Lawyerly

GR No. 182908

2014-08-06

HEIRS OF FRANCISCO I. NARVASA v. IMBORNAL

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

In this light, the Court cannot fully accept and accord evidentiary value to the oral testimony offered by Francisco, et al. on the alleged verbal agreement between their predecessors, the Imbornal sisters, and Ciriaco with respect to the Motherland. Weighed against the presumed regularity of the award of the homestead patent to Ciriaco and the lack of evidence showing that the same was acquired and registered by mistake or through fraud, the oral evidence of Francisco, et al. would not effectively establish their claims of ownership. It has been held that oral testimony as to a certain fact, depending as it does exclusively on human memory, is not as reliable as written or documentary evidence,[50] especially since the purported agreement transpired decades ago, or in the 1920s. Hence, with respect to the Motherland, the CA did not err in holding that Ciriaco and his heirs are the owners thereof, without prejudice to the rights of any subsequent purchasers for value of the said property.

GR NO. 150949

2007-06-21

JUDGE DOLORES L. ESPAÑOL v. ATTY. BENJAMIN S. FORMOSO AND SPS. BENITO SEE AND MARLY SEE

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

SEC. 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government, and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. In Gener v. De Leon,[16] we held that courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of records of other cases even when such cases have been tried or pending in the same court. Hence, we reiterate that petitioner took judicial notice of the Decision rendered by another RTC branch and on the basis thereof, concluded that respondents used falsified documents (such as land title and tax declaration) when Sharcons filed its complaint for quieting. Verily, the Court of Appeals did not err in ruling that respondents are not guilty of direct contempt of court.

GR NO. 165831

2007-02-23

SPS. COL. PEDRO L. LUMBRES AND REBECCA ROARING v. SPS. PEDRO B. TABLADA

GARCIA, J.

Before proceeding with a discussion of the issues laid out above, it must be stressed that the present case is one for ejectment. As such, our judgment hereon is effective only with respect to possession. It does not bind the title or affect the ownership of the lot in question. Such judgment shall not bar an action between the same parties respecting the title to said property.[9] The only issue for resolution is who, as between the petitioners and the respondents, is entitled to the physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of their respective claims of ownership thereof.[10]

GR NO. 149542

2006-07-20

ALBERTO HERBON v. LEOPOLDO T. PALAD

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Without any doubt, oral testimony as to a certain fact, depending as it does exclusively on human memory, is not as reliable as written or documentary evidence.[32] As Judge Limpkin of Georgia once said, "I would sooner trust the smallest slip of paper for truth than the strongest and most retentive memory ever bestowed on mortal man."[33] Indeed, spoken words could be notoriously unreliable as against a written document that speaks a uniform language.[34]

GR No. 142308

2005-11-15

SPS. REV. ELMER J. BAÑES AND ANGELA BAÑES v. LUTHERAN CHURCH IN PHILIPPINES

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

There is forcible entry or desahucio when one is deprived of physical possession of land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. In such cases, the possession is illegal from the beginning and the basic inquiry centers on who has the prior possession de facto.[47] In filing forcible entry cases, the law tells us that two allegations are mandatory for the municipal court to acquire jurisdiction: first, the plaintiff must allege prior physical possession of the property, and second, he must also allege that he was deprived of his possession by any of the means provided for in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court i.e., by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth.[48] It is also settled that in the resolution thereof, what is important is determining who is entitled to the physical possession of the property.[49] Indeed, any of the parties who can prove prior possession de facto may recover such possession even from the owner himself[50] since such cases proceed independently of any claim of ownership and the plaintiff needs merely to prove prior possession de facto and undue deprivation thereof.[51]

GR NO. 149599

2005-05-16

RUDY LAO v. JAIME LAO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

We agree with the petitioner that, in ejectment cases, the word "possession" means nothing more than actual physical possession, not legal possession, in the sense contemplated in civil law.[10] The only issue in such cases is who is entitled to the physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership set forth by any of the party-litigants.[11]

GR No. 146082

2004-07-30

MELCHOR CUSTODIO v. ROSENDO F. CORRADO

QUISUMBING, J.

Anent the second issue, petitioner contends that tenancy relationship between him and respondent's father was amply supported by evidence. It must be stressed that this is a factual issue requiring re-evaluation and examination of the probative value of evidences presented which is not proper in a petition for review on certiorari. Besides, this issue had already been squarely resolved by the Court of Appeals and we find no impelling reason to set it aside. According to the Court of Appeals, the milling tickets only showed that they were issued to Crisanto Corrado but did not show whether such tickets referred to the same lot in question. In petitions for review on certiorari, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought before it from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing questions of law. For a question to be one of law, it must involve no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants. The findings of fact of the appellate court are generally conclusive on this Court, which is not a trier of facts.[23]

GR No. 141493

2004-07-28

NATIONAL ONION GROWERS COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION v. ANTONIO LO

CARPIO, J.

