Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    German Management Services Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Myra Mae J. Duglas
    This document summarizes a court case between German Management & Services, Inc. and two private respondents, Ernesto Villeza and Orlando Gernale. The private respondents were occupying and cultivating land owned by Cynthia and Manuel Jose, when German Management began developing the land into a subdivision. The private respondents filed a case for forcible entry, claiming German Management forcibly removed fences and bulldozed crops. The municipal and regional trial courts dismissed the case. The Supreme Court ruled that as actual possessors of the land, the private respondents could commence a forcible entry case against German Management, regardless of ownership claims, because prior possession can defeat even the owner's right until lawful ejection proceedings.

    Copyright:

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

    German Management Services Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Myra Mae J. Duglas
    1K views1 page
    This document summarizes a court case between German Management & Services, Inc. and two private respondents, Ernesto Villeza and Orlando Gernale. The private respondents were occupying and cultivating land owned by Cynthia and Manuel Jose, when German Management began developing the land into a subdivision. The private respondents filed a case for forcible entry, claiming German Management forcibly removed fences and bulldozed crops. The municipal and regional trial courts dismissed the case. The Supreme Court ruled that as actual possessors of the land, the private respondents could commence a forcible entry case against German Management, regardless of ownership claims, because prior possession can defeat even the owner's right until lawful ejection proceedings.

    Original Description:

    Property...Possession...Case Digest

    Original Title

    German Management Services vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case between German Management & Services, Inc. and two private respondents, Ernesto Villeza and Orlando Gernale. The private respondents were occupying and cultivating land owned by Cynthia and Manuel Jose, when German Management began developing the land into a subdivision. The private respondents filed a case for forcible entry, claiming German Management forcibly removed fences and bulldozed crops. The municipal and regional trial courts dismissed the case. The Supreme Court ruled that as actual possessors of the land, the private respondents could commence a forcible entry case against German Management, regardless of ownership claims, because prior possession can defeat even the owner's right until lawful ejection proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    German Management Services Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Myra Mae J. Duglas
    This document summarizes a court case between German Management & Services, Inc. and two private respondents, Ernesto Villeza and Orlando Gernale. The private respondents were occupying and cultivating land owned by Cynthia and Manuel Jose, when German Management began developing the land into a subdivision. The private respondents filed a case for forcible entry, claiming German Management forcibly removed fences and bulldozed crops. The municipal and regional trial courts dismissed the case. The Supreme Court ruled that as actual possessors of the land, the private respondents could commence a forcible entry case against German Management, regardless of ownership claims, because prior possession can defeat even the owner's right until lawful ejection proceedings.

    Copyright:

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

    GERMAN MANAGEMENT & SERVICES, INC.

    , petitioner,
    vs.
    HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ERNESTO VILLEZA, respondents.

    G.R. No. L-76216 September 14, 1989

    GERMAN MANAGEMENT & SERVICES, INC., petitioner,


    vs.
    HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ORLANDO GERNALE, respondents.

    FACTS:
    Spouses Cynthia Cuyegkeng Jose and Manuel Rene Jose, residents of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA are the
    owners of a parcel of land situated in Sitio Inarawan, San Isidro, Antipolo, Rizal, On February 26, 1982, the
    spouses Jose executed a special power of attorney authorizing petitioner German Management Services to
    develop their property covered by TCT No. 50023 into a residential subdivision. Consequently, petitioner on
    February 9,1983 obtained Development Permit No. 00424 from the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission
    for said development. Finding that part of the property was occupied by private respondents and twenty other
    persons, petitioner advised the occupants to vacate the premises but the latter refused. Nevertheless, petitioner
    proceeded with the development of the subject property which included the portions occupied and cultivated by
    private respondents.Private respondents filed an action for forcible entry against petitioner before the Municipal
    Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, alleging that they are mountainside farmers of Sitio Inarawan, San Isidro,
    Antipolo, Rizal that on August 15, 1983 and thereafter, petitioner deprived private respondents of their property
    without due process of law by: (1) forcibly removing and destroying the barbed wire fence enclosing their
    farmholdings without notice; (2) bulldozing the rice, corn fruit bearing trees and other crops of private
    respondents by means of force, violence and intimidation, in violation of P.D. 1038 and (3) trespassing, coercing
    and threatening to harass, remove and eject private respondents from their respective farmholdings in violation
    of P.D. Nos. 316, 583, 815, and 1028.
    the Municipal Trial Court dismissed private respondents' complaint for forcible entry. 2 On appeal, the Regional
    Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch LXXI sustained the dismissal by the Municipal Trial Court. 3

    ISSUE:
    can private respondents, who are not owners but as actual possessors, can commence a forcible entry case against
    petitioner

    RULINGS:
    In the case at bar, it is undisputed that at the time petitioner entered the property, private respondents were already
    in possession thereof . There is no evidence that the spouses Jose were ever in possession of the subject property.
    On the contrary, private respondents' peaceable possession was manifested by the fact that they even planted
    rice, corn and fruit bearing trees twelve to fifteen years prior to petitioner's act of destroying their crops.

    Although admittedly petitioner may validly claim ownership based on the muniments of title it presented, such
    evidence does not responsively address the issue of prior actual possession raised in a forcible entry case. It must
    be stated that regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property, the party in peaceable quiet possession
    shall not be turned out by a strong hand, violence or terror. 9 Thus, a party who can prove prior possession can
    recover such possession even against the owner himself. Whatever may be the character of his prior possession,
    if he has in his favor priority in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property until he is
    lawfully ejected by a person having a better right by accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria.

    You might also like