Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 208 views

    Barrientos V Rapal Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Su
    Rapal acquired a 235 square meter parcel of land that was said to be part of the estate of Don Mariano. Rapal constructed a house on the lot and took possession through caretakers. Rapal allowed Barrientos and his family to stay as caretakers on the condition they would vacate when asked. When Rapal demanded they vacate, Barrientos refused. Rapal filed an unlawful detainer case. The RTC reversed the MeTC ruling in favor of Rapal, but the CA affirmed the MeTC ruling. The Supreme Court ruled the petition had no merit and the CA correctly addressed ownership to determine possession, finding Barrientos' occupation was by tolerance as Rapal's caretaker.

    Copyright:

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

    Barrientos V Rapal Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Su
    208 views2 pages
    Rapal acquired a 235 square meter parcel of land that was said to be part of the estate of Don Mariano. Rapal constructed a house on the lot and took possession through caretakers. Rapal allowed Barrientos and his family to stay as caretakers on the condition they would vacate when asked. When Rapal demanded they vacate, Barrientos refused. Rapal filed an unlawful detainer case. The RTC reversed the MeTC ruling in favor of Rapal, but the CA affirmed the MeTC ruling. The Supreme Court ruled the petition had no merit and the CA correctly addressed ownership to determine possession, finding Barrientos' occupation was by tolerance as Rapal's caretaker.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Original Title

    Barrientos v Rapal Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Rapal acquired a 235 square meter parcel of land that was said to be part of the estate of Don Mariano. Rapal constructed a house on the lot and took possession through caretakers. Rapal allowed Barrientos and his family to stay as caretakers on the condition they would vacate when asked. When Rapal demanded they vacate, Barrientos refused. Rapal filed an unlawful detainer case. The RTC reversed the MeTC ruling in favor of Rapal, but the CA affirmed the MeTC ruling. The Supreme Court ruled the petition had no merit and the CA correctly addressed ownership to determine possession, finding Barrientos' occupation was by tolerance as Rapal's caretaker.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    208 views2 pages

    Barrientos V Rapal Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Su
    Rapal acquired a 235 square meter parcel of land that was said to be part of the estate of Don Mariano. Rapal constructed a house on the lot and took possession through caretakers. Rapal allowed Barrientos and his family to stay as caretakers on the condition they would vacate when asked. When Rapal demanded they vacate, Barrientos refused. Rapal filed an unlawful detainer case. The RTC reversed the MeTC ruling in favor of Rapal, but the CA affirmed the MeTC ruling. The Supreme Court ruled the petition had no merit and the CA correctly addressed ownership to determine possession, finding Barrientos' occupation was by tolerance as Rapal's caretaker.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Barrientos v Rapal

    Facts:

    Rapal acquired 235 square meter parcel of land which was said to be a portion
    of the estate of Don Mariano.

    Respondent constructed a semi-concrete house on the lot and took actual


    possession of the property by himself through his caretakers.

    Respondent allowed petitioner Bienvenido and his family to stay on the subject
    property as caretakers on the condition that the petitioner will vacate the
    premises when respondent would need the property.

    But when respondent demanded to vacate, the petitioner refused.

    Respondent filed a cased for unlawful detainer.

    The court ruled in favor of the respondent.

    RTC reversed but CA affirmed the MeTC ruling. Hence, this petition.

    Issue:

    WHETHER THE ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP CAN BE INITIALLY


    RESOLVED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE ISSUE
    OF POSSESSION.

    Ruling:
    The petition is of no merit.

    In the case at bar, both petitioner and respondent were claiming


    ownership over the subject property. Hence, the CA correctly
    touched upon the issue of ownership only to determine who
    between the parties has the right to possess the subject property.
    Thus, based on the evidence presented by the respondent, it can be
    deduced that petitioner's occupation of the subject lot was by mere
    tolerance only. Petitioner was initially permitted by respondent to
    occupy the lot as a caretaker.

    You might also like