Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSUE ARLEGUI v. CA AND SPS. GIL AND BEATRIZ GENGUYON

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 180257 2011-02-23	EUSEBIO GONZALES v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL VELASCO JR., J.
Art. 19 of the New Civil Code clearly provides that "[e]very person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith." This is the basis of the principle of abuse of right which, in turn, is based upon the maxim suum jus summa injuria (the abuse of right is the greatest possible wrong).[36]
	GR No. 176282 2008-08-22	VICTORIA FERNANDO v. SPS. REGINALDO LIM AND ASUNCION LIM AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
To be entitled to the beneficence of P.D. No. 1517, a party must provide prima facie evidence of the following facts: a) that the property being leased falls within an Area for Priority Development and Urban Land Reform Zone;[63] b) that the party is a tenant on said property as defined under Section 3 (f)[64] of P.D. No. 1517;[65] c) that the party built a house on said property;[66] and d) that the party has been residing on the property continuously for the last ten (10) years or more, reckoned from 1968.[67]
	GR NO. 171250 2007-07-04	SPS. CARLOS AND EULALIA RAYMUNDO AND SPS. ANGELITO AND JOCELYN BUENAOBRA v. SPS. DOMINADOR AND ROSALIA BANDONG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioners question further the belated filing by the Spouses Bandong of an action for the annulment of sale, since the Spouses Bandong filed the same only after they received the notice to vacate, and not immediately after the execution of the assailed Deed of Sale. We have repeatedly held that the one who is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be the owner thereof may await to vindicate his right. His undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his own title, which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession.[27]
	GR No. 156689 2007-06-08	RAFAEL DIMACULANGAN v. GONDALINA CASALLA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Section 6 of PD 1517 grants preferential rights to landless tenants/occupants to acquire land within urban land reform areas: Sec. 6. Land Tenancy in Urban Land Reform Areas. Within the Urban Zones legitimate tenants who have resided on the land for ten years or more who have built their homes on the land and residents who have legally occupied the lands by contract, continuously for the last ten years shall not be dispossessed of the land and shall be allowed the right of first refusal to purchase the same within a reasonable time and at reasonable prices, under terms and conditions to be determined by the Urban Zone Expropriation and Land Management Committee created by Section 8 of this Decree. Section 2 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 2016[21] reinforced P.D. No. 1517 by prohibiting the eviction of qualified tenants/occupants: Sec. 2. No tenant or occupant family, residing for ten years or more reckoned from the date of issuance of Presidential Decree No. 1517 otherwise known as the Urban Land Reform Law, in land proclaimed as Areas for Priority Development or Urban Land Reform Zones or is a project for development under the ZIP in Metro Manila and the SIR Program in the regional cities shall be evicted from the land or otherwise dispossessed. The protective mantle of P.D. No. 1517 and P.D. No. 2016, however, extends only to landless urban families who meet these qualifications: a) they are tenants as defined under Section 3 (f) of P.D. No. 1517;[22] b) they built a home on the land they are leasing or occupying;[23] c) the land they are leasing or occupying is within an Area for Priority Development and Urban Land Reform Zone;[24] and d) they have resided on the land continuously for the last ten (10) years or more.[25]
	GR NO. 167320 2007-01-30	HEIRS OF SALVADOR HERMOSILLA v. SPS. JAIME REMOQUILLO AND LUZ REMOQUILLO CARPIO MORALES, J.
An action for reconveyance based on an implied trust prescribes in ten years. The ten-year prescriptive period applies only if there is an actual need to reconvey the property as when the plaintiff is not in possession of the property. However, if the plaintiff, as the real owner of the property also remains in possession of the property, the prescriptive period to recover the title and possession of the property does not run against him. In such a case, an action for reconveyance, if nonetheless filed, would be in the nature of a suit for quieting of title, an action that is imprescriptible.[11] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) It is undisputed that petitioners' houses occupy the questioned property and that respondents have not been in possession thereof.[12] Since there was no actual need to reconvey the property as petitioners remained in possession thereof, the action took the nature of a suit for quieting of title, it having been filed to enforce an alleged implied trust after Jaime refused to segregate title over Lot 19. One who is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be the owner thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right.[13] From the body of the complaint, this type of action denotes imprescriptibility.
	GR NO. 146550 2006-03-17	FELIPA DELFIN v. PRESENTACION D. BILLONES TINGA, J.
Even respondents' claim of possession of the subject properties has not been sufficiently proved. This Court has uniformly held that "the one who is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be the owner thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right. His undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his own title, which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession."[37] Actual possession of land consists in the manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as those a party would naturally exercise over his own property.[38]
	GR NO. 143666 2005-03-18	SOLEDAD MENDOZA AND SPS. PHILIP AND MA. CARIDAD CASIÑO v. PURITA BAUTISTA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As held in Arlegui vs. Court of Appeals,[47] P.D. No. 1517 cannot benefit the lessee when both lot and the house belong to the lessor as the law grants the right of first refusal only to legitimate tenants who have built their homes on the land they are leasing. There is no question that both the house and lot in the case at bar are owned by the lessor, the Raymundo spouses. Clearly, then, as a mere lessee of the house and lot, respondent had no right of first refusal to speak of.