Case Digest (G.R. No. L-57259)
Facts:
Angel P. Peran v. The Honorable Presiding Judge, Branch II, Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, 10th Judicial District, Ramon Espera, and Encarnacion Evasco, as Private-Respondents, G.R. No. 57259, October 13, 1983, the Supreme Court First Division, Melencio-Herrera, J., writing for the Court.The dispute concerns an unregistered residential parcel of about 1,225 square meters in Tagdon, Barcelona, Sorsogon originally owned by Jose Evasco. On December 29, 1950, Jose executed a reparticion ex-trajudicial partitioning his properties among his heirs; the subject lot was allotted to his son Alejandro Evasco, who had it surveyed in 1956 and declared it under a tax declaration in his name. One of Jose's other children was the late Anacleto Evasco, whose child was listed as Encarnacion Evasco (private respondent).
Alejandro sold the parcel to Jose E. Torella on December 31, 1972; Torella later sold it to Jose Enriquez Sabater on July 10, 1977. Angel P. Peran (petitioner) purchased the land from Sabater on December 27, 1978, and recorded the sale at the Register of Deeds on January 3, 1979 and declared the land under his own tax declaration.
Sometime in January 1979 petitioner demanded that private respondents Encarnacion Evasco and her common-law husband Ramon Espera remove a house they occupied on a roughly 440 square meter portion of the lot; respondents refused. Petitioner filed a complaint for Forcible Entry and Illegal Detainer on February 8, 1979 before the 2nd Municipal Circuit Court of Bulusan-Barcelona, alleging respondents were merely squatters and had deprived him of possession. Respondents denied the allegations and asserted they had lawfully possessed the portion for over twenty years as descendants of Jose Evasco.
On September 1, 1979, the 2nd Municipal Circuit Court rendered judgment for petitioner ordering respondents to vacate, return possession, and pay attorney’s fees and costs; its denial of respondents’ motion for reconsideration was entered November 12, 1979. Respondents appealed to the Court of First Instance (Branch II) of Sorsogon, which on March 28, 1980 reversed and dismissed the case, ruling that the action was barred by the one-year prescription counted from the 1972 sale and that prior possession, whatever its character, is protected by law; its denial of reconsideration was later entered. Petitioner br...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of First Instance err in computing the one-year prescriptive period for forcible entry and unlawful detainer from the 1972 sale instead of from the petitioner’s demand to vacate?
- Did the Court of First Instance correctly hold that prior possession, regardless of its character, is protected by law in a forcible entry an...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)