Case Digest (G.R. No. L-285)
Facts:
Nicolas C. Mercado, Demandante y Apelante, Contra Benito Go Bio y Otros, Ocupantes de la Finca, Demandados y Apelados, G.R. No. L-285, April 10, 1947, the Supreme Court En Banc, Briones, J., writing for the Court.
Nicolas C. Mercado (plaintiff-appellant) was the registered owner of a house built on two adjoining lots in Narra Street, Tondo, and lived in the upper portion while using the lower portion as a workshop. By certificate of transfer of Torrens title No. 53004 dated February 28, 1938, Benito Go Bio (defendant-appellee) became the registered owner. A prior suit between the parties was compromised: Go Bio agreed to transfer the property back to Mercado for P26,655.54 under terms in the compromise, which included Mercado’s payment of P200 per month as rent until repurchase; the option to repurchase was to expire February 21, 1943. The option was apparently not exercised.
During the war, in September 1944, six Imperial Japanese Navy personnel demanded Mercado vacate the house; Mercado complied and left. When American forces entered Manila in February 1945 the house lay abandoned and was then occupied by Go Bio, who also allowed many Filipino and Chinese refugees to shelter there. Go Bio testified he spent about P10,000 on repairs. It was established that Go Bio and the refugees had obtained permission from the U.S. Army Provost Marshal to occupy the house with a promise they would not be disturbed.
Some days later Mercado demanded that Go Bio and the refugees vacate; they refused. Mercado sued for unlawful deprivation (despojo) in the municipal court and initially obtained judgment in his favor. On appeal to the Court of First Instance, that judgment was reversed and the defendants acquitted. Mercado ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the plaintiff-appellant have the right to recover possession of the property by a summary action under Rule 72, Section 1 of the Rules of Court?
- Can a person who lacks material (physical) possession but claims legal possession under Articles 444 and 446 of the Civil Code maintain the summary action for recovery of possession?
- Does the owner’s peaceful repossession (and an owner’s existing right of action because of the tenant’s default on stipulated payments) ba...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)