ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
April-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1749 April 2, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCAS GEMPES

    083 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. L-1441 April 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL N. MORENO

    083 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. L-2179 April 12, 1949 - MANILA TRADING petitioner v. MANILA TRADING LABORERS’ ASSN.

    083 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-979 April 13, 1949 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. FAR EASTERN SURETY

    083 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. L-2745 April 13, 1949 - FLAVIANO ROMERO v. POTENCIANO PECSON

    083 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. L-856 April 18, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SUSANO PEREZ

    083 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. L-493 April 19, 1949 - SANTIAGO BANAAG v. VICENTE SINGSON ENCARNACION

    083 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-1545 April 19, 1949 - E. R. CRUZ v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN.

    083 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. 48671 April 19, 1949 - EUSEBIO BELVIZ v. CATALINO BUENAVENTURA

    083 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. L-364 April 25, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO T. JAUCIAN

    083 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-1282 April 25, 1949 - JUAN S. BARROZO v. MARCELINO T. MACARAEG

    083 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-2525 April 26, 1949 - MARY BURKE DESBARATS v. TOMAS DE VERA

    083 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 48676 April 26, 1949 - LEON ORACION v. PACITA JUANILLO

    083 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. L-793 April 27, 1949 - FELISA R. PAEZ v. FRANCISCO MAGNO

    083 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. L-1259 April 27, 1949 - IN RE: CRISANTO DE BORJA v. JULIANA DE BORJA

    083 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. L-1370 April 27, 1949 - BERNARDA DE VASQUEZ v. ALFONSO DIVA

    083 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-1399 April 27, 1949 - IN RE: GONZALO T. DAVID v. CARLOS M. SISON

    083 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-1590 April 27, 1949 - RAYMUNDA SIVA v. FELIXBERTO IMPERIAL REYES

    083 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. L-1627 April 27, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MAMERTO RAMIREZ

    083 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-1976 April 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARULA

    083 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. L-2056 April 27, 1949 - SANTIAGO ALERIA v. JUAN MENDOZA

    083 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-2336 April 27, 1949 - ANGELINA CANAYNAY v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 429

  • CA. No. 2592-R April 27, 1949 - SATURNINA ZAPANTA v. VIRGILIO BARTOLOME

    083 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. L-2612 April 27, 1949 - RURAL PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION v. DOMINADOR TEMPOROSA

    083 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. L-855 April 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TROADIO BUTAWAN

    083 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. L-1275 April 28, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FULGENCIO BUSTILLOS.

    083 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-1661 April 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO CANTOS

    083 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. L-1672 April 28, 1949 - IN RE: ZENAIDA JIRO-MORI

    083 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. L-2028 April 28, 1949 - PHIL. SHEET METAL WORKERS’ UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    083 Phil 453

  • CA. No. 332 April 29, 1949 - CHINA INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY v. B. K. BERKENKOTTER

    083 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-1650 April 29, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO MACABUHAY

    083 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. L-2899 April 29, 1949 - NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO

    083 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. L-150 April 30, 1949 - VICENTE HILADO v. FELIX DE LA COSTA

    083 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. L-1234 April 30, 1949 - VICTORINO FLORO v. SANTIAGO H. GRANADA

    083 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. L-1383 April 30, 1949 - PAZ ESCARELLA DE RALLA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    083 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. L-1523 April 30, 1949 - BIÑAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ

    083 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. L-1783 April 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO CARPIO Y ESTACIO

    083 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. L-1916 April 30, 1949 - PABLO C. SIBULO v. LOPE ALTAR

    083 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. L-2009 April 30, 1949 - SUNRIPE COCONUT PRODUCTS CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    083 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2122 April 30, 1949 - FAUSTINO BUTER v. TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. L-46798 April 30, 1949 - PINDANGAN AGRICULTURAL CO., INC. v. ERNEST A. SCHENKEL Y OTRO

    083 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 49167 April 30, 1949 - CO TAO v. JOAQUIN CHAN CHICO

    083 Phil 543

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-2899   April 29, 1949 - NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO<br /><br />083 Phil 467

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-2899. April 29, 1949.]

    NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. JUDGE FRANCISCO GERONIMO and SAGRADA ORDEN DE PREDICADORES DEL SANTISIMO ROSARIO DE FILIPINAS, Respondents.

    Government Corporate Counsel Marcial P. Lichauco for the petitioner.

