Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 98 views

    Lagazo Vs Soriano

    Uploaded by

    chisel_159
    This case involves a dispute over possession of a parcel of land between the respondents Soriano and the petitioner Lagazo. Soriano claimed they purchased the land from their grandfather in 1998 and had been cultivating and paying taxes on the land since 1990. However, in 2001 Lagazo unlawfully entered the land by force and began cultivating it himself. Lagazo claimed he and his family were the legal heirs of the previous registered owner and that their grandfather had a mortgage agreement, not a sale. The MTC dismissed Soriano's complaint, but the RTC reversed finding Soriano failed to prove prior possession. The CA found Soriano had prior physical possession and returned possession to them. The ruling affirmed that prior physical possession

    Copyright:

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

    Lagazo Vs Soriano

    Uploaded by

    chisel_159
    98 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over possession of a parcel of land between the respondents Soriano and the petitioner Lagazo. Soriano claimed they purchased the land from their grandfather in 1998 and had been cultivating and paying taxes on the land since 1990. However, in 2001 Lagazo unlawfully entered the land by force and began cultivating it himself. Lagazo claimed he and his family were the legal heirs of the previous registered owner and that their grandfather had a mortgage agreement, not a sale. The MTC dismissed Soriano's complaint, but the RTC reversed finding Soriano failed to prove prior possession. The CA found Soriano had prior physical possession and returned possession to them. The ruling affirmed that prior physical possession

    Original Description:

    Property Law Case

    Original Title

    Lagazo vs Soriano

    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 case involves a dispute over possession of a parcel of land between the respondents Soriano and the petitioner Lagazo. Soriano claimed they purchased the land from their grandfather in 1998 and had been cultivating and paying taxes on the land since 1990. However, in 2001 Lagazo unlawfully entered the land by force and began cultivating it himself. Lagazo claimed he and his family were the legal heirs of the previous registered owner and that their grandfather had a mortgage agreement, not a sale. The MTC dismissed Soriano's complaint, but the RTC reversed finding Soriano failed to prove prior possession. The CA found Soriano had prior physical possession and returned possession to them. The ruling affirmed that prior physical possession

    Copyright:

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

    Lagazo Vs Soriano

    Uploaded by

    chisel_159
    This case involves a dispute over possession of a parcel of land between the respondents Soriano and the petitioner Lagazo. Soriano claimed they purchased the land from their grandfather in 1998 and had been cultivating and paying taxes on the land since 1990. However, in 2001 Lagazo unlawfully entered the land by force and began cultivating it himself. Lagazo claimed he and his family were the legal heirs of the previous registered owner and that their grandfather had a mortgage agreement, not a sale. The MTC dismissed Soriano's complaint, but the RTC reversed finding Soriano failed to prove prior possession. The CA found Soriano had prior physical possession and returned possession to them. The ruling affirmed that prior physical possession

    Copyright:

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

    Lagazo vs Soriano Forcible Entry – Who has better right of possession.

    Facts: Respondents claimed they were the owners of a parcel of land. They allegedly acquired the
    same by purchase from their grandfather, Arsenio Baac, on September 10, 1998, but even prior
    thereto, they were already allowed by Arsenio Baac to cultivate said land. They paid real property
    taxes for said property from 1990 to 1998 and had been in actual possession from that
    time. However, on January 6, 2001, herein petitioner allegedly unlawfully entered the property by
    means of force, stealth, and strategy and began cultivating the land for himself.

    On the other hand, petitioner insisted in his Answer that he, together with his mother, brothers, and
    sisters, were the lawful owners of the land in question, being the legal heirs of Alfredo Lagazo, the
    registered owner thereof. They denied that the subject land was sold to Arsenio Baac, alleging instead
    that the agreement between Alfredo Lagazo and Arsenio Baac was merely one of mortgage. Petitioner,
    likewise maintained that he and his co-heirs had always been in possession of the disputed land.

    MTC rendered decision: Dismissing the complaint of Forcible Entry filed against defendant
    Nelson Lagazo. Ordering Plaintiff to surrender Original Cert. of Tile.

    RTC rendered decision: Reversed MTC’s decision. Respondents (Lagazo) failed to prove prior
    physical possession.

    CA rendered decision: “Physical possession hereby returned to petitioners.” (Soriano)

    Issue: who had prior physical possession of the disputed land?

    Ruling: Prior physical possession is an indispensable element in forcible entry cases. The word
    possession, as used in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, means nothing more than
    physical possession, not legal possession in the sense contemplated in civil law.

    Thus, a party who can prove prior possession can recover such possession even against the
    owner himself. Whatever may be the character of his possession, if he has in his favor prior
    possession in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property until a
    person with a better right lawfully ejects him. To repeat, the only issue that the court has to
    settle in an ejectment suit is the right to physical possession

    Bearing the foregoing in mind, a thorough examination of the evidence revealed that,
    indeed, the parties in last peaceable quiet possession of the property in question were herein
    Lagazo vs Soriano Forcible Entry – Who has better right of possession.

    respondents. Petitioner never established the fact of his physical possession over the disputed
    land.

    You might also like