Case Digest (G.R. No. 168237)
Facts:
The case involves Thelma Buduhan as the petitioner and Curson Pakurao, Loreta Pakurao (also known as Flora Pakurao), and Camilo Pakurao as the respondents. The events leading to the case began in November 1999 when the respondents alleged that Thelma Buduhan forcibly entered a parcel of residential land located in Fialangfiang, Barlig, Mountain Province, which they claimed to own and had possessed since 1951. The land, measuring 48 square meters, was originally covered by Tax Declaration No. A-4664 issued in the name of Curson Pakurao. The respondents claimed to have made various improvements on the property, including a residential house, a stone wall, a water reservoir, and a small storage building.
In response, Thelma Buduhan contended that she was the rightful possessor of the property, having inherited it from her grandfather, Fianinan Machimlang, who had declared a larger piece of land under Tax Declaration No. 4943 in 1952. Buduhan asserted that she was merely exerc...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 168237)
Facts:
Ownership and Possession Claims
- The respondents, Curson Pakurao, Loreta Pakurao (a.k.a. Flora Pakurao), and Camilo Pakurao, filed a complaint for forcible entry and damages against the petitioner, Thelma Buduhan, before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Barlig-Sadanga, Barlig, Mountain Province.
- Respondents claimed ownership and prior possession of a 48-square-meter residential land in Fialangfiang, Barlig, Mountain Province, covered by Tax Declaration No. A-4664 issued in 1951 in the name of Curson Pakurao.
- They alleged that since 1951, they had introduced improvements on the property, including a residential house, a stone wall, a water reservoir, and a small building for storage.
Allegations of Forcible Entry
- Respondents claimed that in November 1999, petitioner forcibly entered the property, installed galvanized iron sheets on a shack, and refused to remove them when confronted, asserting her ownership.
Petitioner’s Defense
- Petitioner countered that she is the lawful possessor of the property, having inherited it from her grandfather, Fianinan Machimlang, who declared the land under Tax Declaration No. 4943 in 1952.
- She argued that her grandfather had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the property, and she was merely exercising her rights as owner when she installed the galvanized iron sheets.
MCTC Decision
- The MCTC ruled in favor of the petitioner, declaring her the lawful possessor of the property and ordering the respondents to vacate the land and pay attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.
RTC Decision
- On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) modified the MCTC decision, dismissing the complaint but ordering the respondents to pay attorney’s fees to the petitioner.
Court of Appeals Decision
- The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision, ordering the petitioner to vacate the premises and remove the galvanized iron sheets, and deleting the award of attorney’s fees.
Issue:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the petitioner to vacate the premises and remove the galvanized iron sheets.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in deleting the award of attorney’s fees in favor of the petitioner.
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court partly granted the petition. It annulled and set aside the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated the RTC’s decision dismissing the complaint for forcible entry. However, the Court deleted the award of attorney’s fees for lack of legal or factual basis.
Ratio:
- (Unlock)