The only issue for resolution in ejectment cases is the question of who is entitled to the physical or material possession of the property in dispute. This is independent of any claim of ownership set forth by any of the parties.[4] If the question of ownership is inextricably linked to the issue of possession, the MTC may pass on the question of ownership solely to determine the issue of possession.[5] Such determination is not final, and does not affect the ownership of the property. This is clearly set forth in Section 16, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.[6] Ejectment cases are summary proceedings intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or right of possession of property.[7] The MTC was correct in refusing to dismiss the ejectment case despite the pendency of the annulment of the sale in another court. Petitioner's arguments on this point have no merit, and the cases that petitioner cites to support its arguments are no longer applicable.

GR No. 141614

2002-08-14

TERESITA BONGATO v. SPS. SEVERO A. MALVAR

PANGANIBAN, J.

"fn">[13] Thus, the plaintiff must allege and prove prior physical possession of the property in litigation until deprived thereof by the defendant.[14] This requirement implies that the possession of the disputed land by the latter was unlawful from the beginning.[15] The sole question for resolution hinges on the physical or material possession (possession de facto) of the property. Neither a claim of juridical possession (possession de jure) nor an averment of ownership[16] by the defendant can outrightly prevent the court from taking cognizance of the case.[17] Ejectment cases proceed independently of any claim of ownership, and the plaintiff needs merely to prove prior possession de facto and undue deprivation thereof.[18] Second, as a general rule, courts do not take judicial notice of the evidence presented in other proceedings, even if these have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the same judge.[19] There are exceptions to this rule.

GR No. 141614

2002-08-14

TERESITA BONGATO v. SPS. SEVERO A. MALVAR

PANGANIBAN, J.

generally counted from the date of actual entry to the land. However, when entry is made through stealth, then the one-year period is counted from the time the plaintiff learned about it.[43] After the lapse of the one-year period, the party dispossessed of a parcel of land may file either an accion publiciana, which is a plenary action to recover the right of possession; or an accion reivindicatoria, which is an action to recover ownership as well as possession.[44] On the basis of the foregoing facts, it is clear that the cause of action for forcible entry filed by respondents had already prescribed when they filed the Complaint for ejectment on July 10, 1992.[45] Hence, even if Severo Malvar may be the owner of

