Case Digest (G.R. No. 9717)
Facts:
In the case of Jose Arguelles vs. Toribia Montalvo, decided on July 21, 1915, the dispute arose over a parcel of land that adjoined the properties of the plaintiff, Jose Arguelles, and the defendant, Toribia Montalvo. The contested area measured 4 meters in the north-south direction and 7 meters and 10 centimeters in the east-west direction, with a value of P200. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had unlawfully taken possession of this portion of land. Consequently, Arguelles sought a declaration of ownership over the disputed area, restoration of possession, and indemnity for damages amounting to P100, along with the costs of the suit. The case was initially tried in the Court of First Instance of Batangas, where the court found that the plaintiff's claims were substantiated by his own testimony, corroborated by witnesses Graciano Babao and Gavino del Rosario, as well as by Exhibits A, B, and C, which were admitted into evidence. The trial court concluded that t...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 9717)
Facts:
Background and Disputed Land
The lands of the plaintiff, Jose Argueles, and the defendant, Toribia Montalvo, adjoin each other. A dispute arose over a portion of land measuring 4 meters north and south, and 7 meters, 10 centimeters east and west, valued at P200. The defendant took possession of this strip, prompting the plaintiff to seek recognition of his ownership and restoration of the land, along with indemnity for losses and damages amounting to P100 and the costs of the suit.
Plaintiff's Claim and Evidence
The plaintiff’s allegations were supported by his testimony, corroborated by witnesses Graciano Babao and Gavino del Rosario, and by Exhibits A, B, and C, which were admitted as evidence. The plaintiff built a fence on the northern boundary of his lot, which he claimed was the true dividing line between his property and the defendant’s. The fence was erected on the remains of an old fence that previously stood in the same place. The Court of First Instance of Batangas concluded that the disputed portion was an integral part of the plaintiff’s lot and that the plaintiff’s claim for P100 in damages was supported by evidence.
Defendant's Appeal
The defendant appealed the decision, challenging the trial court’s ruling.
Issue:
The primary issue was a factual dispute over the ownership and boundaries of a specific portion of land between the plaintiff and the defendant. The court needed to determine whether the disputed land belonged to the plaintiff, based on the evidence presented, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the defendant’s actions.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)