Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 162 views

    03 Heirs of Borlado Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Princess Montañano Santiago
    - Petitioners are heirs claiming ownership of land originally owned by their ancestors. Respondents have possessed the land since 1972. - Respondents filed an ejectment case and were awarded possession as well as 100 cavans of palay annually from 1972 onward as damages. - The Supreme Court ruled that the award of palay as damages was improper, as palay is not legal tender currency in the Philippines. The case was remanded for reconsideration of the damages award.

    Copyright:

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

    03 Heirs of Borlado Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Princess Montañano Santiago
    162 views1 page
    - Petitioners are heirs claiming ownership of land originally owned by their ancestors. Respondents have possessed the land since 1972. - Respondents filed an ejectment case and were awarded possession as well as 100 cavans of palay annually from 1972 onward as damages. - The Supreme Court ruled that the award of palay as damages was improper, as palay is not legal tender currency in the Philippines. The case was remanded for reconsideration of the damages award.

    Original Title

    378185483-03-Heirs-of-Borlado-vs-CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - Petitioners are heirs claiming ownership of land originally owned by their ancestors. Respondents have possessed the land since 1972. - Respondents filed an ejectment case and were awarded possession as well as 100 cavans of palay annually from 1972 onward as damages. - The Supreme Court ruled that the award of palay as damages was improper, as palay is not legal tender currency in the Philippines. The case was remanded for reconsideration of the damages award.

    Copyright:

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

    03 Heirs of Borlado Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Princess Montañano Santiago
    - Petitioners are heirs claiming ownership of land originally owned by their ancestors. Respondents have possessed the land since 1972. - Respondents filed an ejectment case and were awarded possession as well as 100 cavans of palay annually from 1972 onward as damages. - The Supreme Court ruled that the award of palay as damages was improper, as palay is not legal tender currency in the Philippines. The case was remanded for reconsideration of the damages award.

    Copyright:

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

    Heirs of Simeon Borlado vs. CA and Salvacion Vda. De Bulan, et al.

    G.R. No. 114118. August 28, 2001


    FACTS:
     Petitioners are the heirs of Simeon whose parents were Serapio and Balbina Borlado, the original owners of lots in question.
     Serapio sold the subject land to Francisco Bacero. After the latter’s death, his widow sold the lot to Sps. Bienvenido Bulan and
    Salvacion Borbon. Upon the execution of the Deed of Sale, actual possession of the lot. Salvacion and her
    Co-defendants-appellees’ possession of the lot was continuous, peaceful, uninterrupted, adverse and exclusive until November
    4, 1972, when petitioners forcibly entered and wrested physical possession thereof from them.
     Respondents filed with the Municipal Court of Maayon, Capiz a complaint for ejectment against petitioners. The ejectment case
    was decided in favor of the respondents whereby the petitioners, their agents, tenants, privies and members of their families
    were ordered to vacate Lot No. 2079 and deliver possession to the respondents together with all improvements and standing
    crops; to pay said respondents
    o One Hundred (100) cavans of palay annually from 1972 to the present or in the total amount of One Thousand One Hundred (1,100) cavans of palay; and
    o to pay the sum of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos as reimbursement for the amount respondents had paid their lawyer to protect their rights; and,
    o the costs of suit.
     Subsequently, instead of appealing to the RTC, petitioners filed a civil action which was subsequently dismissed due to lack of
    cause of action. RTC ordered petitioners to vacate. Upon appeal to the CA, the CA affirmed in toto the judgment of the RTC.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the award to respondents of cavan of palay as a form of damages is proper.

    HELD:
    No, as a matter of law, the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in holding petitioners liable to pay respondents one hundred
    (100) cavans of palay every year from 1972 until they vacate the premises of the land in question.

    The one hundred cavans of palay was awarded as a form of damages. We cannot sustain the award. “Palay” is not legal tender currency
    in the Philippines.

    You might also like