luna vs ca.docx

8/19/2019 Luna vs CA.docx

1/4


2/4

that the owner thereof was Agustin $e+ui6a, Jr., $imaano, Jr. contended

that the property was originally owned by Agustin $e+ui6a, r., who had

declared the property in his name for ta4ation purposes in -'*. 7pon the

death of Agustin $e+ui6a, r. in he was succeeded by his son Agustin

$e+ui6a, Jr., who possessed the property from -3) up to 5ebruary -08,when the same was leased to defendant $imaano, Jr., Agustin $e+ui6a, r.

happens to be the uncle of petitioner, the former being the elder brother of

the latter9s mother, Apolonia $e+ui6a.

After trial on the merits, 2udgment was rendered in favor of petitioner, with

the trial court ordering the defendants or persons acting for and in their

behalf to restore to petitioner possession of the property. n addition,

respondent $imaano, Jr. was ordered to pay petitioner the amounts of

P-8,&-8.'' representing actual damages and P),'''.'' as costs of the

suit.

The defendants appealed to the Regional Trial Court of ba, !ambales,

which reversed the decision of the inferior court and dismissed the

complaint. Petitioner brought the case on a petition for review to the Court

of Appeals, which affirmed the 2udgment of the Regional Trial Court.

Aggrieved, petitioner, elevated the case to 7s, alleging that the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court erred in determining the ownership of

the disputed property in an action for e2ectment, and in concluding that

Agustin $e+ui6a, Jr. is the owner of the property.

:e find the petition impressed with merit.

:ell;established is the rule in e2ectment cases that the only issue to be

resolved therein is who is entitled to the physical or material possession of

the premises, or possession de facto, independent of any claim ofownership that either party may set forth in their pleadings. 2 f petitioner

can prove prior possession in himself, he may recover such possession

from even the owner himself . :hatever may be the character of his prior

possession, if he has in is favor priority of time, he has the security that


3/4

entitles him to stay on the property until he is lawfully e2ected by a person

having a better right by either accion publiciana or accion reindivicatoria. +

ictor

dela Cru?. :hile petitioner admitted that he declared the property forta4ation purposes only in -)0, he had possessed the property beginning

-)& at the very latest, when he leased the same to =pigenio $ilag, who in

turn possessed the same until respondent $imaano, Jr. entered upon the

property in -08. The possession of the property by $ilag since -)&

redounds to the benefit of petitioner, since possession may be e4ercised in

one9s own name or in that of another.

"oreover, there is evidence to the effect that petitioner possessed the

property even earlier than -)&. Petitioner9s witness, >ictor dela Cru?, wholived about 3'' meters from the land in controversy, testified that he had

witnessed the delivery of the of property to the petitioner and his mother

Apolonia $e+ui6a by Agustin $e+ui6a, r. in -&(, when they and their

brothers and sisters petitioned among themselves the properties of their

deceased parents.


4/4

cultivate the land from -&( to -3-, and that he leased the land from them

from -33 to -)8. 6

1n the other hand, respondent $imaano, Jr. had failed to prove that

Agustin $e+ui6a, Jr. possessed the property prior to his possession, muchless the ownership of the latter over said property. :hile Agustin $e+ui6a,

Jr. testified that he is a co;owner of the disputed property, there is nothing

to support this self;serving claim/ neither does his testimony support the

defense9s theory that he had prior possession of the property. The mere

fact that Agustin $e+ui6a, r. had declared the sub2ect for ta4ation

purposes from -'( up to -3) did not constitute possession thereof, % nor

is it proof of ownership - in the absence of $e+ui6a, Jr.9s actual possession

of said property.

Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Agustin $e+ui6a, Jr.

was the owner of the disputed property since there is no evidence

whatsoever to support such a conclusion.

luna vs ca.docx

Documents