Case Digest (G.R. No. 181303)
Facts:
In Malana et al. v. Tappa et al. (G.R. No. 181303, September 17, 2009), petitioners Carmen Danao Malana, Maria Danao Accorda (also attorney-in-fact for Leticia and Leonora Danao), Evelyn Danao, Fermina Danao, and Leticia and Leonora Danao inherited a parcel of land in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, covered by TCT No. T-127937, from their intestate predecessor, Anastacio Danao. During Anastacio’s lifetime, Consuelo Pauig was allowed to occupy the southern portion of the lot on the condition she vacate it when needed. After Consuelo’s death, respondents Benigno Tappa, Jerry Reyna, Saturnino Cambri, and spouses Francisco and Maria Ligutan—her descendants or in-laws—continued to reside on the property, constructing permanent houses and eventually claiming ownership. When petitioners demanded their eviction, respondents refused. Attempting conciliation before Lupong Tagapamayapa, petitioners learned respondents relied on dubious documents, creating a cloud on their title. Accordingly, onCase Digest (G.R. No. 181303)
Facts:
- Background and Ownership
- Petitioners are six Danao heirs who claim ownership of a parcel of land in Tuguegarao City covered by TCT No. T-127937, inherited from Anastacio Danao, who died intestate.
- During Anastacio’s lifetime, he allowed Consuelo Pauig (married to Joaquin Boncad) to occupy the southern portion of the land on condition that she vacate when the owner or heirs needed it.
- Occupation and Dispute
- After Consuelo’s death, respondents (her son-in-law Benigno Tappa; grandson Jerry Reyna; son-in-law Saturnino Cambri; and spouses Francisco and Maria Ligutan) continued to occupy the land, built permanent residences, and asserted ownership.
- Petitioners demanded respondents vacate; respondents refused and, during barangay conciliation, presented allegedly falsified documents creating a cloud on petitioners’ title.
- RTC Proceedings
- On March 27, 2007, petitioners filed in RTC Civil Case No. 6868 a Complaint for Reivindicacion, Quieting of Title, and Damages (P50,000 actual, P50,000 exemplary, P50,000 attorney’s fees).
- The RTC dismissed the Complaint motu proprio on May 4, 2007 for lack of jurisdiction (assessed value P410
Issues:
- Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners’ Complaint motu proprio for lack of jurisdiction.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)