G.R. No. 112526 March 16, 2005STA.ROSAREALTYDEVELOPMENTCORPORATION,Petitioner,vs.JUAN B. AMANTE Respondents.x-------------------xG.R. No. 118838 March 16, 2005JUANB.AMANTE,Petitioner,vs.LUIS YULO,Respondents.D E C I S I O NAUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:By virtue of the En BancResolution issued on January 13, 2004,the Court authorized the Special First Division to suspend theRules so as to allow it to consider and resolve the second Motionfor Reconsideration of respondents,1after the motion was heardon oral arguments on August 13, 2003. On July 9, 2004,2theCourt resolved to submit for resolution the second Motion forReconsideration in G.R. No. 112526together with G.R. No.118338in view of the Resolution of the Court dated January 15,2001 issued in G.R. No. 118838,3consolidating the latter casewith G.R.No.112526,theissuesthereinbeinginterrelated.4Hence, the herein Amended Decision.The factual background of the two cases is as follows:The Canlubang Estate in Laguna is a vast landholding previouslytitled in the name of the late Speaker and Chief Justice JoseYulo, Sr. Within this estate are two parcels of land (hereinafterreferred to as the "subject property") covered by TCT Nos. 81949and 84891 measuring 254.766 hectares and part of BarangayCasile, subsequently titled in the name of Sta. Rosa RealtyDevelopment Corporation (SRRDC), the majority stockholder ofwhich is C.J. Yulo and Sons, Inc.The subject property was involved in civil suits and administrativeproceedings that led to the filing of G.R. Nos.112526and 118838, thus:Injunction CaseFiled by Amante, et al.On December 6, 1985, Amante, et al., who are the privaterespondents in G.R. No. 112526and petitioners in G.R. No.118838, instituted an action for injunction with damages in theRegional Trial Court of Laguna (Branch 24) against Luis Yulo,SRRDC, and several SRRDC security personnel, docketedas Civil Case No. B-2333. Amante, et al. alleged that: they areresidents of Barangay Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna, which covers anarea of around 300 hectares; in 1910, their ancestors startedoccupying the area, built their houses and planted fruit-bearingtrees thereon, and since then, have been peacefully occupyingthe land; some time in June 3, 1985, SRRDC’s security peopleillegally entered Bgy. Casile and fenced the area; SRRDC’s menalso entered the barangay on November 4, 1985, cut down thetrees, burned their huts, and barred the lone jeepney fromentering the Canlubang Sugar Estate; as a result of these acts,Amante, et al. were deprived of possession and cultivation oftheir lands. Thus, they claimed damages, sought the issuance ofpermanent injunction and proposed that a right of way bedeclared.5In their Answer, the defendants denied the allegations anddisclaimed any control and supervision over its securitypersonnel. Defendant SRRDC also alleged that as the real ownerof the property, it was the one that suffered damages due to theencroachment on the property.6A writ of preliminary injunction was issued by the trial court onAugust 17, 1987,7but this was subsequently dissolved by theCourt of Appeals (CA) on April 22, 1988 in its decision in CA-G.R.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 28 pages?
Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court,
Baker v. Carr, Lists of United States Supreme Court cases