Title
Samson vs. Yatco
Case
G.R. No. L-12084
Decision Date
Aug 25, 1958
Occupants dispute lot ownership; amicable settlement grants Samson 1/4 share, but failure to segregate forfeits rights. Court upholds finality of judgment, orders Samson’s eviction, but spares Reyes, a non-party purchaser.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-12084)

Background and Purchases

On March 21, 1951, Florencia de Guzman and Maria Santos purchased Lot No. 10 on an installment plan from the Philippine Realty Corporation. Pedro Samson entered into a separate agreement with the purchasers, committing to pay a share of the down payment and subsequent monthly installments related to the lot he occupied. Allegedly, Samson failed to honor his commitments, leading to de Guzman and Santos covering all payments until December 3, 1954, when they completed the purchase.

Initial Legal Action

On January 16, 1955, Samson initiated a lawsuit (Civil Case No. Q-1314) against de Guzman, Santos, and the Philippine Realty Corporation, asserting the existence of a partition agreement executed on June 15, 1951. He claimed this agreement entitled him to the portion of the lot he occupied. The defendants contested the claims, asserting that Samson's failure to pay installments constituted a waiver of his rights to the property.

Amicable Settlement

An "Amicable Settlement" was filed on December 15, 1955, detailing the division of the property and stipulating that Samson would receive a quarter of the lot. The agreement included a requirement for Samson to initiate the segregation of his allotted portion within three months, failing which he would lose all rights to the property.

Non-Compliance and Motions

On January 7, 1956, Samson transferred his rights to Mariano Reyes, his son-in-law, for P2,600. However, by May 8, 1956, de Guzman and Santos moved to have Samson's rights canceled due to his failure to commence segregation within the stipulated timeframe. The Court subsequently ordered the cancellation of Samson's rights on May 12, 1956, after he failed to appear for a motion hearing.

Reconsideration Attempts and Final Orders

Samson’s subsequent motions for reconsideration concerning the orders of cancellation and the requirement to vacate the property were denied, with the Court asserting that they had become final and executory. Samson's arguments, including the assertion that he had complied with the segregation requirement through a subdivision plan dated March 4, 1956, were dismissed.

Certiorari Petition

In response to the lower Court’s actions, Samson and Reyes filed a petition for certiorari, challenging several orders issued by the lower Court. The issue at hand was whether the lower Court had committed grave abuse of discretion in its earlier rulings, including its jurisdiction to enforce possession of the properties.

Court's Ruling on Jurisdiction and Orders

The Court determined that the orders issued were enforceable and did not constitute grave abuse of discretion. It was noted that disobedience to the amicable settlement terms initiated an execution of a final judgment. The Court emphasized that the orders only bound Pedro Samson personally and could not affect Mariano Reyes since he was not a party in the lower proceedings.

Dissenting Opinion

Justice Pad

...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.