Title
Quinao vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 139603
Decision Date
Jul 14, 2000
Conchita Quinao convicted of Usurpation of Real Property for forcibly taking Francisco Del Monte's land, harvesting coconuts, and selling them for profit; ownership previously adjudicated to Del Monte.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 139603)

Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioner: Conchita Quinao
Respondents: The People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, and private complainant Francisco F. Del Monte

Key Dates

– February 2, 1993: Alleged forcible entry, collection of 12,000 coconuts, conversion to copra, and sale for ₱14,580
– January 25, 1993: Issuance of Tax Declaration No. 1195 in favor of Lorenzo Cases Leoniso (basis for petitioners’ claim)
– January 14, 1999: Court of Appeals decision affirming RTC conviction
– June 30, 1999: CA resolution denying reconsideration
– July 14, 2000: Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

1987 Constitution; Article 312 of the Revised Penal Code (usurpation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property by means of violence or intimidation with intent to gain).

Factual Background and Civil Title Dispute

Private complainant established prior adjudication of the land in Civil Case No. 3561 in favor of his predecessors‐in‐interest, evidenced by Tax Declaration No. 1202 (canceling Tax Declaration No. 18612). Petitioner relied on Tax Declaration No. 1195, claiming the property as part of her grandfather’s inheritance. Boundaries and area were contested but overlapped with those previously awarded to complainant’s predecessor.

Commissioner's Findings

Pursuant to a court‐appointed commission, Deputy Sheriff Anacta confirmed via site inspection and sketch map that the area claimed by petitioner encroached upon complainant’s legally adjudicated parcel, as ordered by the trial court on February 1, 1994.

Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment

At trial, both sides presented boundary witnesses. Prosecution witness Bienvenido Del Monte testified to forcible entry, use of violence and threats, and immediate harvesting of coconuts. The Regional Trial Court found all elements of usurpation proven—occupation of another’s property by violence or intimidation with intent to gain—and sentenced petitioners jointly and severally to a fine of ₱174,960 (equivalent to proceeds for nearly three years at ₱14,580 per quarter). The court enjoined further intrusion and ordered police assistance to secure complainant’s possession.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR No. 19412, affirmed the RTC’s factual findings on title, violence, intimidation, and intent to gain. It adopted the commissioner’s sketch and reiterated that the issue of ownership had been conclusively settled in Civil Case No. 3561. The petition for reconsideration was denied.

Issues Raised on Supreme Court Review

  1. Whether an elderly female petitioner could be held liable for usurpation based on alleged conspiracy supported merely by speculation.
  2. Whether subsequent use of force and intimidation sufficed to establish usurpation.
  3. Whether one claiming ownership could be convicted of usurpation of her own property.

Supreme Court Analysis: Ownership

The Court held that ownership was conclusively determined by the prior civil judgment. Petitioner’s reliance on Tax Declaration No. 1195 was insufficient to disturb the earlier adjudication. The c

...continue reading

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