Title
Cabrera vs. Getaruela
Case
G.R. No. 164213
Decision Date
Apr 21, 2009
Heirs dispute property ownership; court upholds ejectment case, ruling possession by tolerance became unlawful after demand, affirming Repartition Project over prior agreement.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 164213)

Antecedent Facts

The lots were originally covered by tax declarations in the name of Arcadio Jaca. In 1951, the heirs of Arcadio executed a notarized document titled "Kasabutan nga Hinigala," which designated Peregrina Jaca Cabrera as the sole heir to the properties. However, a Repartition Project approved in 1956 allocated the lots to Urbana Jaca Ababon, the mother of the respondents, who inherited the lots after Urbana’s death in 1997. The petitioners occupied the properties with the respondents' knowledge, under a purported agreement that they would vacate when requested.

Ejectment and Initial Court Rulings

In 2001, the respondents demanded that the petitioners vacate the premises due to their non-payment of rent, leading to an ejectment suit filed as Civil Case No. R-45280. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) initially ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that the "Kasabutan nga Hinigala" was superseded by the Repartition Project. The MTCC ordered the petitioners to vacate the premises, demolish any improvements, and pay litigation fees.

Regional Trial Court Ruling

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially reversed the MTCC's decision, declaring that the Project of Partition indicated co-ownership of Lot No. 3635-Y, which protected Cabras from being ejected. However, following a motion for reconsideration, the RTC modified its ruling, dismissing the complaint regarding Lot 3635-Y but ordering the petitioners to vacate Lot No. 3635-CC.

Court of Appeals' Decision

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision, addressing procedural aspects and confirming the MTCC's jurisdiction to adjudicate the ejectment case. The court explained that the legal basis for ejectment is grounded in unlawful detainer, and concluded that the allegations provided sufficient basis for the MTCC's jurisdiction. The court asserted that the issue was not about ownership but rather about possession, highlighting the provisional nature of any findings related to o

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.