITED STATES v. JUAN SUBINGUBING

    031 Phil 376