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-1370   April 27, 1949 - BERNARDA DE VASQUEZ v. ALFONSO DIVA<br /><br />083 Phil 410

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-1370. April 27, 1949.]

    BERNARDA DE VASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. ALFONSO DIVA, Respondent.

    C. C. Maceren and Rodolfo Palma for Petitioner.

    Amado A. Yatco and Rosendo J. Tansinsin for Respondent.

    SYLLABUS


    1. FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER; ACTION DISPOSSESSION LIES WHEN THE RELATION OF LESSOR AND LESSEE IS ESTABLISHED. — The relation of lessor and lessee between the plaintiff and the defendant being established, the plaintiff has a cause of action for unlawful detainer upon the defendant’s failure to pay the stipulated rents and after demand to vacate the property.

    2. ID.; DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION OF OWNERSHIP DOES NOT DIVEST COURT’S JURISDICTION; LESSEE NOT TO DENY LESSOR’S TITLE. — Defendant’s attempt to inject the question of ownership into the case in the face of the plaintiff’s allegations and the proof could not defeat the court’s jurisdiction. A lessee is not allowed to deny his lessor’s title. The Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeals were right in disregarding the defendant’s asserted ownership to the property except in so far as it might throw light on the right of possession.

    3. ID.; QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP BE LITIGATED IN APPROPRIATE SUIT. — The validity of the sale of the house and lot by defendant’s husband to S and by S to plaintiff may and should be litigated in an appropriate suit. as both courts indicated.


    D E C I S I O N


    TUASON, J.:


    This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals by Bernarda de Vasquez, defeated defendant in a case for unlawful detainer.

    It appears that Alfonso Diva brought this action in the municipal court in June, 1945. There, the case was dismissed, and the plaintiff appealed to the Court of First Instance. The latter court rendered judgment ejecting the defendant from the premises in question and ordering her to pay the plaintiff rents at the rate of P25 a month from March 11, 1945, "sin perjuicio de cualquier accion que quiera interponer para discutir la cuestion de propiedad sobre dicha finca." Not satisfied with that decision, the defendant took the case to the Court of Appeals.

    The Court of Appeals found, as did the Court of First Instance, that the husband of the defendant, now deceased, acquired by purchase on the installment plan in 1927 the property in litigation; that the deceased must have sold the land and the house erected thereon, in which the defendant and her husband lived, to Geronimo Santiago, since the latter was able to secure a transfer certificate of title thereto in his name; that on September 30, 1944, Alfonso Diva, the plaintiff, in consideration of P10,000, bought the house and lot from Santiago.

    The defendant-appellant points out two alleged errors in the decision, namely:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I


    "That the Court of Appeals failed to consider and pass upon the question of ownership under which the contract of lease could only be had, which is the only cause of action that the present case was premised.

    II


    "That the Court of Appeals cannot in effect hold that ejectment may be ordered or decided under article 1569 of section 3 of the Civil Code in relation with Rule 8 section 1 sub-section F of the Rules of Court."cralaw virtua1aw library

    It has been seen that the Court of Appeals found that the property in question was sold by the defendant’s husband to Geronimo Santiago and that Santiago afterward conveyed it to the plaintiff. Although it did not make a categorical finding on whether there was a lease contract between the plaintiff on the one hand and the defendant and her husband on the other, we gather from the tenor of its decision that it recognized the existence of such agreement. This conclusion is inferable not only from its analysis and discussion of the evidence and the allegations but also from its affirmance of the Court of First Instance’s decision "in all its parts," decision wherein the latter court expressly found that the plaintiff at the behest of the defendant and her husband let them continue occupying the premises at a rental of P25 a month.

    The relation of lessor and lessee between the plaintiff and the defendant being established, the plaintiff has a cause of action for unlawful detainer upon the defendant’s failure to pay the stipulated rents and after demand to vacate the property. Defendant’s attempt to inject the question of ownership into the case in the face of the plaintiff’s allegations and the proof could not defeat the court’s jurisdiction. A lessee is not allowed to deny his lessor’s title. The Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeals were right in disregarding the defendant’s asserted ownership to the property except in so far as it might throw light on the right of possession. The validity of the sale of the house and lot by defendant’s husband to Santiago and by Santiago to plaintiff may and should be litigated in an appropriate suit, as both courts indicated.

    The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed with costs against the Appellant.

    Moran, C.J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-1370   April 27, 1949 - BERNARDA DE VASQUEZ v. ALFONSO DIVA<br /><br />083 Phil 410


    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