    Ramires and Ortigas for the respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. EJECTMENT; POSSESSION IN GOOD FAITH; ITS INTERRUPTION. — The property of the Sagrada Orden de Predicadores was sold during the occupation to a Japanese corporation, from which the Philippine Alien Property Custodian obtained the property in accordance with law. The property was transferred by the Philippine Alien Property Custodian to the petitioner in August 1946, In a judgment of the Court of First Instance, of which the corporation was notified in February 1949, said court declared null and void the sale by the Sagrada Orden to the Japanese Corporation. The Sagrada Orden filed with the Municipal Court in March 1949 a complaint for ejectment against the corporation. Has the Municipal Court jurisdiction to try the ejectment case, one year having elapsed from August 1946 to February 1949? Held: under Art. 451 of the Civil Code the fruits received by one in possession in good faith before the possession is legally interrupted, becomes his own (White v. Williams & Co., 5 Phil., 571), and the possession in good faith of the petitioner and its predecessor in interest, the Philippine Alien Property Custodian, was not interrupted upon the filing of the complaint against, and service of summons upon, the latter; because the Philippine Alien Property Custodian was not the purchaser of the property and, under the circumstances, was not supposed to be aware of any vice which may have attended the sale of the property by the Sagrada Orden de Predicadores to the Japanese corporation. The possession of the petitioner lost its character of possession in good faith from the rendition of the judgment against the Philippine Alien Property Custodian, and the latter or his successor in interest is liable from the time to pay the rents or fruits of the property until the possession of the property has been delivered to the adjudged owner thereof.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; DEMAND TO VACATE. — The possession of the property by the petitioner became illegal only from the time she was notified or required by the Sagrada Orden de Predicadores to return said possession to it and the former failed to do so, because before said notice or demand was made the possession of the petitioner was legal or consented to, without prejudice of the obligation of said petitioner to pay the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises from the time the latter’s possession ceased to be in good faith. From the notice to vacate the premises up to the filing of the complaint of illegal detainer against the petitioner by the respondent Sagrada Orden de Predicadores, one year had not elapsed and therefore the respondent Municipal Judge or Court has jurisdiction to try and decide the case.


    R E S O L U T I O N


    FERIA, J.:


    From the allegations in the complaint filed with the Municipal Court of the City of Manila (copy of which is attached to the petition) by the Sagrada Orden de Precicadores against the petitioner herein, it clearly appears, notwithstanding the plaintiff’s contention, that the possession of the property in question by the Philippine Alien Property Custodian and of the petitioner to whom said possession was transferred by the said Custodian in August 1946, was in good faith (Arts. 434, 435, 436 and 1950, Civil Code); and it only lost its character as such when the Court of First Instance rendered judgment in Civil Case No. 5007 declaring null and void the sale of the property by the respondent Sagrada Orden de Predicadores to a Japanese corporation, from which the Philippine Alien Property Custodian, predecessor in interest of the petitioner, obtained the said property in accordance with law.

    Under Art. 451 of the Civil Code the fruits received by ore in possession in good faith before the possession is legally interrupted, becomes his own (White v. Williams and Co., 5 Phil., 571), and the possession in good faith of the petitioner and its predecessor in interest, the Philippine Alien Property Custodian, was not interrupted upon the filing of the complaint against, and service of summons upon, the latter; because the Philippine Alien Property Custodian was not the purchaser of the property and, under the circumstances, was not supposed to be aware of any vice which may have attended the sale of the property by the Sagrada Orden de Predicadores to the Japanese corporation. The possession of the petitioner lost its character of possession in good faith from the rendition of the judgment against the Philippine Alien Property Custodian, and the latter or his successor in interest is liable from that time to pay the rents or fruits of the property until the possession of the property has been delivered to the adjudged owner thereof.

    The possession of the property by the petitioner became illegal only from the time she was notified or required by the Sagrada Orden de Predicadores to return said possession to it and the former failed to do so, because before said notice or demand was made the possession of the petitioner was legal or consented to, without prejudice to the obligation of said petitioner to pay the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises from the time the latter’s possession ceased to be in good faith. From the notice to vacate the premises up to the filing of the complaint of illegal detainer against the petitioner by the respondent Sagrada Orden de Predicadores, one year had not elapsed, and therefore the respondent Municipal Judge or Court has jurisdiction to try and decide the case.

    To uphold the contention of the dissenting opinion that the possession of the petitioner was illegal since August 1946, would be to hold that an action of illegal detainer could have been successfully instituted by the Sagrada Orden de Predicadores within one year from that date, that is, before the sale of the property by said Sagrada Orden de Predicadores to the Japanese corporation has been set aside, and therefore while the ownership thereof was still vested in the petitioner’s predecessor in interest, which is absolutely untenable.

    Petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction is therefore denied. So ordered.

    Moran, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, and A. Reyes, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    PARAS, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The complaint for ejectment filed in the Municipal Court admits that the plaintiff (respondent Sagrada Orden de Predicadores del Santisimo Rosario de Filipinas) has been deprived of the premises in question since 1946, and that the defendant (petitioner National Coconut Corporation) has had that possession since that year. The claim for P93,000 represents damages from August, 1946 to February, 1949. The result is that, under the very allegations of the complaint for ejectment, more than one year has elapsed between the commencement of the alleged illegal deprivation of possession and the filing of the complaint in the Municipal Court. The one-year period specified in the Rules of Court — that confers jurisdiction on the Municipal Court — does not refer to the time when a plaintiff in a forcible entry and detainer case shall have acquired proprietary rights, but principally to the possession of the actual occupant. If the respondent Sagrada Orden de Predicadores wanted the judgment in the case against the Philippine Alien Property Custodian to be binding against the petitioner, the latter should have been included as party defendant in the case. Again, the 5-day notice given to the defendant in an illegal detainer case refers to the class of persons expressly enumerated in Section 2 of Rule of Court No. 72, to which the petitioner plainly does not belong.

    Perfecto, J., concurs in this dissent.

    G.R. No. L-2899   April 29, 1949 - NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO<br /><br />083 Phil 467


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED