Case Digest (G.R. No. 172184) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Tining Resuena vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Juanito Borromeo, Sr. (G.R. No. 128338, March 28, 2005), private respondent Juanito Borromeo, Sr. was co-owner of Lots Nos. 2587 and 2592 in Pooc, Talisay, Cebu, holding six-eighths of Lot No. 2587 while spouses Inocencio Bascon and Basilisa Maneja owned the remaining two-eighths, and sharing Lot No. 2592 with the heirs of Nicolas Maneja. Petitioners Tining Resuena, Alejandra Garay, Lorna Resuena, Eleuterio Resuena and Unisima Resuena occupied the upper portion of Lot No. 2587 with alleged permission from the Bascons, while Eutiquia Rosario occupied part of Lot No. 2592 under an alleged grant from the Maneja heirs. Borromeo developed his portions into the Borromeo Beach Resort and, seeking to expand, filed an ejectment complaint against all six petitioners before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Talisay on February 16, 1994. The MTC dismissed the complaint on October 10, 1994, finding that co-owning parties had undivided share Case Digest (G.R. No. 172184) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Ownership
- Private respondent Juanito Borromeo, Sr. (now represented by his heirs) is co-owner of:
- Lot No. 2587 (6/8 share) with spouses Inocencio Bascon and Basilisa Maneja owning 2/8.
- Lot No. 2592 with undetermined undivided shares among respondent and heirs of Nicolas Maneja.
- Petitioners Tining Resuena, Alejandra Garay, Lorna Resuena, Eleuterio Resuena, and Unisima Resuena occupied the upper portion of Lot No. 2587 allegedly under the acquiescence of spouses Bascon and heir Andres Bascon.
- Petitioner Eutiquia Rosario occupied a portion of Lot No. 2592 allegedly with permission of heirs of Nicolas Maneja.
- Development and Demand to Vacate
- Respondent developed his portions of Lots Nos. 2587 and 2592 into Borromeo Beach Resort.
- To expand the resort, respondent demanded petitioners to vacate their occupied portions. Petitioners refused.
- Procedural History
- February 16, 1994 – Respondent filed an ejectment complaint in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Talisay, Cebu.
- October 10, 1994 – MTC dismissed the complaint, holding that undivided co-ownership precludes preferential possessory right and respondent could not evict.
- April 28, 1995 – Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18 reversed the MTC, invoking Civil Code Article 487 to allow a co-owner to bring ejectment and directing petitioners to vacate (subject to their right to reoccupy after partition).
- October 7, 1996 – Court of Appeals (Eleventh Division) affirmed the RTC decision.
- Petitioners filed a petition for review under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, assigning errors on estoppel, statute of frauds, Article 493 (assignee status), and remand for damages.
Issues:
- Whether respondent is estopped from filing the ejectment action by his prior testimony in Civil Case No. R-14600.
- Whether the alleged verbal agreement on division of portions of Lot No. 2587 is enforceable despite the Statute of Frauds (Civil Code Article 1358).
- Whether petitioners, as assignees of spouses Bascon under Article 493 of the Civil Code, have rights to continued occupancy.
- Whether petitioners are entitled to reimbursement for necessary or useful improvements under Civil Code Article 546.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)