This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-12-03 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In its August 23, 2011 Decision,[8] the RTC reversed the MTC decision and ruled in favor of petitioner. It relied on the cases of Barba v. Court of Appeals[9] and Nunez v. SLTEAS Phoenix Solutions, Inc.,[10] which held that in ejectment cases, possession of the land did not only mean actual or physical possession but also included the subject of the thing to the action of one's will or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right. The RTC stated that petitioner had clearly shown his possession of the property as evidenced by his OCT No. RP-174(13789) issued in March 1987 and tax declaration, dating back as early as 1995.[11] It added that the boundaries of the property were clearly indicated in the title, thus, there was no need to conduct a survey. As the owner, petitioner knew the exact metes and bounds of his property so that when respondent intruded stealthily, he filed the subject suit.[12] | |||||