Title
Castrodes vs. Cubelo
Case
G.R. No. L-47033
Decision Date
Jun 16, 1978
A 1977 case challenging a municipal court's jurisdiction over usurpation of real property and grave threats, ruling the threat was part of usurpation and voiding the penalty for lack of jurisdiction.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-47033)

Case Background

The petitioners, Generoso and Lamberto Castrodes, sought to annul the judgment of the municipal court convicting them of usurpation of real property. Generoso was fined P350 and served subsidiary imprisonment due to insolvency, while Lamberto received a more serious sentence of an indeterminate penalty for allegedly committing a complex crime involving usurpation of real property and grave threats. The critical incident occurred on July 10, 1975, concerning a land dispute with the Ampong family.

Jurisdictional Issues

The petitioners contended that the municipal court lacked jurisdiction over the penalties imposed, particularly in relation to the sentence of Lamberto. The Revised Penal Code specifies that usurpation of real property can be charged when accompanied by violence or intimidation. However, the court’s authority to impose sentences depends on the provisions of the Judiciary Law which stipulates that municipal courts can adjudicate offenses with penalties of up to three years of imprisonment or fines within specific limits.

Findings of the Municipal Court

The municipal court found the Castrodes brothers guilty of encroaching onto land owned by the Ampong family, establishing that Generoso was the half-brother of the Ampongs. It was determined that Lamberto's threats to Julian Ampong constituted intimidation but did not establish a separate offense of grave threats, being inherently part of the usurpation.

Legal Interpretation of Offenses

According to the Revised Penal Code, the offense of usurpation involves occupation of another's property through violence or intimidation, with an intent to gain. The court ruled that Lamberto's threat did not constitute a distinct crime of grave threats but rather served as the intimidation required for usurpation. Thus, the complaint filed charged only the single offense of usurpation of real property.

Conclusion and Ruling

The Supreme Court conclu

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.