Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 335 views

    Azarcon Vs Eusebio

    Uploaded by

    Kling King
    The defendants were found in contempt of court for harvesting crops from land after being ordered by the court to vacate the premises. However, the court's order did not prohibit harvesting existing crops. Under Philippine law, a good faith possessor ordered to leave land has a right to a portion of any pending harvest in proportion to the time of possession. As the order did not expressly prohibit harvesting and the defendants had filed motions to stay execution, they were justified in harvesting crops and were not in contempt of court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Azarcon Vs Eusebio

    Uploaded by

    Kling King
    335 views1 page
    The defendants were found in contempt of court for harvesting crops from land after being ordered by the court to vacate the premises. However, the court's order did not prohibit harvesting existing crops. Under Philippine law, a good faith possessor ordered to leave land has a right to a portion of any pending harvest in proportion to the time of possession. As the order did not expressly prohibit harvesting and the defendants had filed motions to stay execution, they were justified in harvesting crops and were not in contempt of court.

    Original Description:

    azarcon case

    Original Title

    Azarcon vs Eusebio

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The defendants were found in contempt of court for harvesting crops from land after being ordered by the court to vacate the premises. However, the court's order did not prohibit harvesting existing crops. Under Philippine law, a good faith possessor ordered to leave land has a right to a portion of any pending harvest in proportion to the time of possession. As the order did not expressly prohibit harvesting and the defendants had filed motions to stay execution, they were justified in harvesting crops and were not in contempt of court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    335 views1 page

    Azarcon Vs Eusebio

    Uploaded by

    Kling King
    The defendants were found in contempt of court for harvesting crops from land after being ordered by the court to vacate the premises. However, the court's order did not prohibit harvesting existing crops. Under Philippine law, a good faith possessor ordered to leave land has a right to a portion of any pending harvest in proportion to the time of possession. As the order did not expressly prohibit harvesting and the defendants had filed motions to stay execution, they were justified in harvesting crops and were not in contempt of court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    L-11977 April 29, 1959

    LEONARDO AZARCON, MANUEL AZARCON and ESTEBAN ABOBO, petitioners,


    vs.
    VICTOR EUSEBIO, respondent.

    FACTS:
    This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Appeals finding Leonardo Azarcon, Manuel Azarcon and
    Esteban Abobo guilty of contempt of court. Victor Eusebio had filed a lease application, No. V-79, for a parcel
    of land known as lot No. 3807, containing an area of about 349 hectares. A portion of more or less 6 hectares
    thereof was occupied by Azarcon and his companions, under a homestead application. Before the dispute could
    be settled, Eusebio filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. Azarcon answered alleging
    that he is in actual possession of a portion of 24 hectares since 1941 by virtue of a homestead application, No.
    V-42995, with interruption during the war and again in 1950 up to the time of the filing of the action. Having
    failed to obtain a reconsideration of the courts decision, defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals. CA
    denied a petition of defendants-appellants to reconsider order authorizing the stay of execution on the ground
    that the writ of execution issued had already been executed.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the defendant is justified in harvesting his pending fruits upon the court order of
    execution

    RULING:
    YES. While the court order ordered the defendants to move out from the premises, it did not prohibit
    them from gathering the crop then existing thereon. Under the law, a person who is in possession and who is
    being ordered to leave a parcel of land while products thereon are pending harvest, has the right to a part of the
    net harvest, as expressly provided by Article 545 of the Civil Code: If at the time the good faith ceases, there
    should be any natural or industrial fruits, the possessor shall have a right to a part of the expenses of
    cultivation, and to a part of the net harvest, both in proportion to the time of the possession.
    As the order of execution did not expressly prohibit the defendants-appellants from gathering the
    pending fruits, which fruits were the result of their possession and cultivation of the land, it cannot be said that
    they committed an act which is clear violation of the courts order. Besides, the defendants-appellants had
    presented, after receipt of the order of execution, a motion to set aside the said order, and this motion to stay
    execution was granted. They further presented a bond in accordance with the order of the court and had it
    approved by the Court of First Instance. It was perhaps in expectation of this resolution of the court setting aside
    the order of execution that defendants-appellants may have felt justified in entering the land and harvesting the
    fruits existing thereon.

    You might also like