Title
Hermitano vs. Clarito
Case
G.R. No. 483
Decision Date
Dec 31, 1902
Plaintiff claimed peaceful land possession, ousted by defendant in 1900; court ruled for restitution, prioritizing possession over title validity under Civil Code.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 483)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of the Case
    • Damian Hermitano, the plaintiff, claimed that on December 4, 1897, the municipality of Carmona conveyed to him a piece of land as remuneration for services rendered during 1895 and 1896.
    • The land, being common property of the township, was later held by the plaintiff in quiet and peaceable possession as its owner.
    • The complaint was filed on April 17, 1901, and contained a clear description of the area, location, and boundaries of the disputed property.
  • Alleged Ouster and Possession
    • The plaintiff alleged that on April 28, 1900, Marcelino Clarito, then serving as the municipal president of Carmona, without any legal authority, ousted him from the possession of the land.
    • Clarito further communicated to the tenants that they should recognize him as the owner, asserting his authority as municipal president, thereby usurping the plaintiff’s possession.
    • The ouster was central to the complaint, as the plaintiff sought restitutory interdict for the restoration of possession along with demands for damages and costs.
  • Testimonies and Evidence
    • A total of seven witnesses testified: four during the preliminary investigation and three during trial.
      • All witnesses unanimously confirmed the plaintiff’s quiet and peaceable possession.
      • They also corroborated the act of ouster by the defendant.
    • Discrepancy in Testimony Regarding the Date of Ouster
      • Four witnesses explicitly mentioned the act of ouster having been executed on April 28, 1900.
      • Three witnesses were uncertain of the exact date but concurred that the event occurred in April 1900.
    • Documentary Evidence
      • A certified document (p. 54 of the record) established the conveyance of the land by the municipality, indirectly proving the source of the plaintiff’s possession.
      • The defendant submitted a certified copy of a resolution dated April 1, 1900 (p. 50), purporting to show the establishment of a new system for the cultivation of the town commons and, by implication, his taking possession on that earlier date.
  • Defendant’s Position and Arguments
    • Acknowledgment of Facts
      • The defendant admitted that the act which led to the ouster did occur, though he asserted it was on April 1, 1900, instead of the plaintiff’s claimed date of April 28, 1900.
    • Statute of Limitations Defense
      • Based on his assertion of the earlier date, the defendant argued that filing the complaint on April 17, 1901, meant that more than one year had elapsed since the ouster, thereby barring the action under the statute of limitations (Article 1635 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
    • Void Conveyance Argument
      • The defendant further contended that the conveyance of the land by the municipality to the plaintiff was void due to several decrees from the General Government of the Philippines, which prohibited the alienation of the common lands of the municipality.
      • This argument focused on the legality of the title rather than the fact of possession.
  • Procedural History
    • The plaintiff initially obtained a favorable judgment from the Court of First Instance through the remedy of restitutory interdict.
    • The defendant appealed the judgment to the higher court, leading to a review of the evidence concerning both the possession and the disputed date of the ouster.
  • Court’s Findings
    • The evidence overwhelmingly supported that the plaintiff had been in possession and that the ouster occurred as a single, corroborated event.
    • The resolution submitted by the defendant was found insufficient on its own to effectuate the act of ouster since its execution was evidenced to have taken place on April 28, 1900.
    • The court emphasized that the core issue was the fact of possession and the act of ouster, not the validity of the deed or conveyance.

Issues:

  • Date of the Ouster
    • Whether the act of ouster by the defendant occurred on April 1, 1900, as he contended, or on April 28, 1900, as testified by the plaintiff’s witnesses.
    • The determination of the correct date was crucial since it directly affected whether the complaint was filed within the one-year period prescribed by the statute of limitations.
  • Timeliness of the Complaint
    • If the ouster had indeed taken place on April 1, 1900, the complaint filed on April 17, 1901, would arguably be barred by the statute of limitations.
    • On the other hand, if the effective ouster occurred on April 28, 1900, the complaint would fall within the allowable period.
  • Relevance of the Void Conveyance Argument
    • Whether the allegation regarding the illegality of the conveyance (due to prohibitory government decrees) impacted the remedy sought, considering that the remedy of restitutory interdict is based solely on the fact of possession rather than on title.
    • The issue here was not the validity of the title, but the right of the plaintiff to have his quiet and peaceable possession restored even if the deed were void.
  • Evidentiary Issues
    • The admissibility and weight of testimonial and documentary evidence regarding the exact date of the ouster.
    • Whether extraneous evidence regarding the validity of municipal resolutions or the conveyance affected the disposition of the case concerning possession and ouster.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.

About Privacy Terms