	GR No. 182908 2014-08-06	HEIRS OF FRANCISCO I. NARVASA v. IMBORNAL PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In this light, the Court cannot fully accept and accord evidentiary value to the oral testimony offered by Francisco, et al. on the alleged verbal agreement between their predecessors, the Imbornal sisters, and Ciriaco with respect to the Motherland. Weighed against the presumed regularity of the award of the homestead patent to Ciriaco and the lack of evidence showing that the same was acquired and registered by mistake or through fraud, the oral evidence of Francisco, et al. would not effectively establish their claims of ownership. It has been held that oral testimony as to a certain fact, depending as it does exclusively on human memory, is not as reliable as written or documentary evidence,[50] especially since the purported agreement transpired decades ago, or in the 1920s. Hence, with respect to the Motherland, the CA did not err in holding that Ciriaco and his heirs are the owners thereof, without prejudice to the rights of any subsequent purchasers for value of the said property.
	GR NO. 150949 2007-06-21	JUDGE DOLORES L. ESPAÑOL v. ATTY. BENJAMIN S. FORMOSO AND SPS. BENITO SEE AND MARLY SEE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
SEC. 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government, and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. In Gener v. De Leon,[16] we held that courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of records of other cases even when such cases have been tried or pending in the same court. Hence, we reiterate that petitioner took judicial notice of the Decision rendered by another RTC branch and on the basis thereof, concluded that respondents used falsified documents (such as land title and tax declaration) when Sharcons filed its complaint for quieting. Verily, the Court of Appeals did not err in ruling that respondents are not guilty of direct contempt of court.
	GR NO. 165831 2007-02-23	SPS. COL. PEDRO L. LUMBRES AND REBECCA ROARING v. SPS. PEDRO B. TABLADA GARCIA, J.
Before proceeding with a discussion of the issues laid out above, it must be stressed that the present case is one for ejectment. As such, our judgment hereon is effective only with respect to possession. It does not bind the title or affect the ownership of the lot in question. Such judgment shall not bar an action between the same parties respecting the title to said property.[9] The only issue for resolution is who, as between the petitioners and the respondents, is entitled to the physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of their respective claims of ownership thereof.[10]
	GR NO. 149542 2006-07-20	ALBERTO HERBON v. LEOPOLDO T. PALAD AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Without any doubt, oral testimony as to a certain fact, depending as it does exclusively on human memory, is not as reliable as written or documentary evidence.[32] As Judge Limpkin of Georgia once said, "I would sooner trust the smallest slip of paper for truth than the strongest and most retentive memory ever bestowed on mortal man."[33] Indeed, spoken words could be notoriously unreliable as against a written document that speaks a uniform language.[34]
	GR No. 142308 2005-11-15	SPS. REV. ELMER J. BAÑES AND ANGELA BAÑES v. LUTHERAN CHURCH IN PHILIPPINES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
There is forcible entry or desahucio when one is deprived of physical possession of land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. In such cases, the possession is illegal from the beginning and the basic inquiry centers on who has the prior possession de facto.[47] In filing forcible entry cases, the law tells us that two allegations are mandatory for the municipal court to acquire jurisdiction: first, the plaintiff must allege prior physical possession of the property, and second, he must also allege that he was deprived of his possession by any of the means provided for in Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court i.e., by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth.[48] It is also settled that in the resolution thereof, what is important is determining who is entitled to the physical possession of the property.[49] Indeed, any of the parties who can prove prior possession de facto may recover such possession even from the owner himself[50] since such cases proceed independently of any claim of ownership and the plaintiff needs merely to prove prior possession de facto and undue deprivation thereof.[51]
	GR NO. 149599 2005-05-16	RUDY LAO v. JAIME LAO CALLEJO, SR., J.
We agree with the petitioner that, in ejectment cases, the word "possession" means nothing more than actual physical possession, not legal possession, in the sense contemplated in civil law.[10] The only issue in such cases is who is entitled to the physical or material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership set forth by any of the party-litigants.[11]
	GR No. 146082 2004-07-30	MELCHOR CUSTODIO v. ROSENDO F. CORRADO QUISUMBING, J.
Anent the second issue, petitioner contends that tenancy relationship between him and respondent's father was amply supported by evidence. It must be stressed that this is a factual issue requiring re-evaluation and examination of the probative value of evidences presented which is not proper in a petition for review on certiorari. Besides, this issue had already been squarely resolved by the Court of Appeals and we find no impelling reason to set it aside. According to the Court of Appeals, the milling tickets only showed that they were issued to Crisanto Corrado but did not show whether such tickets referred to the same lot in question. In petitions for review on certiorari, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought before it from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing questions of law. For a question to be one of law, it must involve no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants. The findings of fact of the appellate court are generally conclusive on this Court, which is not a trier of facts.[23]
	GR No. 141493 2004-07-28	NATIONAL ONION GROWERS COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION v. ANTONIO LO CARPIO, J.
The only issue for resolution in ejectment cases is the question of who is entitled to the physical or material possession of the property in dispute. This is independent of any claim of ownership set forth by any of the parties.[4] If the question of ownership is inextricably linked to the issue of possession, the MTC may pass on the question of ownership solely to determine the issue of possession.[5] Such determination is not final, and does not affect the ownership of the property. This is clearly set forth in Section 16, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.[6] Ejectment cases are summary proceedings intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or right of possession of property.[7] The MTC was correct in refusing to dismiss the ejectment case despite the pendency of the annulment of the sale in another court. Petitioner's arguments on this point have no merit, and the cases that petitioner cites to support its arguments are no longer applicable.
	GR No. 141614 2002-08-14	TERESITA BONGATO v. SPS. SEVERO A. MALVAR PANGANIBAN, J.
"fn">[13] Thus, the plaintiff must allege and prove prior physical possession of the property in litigation until deprived thereof by the defendant.[14] This requirement implies that the possession of the disputed land by the latter was unlawful from the beginning.[15] The sole question for resolution hinges on the physical or material possession (possession de facto) of the property. Neither a claim of juridical possession (possession de jure) nor an averment of ownership[16] by the defendant can outrightly prevent the court from taking cognizance of the case.[17] Ejectment cases proceed independently of any claim of ownership, and the plaintiff needs merely to prove prior possession de facto and undue deprivation thereof.[18] Second, as a general rule, courts do not take judicial notice of the evidence presented in other proceedings, even if these have been tried or are pending in the same court or before the same judge.[19] There are exceptions to this rule.
	GR No. 141614 2002-08-14	TERESITA BONGATO v. SPS. SEVERO A. MALVAR PANGANIBAN, J.
generally counted from the date of actual entry to the land. However, when entry is made through stealth, then the one-year period is counted from the time the plaintiff learned about it.[43] After the lapse of the one-year period, the party dispossessed of a parcel of land may file either an accion publiciana, which is a plenary action to recover the right of possession; or an accion reivindicatoria, which is an action to recover ownership as well as possession.[44] On the basis of the foregoing facts, it is clear that the cause of action for forcible entry filed by respondents had already prescribed when they filed the Complaint for ejectment on July 10, 1992.[45] Hence, even if Severo Malvar may be the owner of

HERNANDO GENER v. GREGORIO DE LEON