Facts:

The case of Pomposa Bonjoc et al. vs. Candelario Cuison, G.R. No. 3413, was decided on March 27, 1909. The plaintiffs, Pomposa Bonjoc and others, filed a complaint against the defendant, Candelario Cuison, regarding the destruction of a house that originally belonged to the plaintiffs. The defendant admitted to destroying the house and taking possession of its materials. The crux of the dispute revolved around the ownership of the house at the time of its destruction. The defendant claimed that the house was assigned to him as security for a debt owed by the deceased husband of the plaintiff, which the plaintiff acknowledged after her husband's death in 1902. The defendant presented a document, marked as Exhibit 2, which he claimed was signed by the plaintiff to secure the debt. However, the document was in the Cebuano dialect and had not been translated into Spanish. The defendant and his witnesses testified that the document was a guarantee for the debt, while the plain...

Facts:

1. Destruction of the House: It was proven and admitted by the defendant, Candelario Cuison, that he destroyed or ordered the destruction of the house described in the complaint. He also took possession of the materials of the house and retained them.
2. Ownership Dispute: The main issue was whether the house belonged to the plaintiffs (Pomposa Bonjoc et al.) or the defendant at the time of its destruction. The defendant admitted that the house originally belonged to the plaintiffs but claimed that the plaintiffs' deceased husband owed him a debt. He alleged that the plaintiff acknowledged the debt and assigned the house to him as payment in 1902.
3. Exhibit 2: The defendant presented a document (Exhibit 2) written in the Cebuano dialect, which he claimed was signed by the plaintiff and two witnesses. The document allegedly assigned the house to him as security for the debt. However, the defendant and his witnesses testified that the house was only given as a guarantee, not as full ownership.
4. Conflicting Testimony: The trial court found inconsistencies in the testimony of the defendant and his witnesses. For instance, the defendant claimed the document was written by Esteban Gonzalez, while his witnesses stated it was written by Claudio Ralota. These contradictions cast doubt on the validity of the document.
5. Plaintiffs' Claims: The plaintiffs sought the return of the house materials or, alternatively, ₱500 as compensation. They also requested any other equitable relief under the law.

Issue:

1. Whether the house belonged to the plaintiffs or the defendant at the time of its destruction.
2. Whether the defendant had the right to destroy the house and retain its materials.
3. Whether the trial court erred in awarding ₱500 to the plaintiffs instead of ordering the return of the house materials.
4. Whether the trial court erred in awarding ₱150 as damages for the plaintiffs' loss of use of the house.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)