Title
Velarma vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 113615
Decision Date
Jan 25, 1996
A dispute over land ownership between Bienvenido Velarma and Josefina Pansacola leads to a ruling in favor of Pansacola, as the Supreme Court rejects Velarma's claim that the land belonged to the government and upholds the lower courts' decisions.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 113615)

Facts:

  • The case "Velarma v. Court of Appeals" involves a land ownership dispute between Bienvenido Velarma (petitioner) and Josefina Pansacola (private respondent).
  • Decided on January 25, 1996, under G.R. No. 113615, with Justice Panganiban as the ponente.
  • The dispute arose in Barangay Lual (Poblacion), Mauban, Quezon.
  • Velarma built a dwelling on land registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-91037 in the name of Josefina Pansacola's deceased husband, Publio.
  • In May 1981, Pansacola reported Velarma's unauthorized occupation to the Barangay Captain, who conducted several conferences.
  • Despite Velarma's promises to vacate, he failed to do so.
  • Pansacola filed Criminal Case No. 1068 in 1986 for violation of P.D. No. 772 (the Anti-Squatting Law).
  • Velarma was convicted and fined P1,500.00 but continued to occupy the property.
  • Pansacola filed an ejectment suit in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 64, Mauban, Quezon.
  • The RTC ruled in favor of Pansacola, ordering Velarma to vacate the land, remove his house, and pay exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision.
  • Velarma petitioned for review on certiorari, claiming the land belonged to the government based on an agreement between Publio Pansacola and the Municipality of Mauban.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  1. The Supreme Court ruled that the lot owner's agreement to sell the property to the government, as evidenced by the minutes of a meeting, does not constitute a sufficient ground to defeat a forcible entry suit.
  2. The Supreme Court held that the trial court properly acquired jurisdiction over the case despite the ejectment suit being filed in the Regional Trial Court.
  3. ...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. The Supreme Court found that the minutes of the meeting of the Sangguniang Bayan did not mention the execution of any formal deed to perfect the agreement between Publio Pansacola and the Municipality of Mauban. Without a formal deed, the agreement was not consummated, and the ownership of the land remained with the Pansacola spouses. The court emphasized that more than twenty years had passed since the agreement, and no actual transfer had been made. Therefore, the private respondent retained ownership of the land, and the for...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.