February 1966 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > February 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-21877 February 28, 1966 J. M. TUASON & CO. INC. v. ENRIQUE TONGOL:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-21877. February 28, 1966.]

J. M. TUASON & CO. INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ENRIQUE TONGOL, Defendant-Appellant.

B. A. Gubatan for the defendant and Appellant.

Araneta, Mendoza & Papa for the plaintiff and appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. EJECTMENT; LEGALIZATION OF OCCUPATION BY COMPROMISE AGREEMENT; CASE AT BAR. — Appellant contends that the compromise agreement which legalized his occupation and enjoyment of the possession of the lot in question, is that entered into by appellee and other persons who used to claim ownership certain areas covered by the former’s title. In that agreement the claimants relinquished their claim for certain considerations, with a reservation in favor of third parties to whom they had sold possessory rights in different portions of the land purchase the same from appellee. Appellant was not one of those third parties. Held: Appellant was mere intruder on the land since the compromise agreement did not legalize his occupation thereof.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


Plaintiff corporation, registered owner of the land known as the Santa Mesa Heights Subdivision in Quezon City with transfer certificate of title No. 42774, brought this action for ejectment against defendant, alleging that the latter entered illegally into the possession of a 100 square-meter portion of said land on 5 December 1957, without its consent or authority. The Court of First Instance of Rizal gave judgment for plaintiff, ordering defendant and all persons claiming under him to vacate the premises and remove the house and other improvements he had placed thereon, and to pay the sum of P30.00 monthly until possession is finally restored to plaintiff. Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to Us in view of the legal character of the question raised in the lone assignment of error, to wit: "that the lower court erred in making a finding that the compromise agreement (Exh. 2) did not legalize the occupation and enjoyment of possession of the premises in question by the parties thereto and their transferees and assigns like the defendant-appellant herein."cralaw virtua1aw library

The compromise agreement referred to by appellant is that entered into by J. M. Tuazon & Co. Inc., and the Deudors, who used to claim ownership of certain areas covered by the former’s title. In that agreement the Deudors relinquished their claim for certain considerations, with a reservation in favor of third parties to whom the Deudors had sold possessory rights in different portions of the land to purchase the same from herein appellee.

The parties stipulated below that the lot in controversy formed part of an area of some 12 1/2 hectares subject of a deed of sale executed in 1949 by a certain Agustin de Torres (one of the Deudors in the compromise agreement) in favor of Julian Lagman and Toribia Lagman Vda. de Pacia; and that the said vendees gave permission to appellant to occupy said lot and construct a house thereon.

In the decision appealed from the trial court found appellant to be a mere intruder on the land, the compromise agreement with the Deudors not having legalized the occupation thereof by him. We do not see any error in this pronouncement. Appellant is not one of the third parties for whom the reservation of the right to purchase was made in that agreement. Assuming that the Lagmans were among those whose right to purchase was reserved, though no proof on the point was submitted, it is they who could claim that right with respect to the lot in question. However, there is neither allegation nor evidence that they have ever done so. And according to appellee’s uncontradicted statement, even appellant has not shown any desire to buy the lot for himself. These circumstances remove this case from the ruling (relied upon by appellant) in Evangelista Et. Al., v. Deudor, Et Al., G.R. No. L-12826, September 10, 1959, wherein the petitioner was a purchaser from the Deudors who had made partial payments to them and had later on signified her desire to buy the lot occupied by her from appellee.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, 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






February-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-23876 February 22, 1966 URSULA C. DAJAO v. BENEDICTO PADILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17518-19 February 28, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO SECAPURI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18295 February 28, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIZARDO PASIONA

  • G.R. No. L-17638 February 28, 1966 PRIMO GAFFUD v. MARCIANA CRISTOBAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19371 February 28, 1966 HOSPITAL DE SAN JUAN DE DIOS, INC. v. PASAY CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21079 February 28, 1966 IN RE: KOA HENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21671 February 28, 1966 IN RE: TAN HUY LIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19648 February 28, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO MACABUHAY

  • G.R. No. L-19579 February 28, 1966 IN RE: CHAN KIAT HUAT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19722 February 28, 1966 FLORENCIO L. ALBINO v. TOMAS L. BORROMEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19751 February 28, 1966 ALFREDO REMITERE, ET AL. v. REMEDIOS MONTINOLA VDA. DE YULO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19900 February 28, 1966 EXPEDITO REMONTE, ET AL. v. AQUILINO P. BONTO

  • G.R. No. L-19905 February 28, 1966 VIRGILIO BRUA v. ENRIQUE INTING

  • G.R. No. L-20152 February 28, 1966 IN RE: LEONCIO DY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20412 February 28, 1966 PNB v. AMANDO M. PEREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20505 February 28, 1966 IN RE: ONG KIM KONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20601 February 28, 1966 BUTUAN SAWMILL, INC. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20712 February 28, 1966 IN RE: TAN KING BOOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20753 February 28, 1966 BASIC BOOKS (PHIL.), INC. v. EMILIO LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20978 February 28, 1966 PHIL- AM GEN. INS. CO., INC. v. EUGENIO B. RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21415 February 8, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. REPUBLIC SURETY & INS. CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-21435 February 28, 1966 MLA. ELECTRIC CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM.

  • G.R. No. L-21447 February 28, 1966 JOSE REYES, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21523 February 28, 1966 NGO CHIAO LIN v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-21569 February 28, 1966 BIENVENIDO P. BUAN, ET AL. v. PRISCILLO CAMAGANACAN

  • G.R. No. L-21833 February 28, 1966 STATE BONDING & INS. CO., INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21877 February 28, 1966 J. M. TUASON & CO. INC. v. ENRIQUE TONGOL

  • G.R. No. L-22043 February 28, 1966 AURORA C. MALLARI, ET AL. v. VICTORY LINER, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-22609 February 28, 1966 CHIEF OF THE P.C. v. SABUNGAN BAGONG SILANG, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23301 February 28, 1966 CELESTINO E. ESUERTE, ET AL. v. DELFIN JAMPAYAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23828 February 28, 1966 PAULINA SANTOS, ET AL. v. GREGORIA ARANZANSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24727 February 28, 1966 PATERNO JAVIER v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ANTIQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-25084 and L-25270 February 28, 1966 ELENITA V. UNSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25502 February 28, 1966 LEOPOLDO DIAZ v. SALVADOR C. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25521 February 28, 1966 GREGORIO FERINION v. DIOSDADO STA. ROMANA, ET AL.