PART I (Case Digest Rule 1) - G.R No 130316 ERNESTO V YU and ELSIE O YU Petitioners vs BALTAZAR PACLEB,1 Respondent The present petition filed under

PART I (Case Digest Rule 1) - G.R No 130316 ERNESTO V YU...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 22 pages.

G.R. No. 130316 January 24, 2007ERNESTO V. YU and ELSIE O. YU,Petitioners,vs.BALTAZAR PACLEB,1Respondent.The present petition filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court originated from an action for forcible entryand damages filed by petitioners Ernesto and Elsie Yu against respondent Baltazar Pacleb.in September 1992, Ruperto Javier allegedly offered to sell Lot No. 6853-D to petitioners (ERNESTO V. YUand ELSIE O. YU) for P75 per sq.m.lawphil.netThe lot was approximately 18,000 square meters and waslocated in Barangay Langkaan, Dasmariñas, Cavite. Javier supposedly purchased the lot from oneRebecca del Rosario who, in turn, acquired it from respondent (BALTAZAR PACLEB) and his wife. The titleof the property (Transfer Certificate of Title [TCT] No. T-118375), however, remained in the names ofrespondent and his wife. The instruments in support of the series of alleged sales were not registered.On September 11, 1992, petitioners accepted the offer and gave Javier P200,000 as downpayment forthe lot. Javier then delivered his supposed muniments of title to petitioners. After the execution of acontract to sell, he formally turned over the property to petiti oners.At the time of the turn-over, a portion of the lot was occupied by Ramon C. Pacleb, respondent’s son,and his wife as tenants. On September 12, 1992, Ramon and his wife allegedly surrendered possession oftheir portion to petitioners. Later on, petitioners appointed Ramon as their trustee over the subject lot.Petitioners also caused the annotation on TCT No. T-118375 of a decision rendered in their favor in CivilCase No. 741-93.2This decision attained finality on April 19, 1995.Petitioners alleged that they exercised ownership rights as well as enjoyed open, public and peacefulpossession over the property from September 12, 1992 until the early part of September 1995. Duringthis time, respondent was in the United States.Upon respondent’s return to the Philippines in May 1995, he allegedly entered the property by means offorce, threat, intimidation, strategy and stealth thereby ousting petitioners and their trustee, Ramon.Despite repeated demands, respondent, asserting his rights as registered owner of the property, refusedto vacate the premises and surrender its possession to petitioners.Petitioners filed an action for forcible entry3in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Dasmariñas, Cavite onNovember23,1995.MTC: the [respondent] and other persons claiming right under him are hereby ordered to surrenderphysical possession of Lot No. 6853-D in favor of the [petitioners] and to pay the sum of TWENTY-FIVETHOUSAND (P25,000.00) PESOS as attorney’s fees.RTC: rendered a decision affirming the MTC decision in toto.6CA: the Decision of the [MTC] of Dasmariñas, Cavite in Civil Case No. 182 are SET ASIDE; and Civil CaseNo. 182 for Forcible Entry and Damages is hereby ordered DISMISSED.
Background image
ISSUE: W/N the appellate court erred in finding that respondent had prior physical possession of thesubject property Held: No. petitioners failed to establish that they had prior physical possession to justify a ruling in theirfavor in the complaint for forcible entry against respondent.
Background image
Image of page 3

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture