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. 49167   April 30, 1949 - CO TAO v. JOAQUIN CHAN CHICO<br /><br />083 Phil 543

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 49167. April 30, 1949.]

    CO TAO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOAQUIN CHAN CHICO, Defendant-Appellant.

    Manuel V. San Jose for Petitioner.

    Padilla, Carlos & Fernando for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. PROPERTY; DETERMINATION OF LOCATION AND EXTENT BY MERELY EXAMINING PAPER TITLE, INSUFFICIENT. — It is but stating the obvious to say that outside of the individuals versed in the science of surveying, and this is already going far, no one can determine the precise extent or location of his property by merely examining his paper title. The fact is even surveyors cannot with exactitude do so. The disagreement among the three surveyors in the case at hand who have made a resurvey of the ground with the aid of scientific devices and of their experience and knowledge of surveying, is a graphic and concrete illustration of this truth.

    2. ID.; BUILDER IN GOOD FAITH; OPTION IS GIVEN TO OWNER OF LAND. — The owner of the portion of land on which protrudes a building erected by the adjoining owner in good faith is not being forced to buy the building for he has the option to sell the portion of his occupied thereby. The provisions of article 361 of the Civil Code admit of no distinction.


    D E C I S I O N


    MORAN, C.J. :


    This is an appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals.

    According to the findings of said Court, in 1927 respondent Joaquin Chan Chico built a house on his lot No. 7, described in transfer certificate of title No. 24239. When that house was constructed, Prudencia Rodriguez was yet the owner of the adjoining lot No. 6 belonging now to petitioner Co Tao. About a year after the petitioner bought lot No. 6, he built a house thereon and he used lumber that butted in respondent’s house. Respondent protested and his protest was resented by petitioner. Hence, the present suit.

    It is now claimed by petitioner that the respondent’s house took a portion of petitioner’s land. The Court of Appeals, after examining the evidence, found that respondent’s house occupies 6.97 square meters of petitioner’s lot, but that respondent acted in good faith. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals declared "that the plaintiff (petitioner) has the right to elect to purchase that portion of the defendant’s (respondent’s) house which protrudes into the plaintiff’s property, or to sell to the defendant the land upon which the said portion of the defendant’s house is built." And the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance "with direction to require the plaintiff to make the election as herein provided, within the time that the Court shall fix, and thereafter to reset the case for the admission of the evidence on the value of the imprisonment, in case the plaintiff elects to buy the same, or the value of the land, in case he elects to sell it, and to render decision as the result of the new trial shall warrant." From this decision petitioner appealed by certiorari to this Court.

    All the questions raised by the petitioner are unmeritorious. He alleges, for instance, that respondent could not have acted in good faith in building a portion of his house beyond the limits of his land, because he ought to know the metes and bounds of his property as stated in his certificate of title. But, as rightly stated by the Court of Appeals "It is but stating the obvious to say that outside of the individuals versed in the science of surveying, and this is already going far, no one can determine the precise extent or location of his property by merely examining his paper title. The fact is even surveyors cannot with exactitude do so. The disagreement among the three surveyors in the case at hand who have made a resurvey of the ground with the aid of scientific devices and of their experience and knowledge of surveying, is a graphic and concrete illustration of this truth."cralaw virtua1aw library

    And there is another circumstance showing respondent’s good faith. The Court of Appeals found that "the defendant’s title dated back to march 12, 1923, and he built his house as early as 1927. When this was done, it has also been shown, there was a stone wall which had existed since as early as 1902, and inside which the defendant’s house is constructed. Prudencia Rodriguez herself, who was still the owner of the adjoining land when the defendant built his house in 1927, must have been under the same impression, since, as has been stated, she allowed the construction without making any protest during or after the construction."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Petitioner alleges that it is not fair for him to pay for the building erected on his lot which is not only prejudicial but is certainly a nuisance to his property. The petitioner is indeed overlooking the circumstance that he is not being forced to buy the building for he has the option to sell the portion of his lot occupied by that building. The provisions of article 361 of the Civil Code admit of no distinction.

    Wherefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed with costs against the petitioner.

    Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, Briones and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


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

    I dissent.

    Under Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, appeal by certiorari from a judgment or decision of the Court of Appeals under said Rule lies only in cases in which question or questions of law are involved, because "only questions of law may be raised therein, and consequently this Court can not review the findings of said court.

    In all judicial cases, the justiciable question is always either one of fact and law, or of law only if the facts on which it is predicated are admitted or not in issue. It can never be a question of fact only, because the administration of justice consists in the application of the law to the facts of each case submitted to the Court for decision. The facts are the minor premise of the sylogism, the law applicable to them the major premise, and the conclusion drawn from the sylogism is the conclusion or finding of law necessary for the decision of cases or lawsuits by the courts.

    If the facts as found by the Court of Appeals are not questioned or in issue, and only the law applicable to the case or the conclusion of law to be drawn from such application is in issue in an appeal, the question involved is of law and the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review and pass upon the conclusions or findings of law of the Court of Appeals. However, if not only the law applicable and, consequently, the inference or conclusion to be drawn from the application thereof, but the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are in issue, the question involved in the appeal is not of law but of fact, because no question of law may arise before the facts to which the law may be applied have been finally determined or found.

    In the present appeal, the questions involved are of fact because the issue is whether or not the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals discussed and passed upon by the majority in the decision are supported by the evidence in the record, that is, whether or not the respondent acted in good faith in building his house on part of the lot claimed by the petitioner, which depends upon whether or not the respondent knew then that part of the lot on which he erected the building belonged to the petitioner.

    The question whether or not it is fair for the petitioners to pay for the building erected on his lot, depends also on the question of fact whether the building was erected on it by the respondent in good or bad faith.

    This Supreme Court has, therefore, no jurisdiction to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in the present case, because the appeal does involve not a question of law but of fact, and this Court has no power to review the findings of act in the decision of the said Court of Appeals, as already stated above. A decision of the said Court on question of fact is final and not appealable.

    We should have dismissed the petition for certiorari by way of appeal from the start filed in this case, but the fact that we have given it due course in order to determine whether appeal lies after hearing the adverse party, does not necessarily authorize us to pass upon the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals and affirm or reverse the decision appealed from. To affirm or reverse a judgment of the Court of Appeals in this case presupposes a review by us of the findings of fact on which it is based, which we have power to do.

    Petition for certiorari by way of appeal is therefore dismissed. We can not review and affirm or reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case. So ordered.

    G.R. No. 49167   April 30, 1949 - CO TAO v. JOAQUIN CHAN CHICO<br /><br />083 Phil 543


    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