Case Summary (G.R. No. L-46753-54)
Background of the Case
The petitioners claim co-ownership of a total of 1,073 square meters of residential land, inherited from their parents. In 1939, they allowed the respondents to construct a house on the eastern part of their property under the condition that they would vacate when able. In 1965, the petitioners demanded that the respondents vacate the premises, which the respondents refused.
Defendants’ Claim and Legal Actions
The respondents asserted ownership through a "donacion propter nuptias" from spouses Tomas Solis and Hermenegilda Jimenez, claiming that since 1931 they had openly and continuously possessed the property. Subsequent legal actions saw the petitioners seek a preliminary injunction against the respondents in 1968, which was granted by the trial court.
Trial Court Proceedings
During the trial held on June 25, 1969, the court considered evidence from both parties. The trial court recognized that the respondents had been in possession for over thirty years but ruled that such possession could not be considered adverse to the petitioners due to the latter's better title stemming from their family’s ownership history.
Ruling of the Trial Court
The trial court affirmed that Antonio Solis was the exclusive owner of the disputed land, ordering the respondents to vacate and pay attorney's fees to the petitioners. The trial court concluded that the respondents had failed to present evidence proving their title through Tomas Solis.
Court of Appeals Decision
Dissatisfied with the trial court's verdict, the respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's decision on May 12, 1977. The appellate court determined that the respondents had lawfully possessed the eastern half of the land since 1933, backed by the absence of a proper conveyance from Simeon Solis to Tomas Solis.
Petition for Review
The petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari, admitting the factual findings of the Court of Appeals but contesting the conclusions drawn from these findings. They argued that possession was merely tolerated and not adverse, and also challenged the appellate court's acceptance of the donation as valid despite the lack of title in the donor.
Legal Arguments and Rationale
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the appellate court's factual findings, stating that possession of the respondents was adverse and uninterrupted, entitling them to ownership under principles of acquisitive prescription. The court noted that the respondents exercised acts of ownership, such as paying taxes and constructing a house, supporting th
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-46753-54)
Case Background
- This case arose from a petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioners Antonio Solis and Angela Solis Calimlim against the Honorable Court of Appeals and private respondents Jose Solis and Florencia Dioquino.
- The petitioners sought to challenge the decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 12, 1977, which reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan.
- The underlying dispute involved a parcel of land located in Barrio Bued, Calasiao, Pangasinan, with an area of 1,073 square meters, inherited from the petitioners' parents, Simeon Solis and Petronila Bauzon.
Factual Allegations
- Petitioners claimed co-ownership of the entire parcel of land and alleged that in 1939, they allowed the respondents to construct a house on the eastern portion of the land, comprising 536 square meters, with the understanding that the respondents would vacate once financially able.
- In 1965, petitioners demanded that respondents vacate the premises, but the latter refused, claiming ownership through a donacion propter nuptias from their predecessors.
Legal Arguments and Proceedings
- Respondents argued they had been in possession of the disputed land since 1931, openly and adversely, and had paid taxes on it.
- The trial court granted a preliminary mandatory injunction on December 11, 1968, to halt further construction by the respondents.
Trial Court Findings
- The