Title
Padayao vs. Villafuerte
Case
G.R. No. 260415
Decision Date
Jan 15, 2025
Dante Padayao appealed a CA ruling limiting possession to Lot No. 6973. The Supreme Court ruled he also has rights to Lot No. 6972, reinstating his possession.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 254564)

Background of the Case

The case centers on the ownership and possession rights over Pitogo Island, specifically Lot Nos. 6972 and 6973, with Lot No. 6973 being titled under Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo Bilang 35669 issued to the heirs of Mario Padayao. Dante Padayao, representing the heirs, faced eviction from the island based on a letter from the Provincial Government declaring it a protected area. This eviction escalated to a conflicting situation, leading to a demolition of structures on the island, which prompted legal action by Dante Padayao.

Factual Developments

Following a letter from the Provincial Government mandating the residents to vacate Pitogo Island, armed groups, including some respondents, executed the eviction forcefully. Dante Padayao’s legal representation argued that the land belonged to his family through historic occupation and tax payments, which were substantiated through testimonies and forensic documents demonstrating his predecessors’ possession since 1920, inclusive of a survey plan from 1934.

Initial Ruling by the Regional Trial Court

The Regional Trial Court had favored Dante Padayao in a decision that required the respondents and their affiliates to vacate Lot Nos. 6972 and 6973, arguing that the evidence strongly favored the Padayaos as rightful claimants and highlighting the lack of merit in the respondents’ claims of environmental protection justifying the demolition.

Court of Appeals' Position

Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling but limited the reversion to Lot No. 6973 only. The appellate court reasoned that Dante had verifiable ownership over Lot No. 6973 but had not demonstrated adequate proof of ownership for Lot No. 6972, which was presumed to be public land due to his failure to provide sufficient documentation supporting his claim.

Issues of Legal Jurisdiction

While the jurisdiction for the case remained with the Regional Trial Court, it was raised that the necessary evidence to establish the court’s jurisdiction based on the value of the properties claimed was absent from the original complaint. However, the Supreme Court determined that since the respondents did not contest this jurisdiction during the proceedings, they were estopped from doing so later.

Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court recognized that Dante Padayao holds a superior right of possession over both Lot Nos. 6972 and 6973. The Court specified that the classifications supporting the land as alienable and disposable applied equally to Lot No. 6972, reinforcing Dante’s historical claims

...continue reading

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