Case Digest (G.R. No. 76216)
Facts:
German Management & Services, Inc. v. Hon. Court of Appeals and Orlando Gernale (G.R. No. 76216) and German Management & Services, Inc. v. Hon. Court of Appeals and Ernesto Villeza (G.R. No. 76217), promulgated September 14, 1989, the Supreme Court Third Division, Fernan, C.J., writing for the Court.Spouses Cynthia Cuyegkeng Jose and Manuel Rene Jose, residents of Pennsylvania, owned a 232,942 sqm parcel in Sitio Inarawan, San Isidro, Antipolo, Rizal, covered by TCT No. 50023 (issued September 11, 1980) and originally registered as OCT No. 19 pursuant to a Homestead Patent (July 27, 1948). On February 26, 1982 the spouses executed a special power of attorney authorizing petitioner German Management & Services, Inc. to develop the property into a residential subdivision; petitioner obtained Development Permit No. 00424 from the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission on February 9, 1983.
Petitioner found parts of the property occupied and cultivated by private respondents (mountainside farmers and members of the Concerned Citizens of Farmer's Association). After the occupants refused to vacate, petitioner proceeded with development, which included improvement of a barangay road and the destruction of crops and fences on portions the private respondents claimed to possess.
Private respondents filed an action for forcible entry before the Municipal Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, alleging forcible removal, destruction of crops, and threats and coercion by petitioner. The Municipal Trial Court dismissed their complaint on January 7, 1985; the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Branch LXXI sustained that dismissal on appeal. Private respondents then petitioned the Court of Appeals, which on July 24, 1986 gave due course to the petition and reversed both lower courts, holding that actual possession entitles one to bring forcible entry irrespective of ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals deny petitioner due process by reversing the lower courts without giving petitioner the opportunity to file an answer?
- Are private respondents entitled to maintain an action for forcible entry against petitioner despite petitioner’s claim of authority from t...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)