Posts

Showing posts with the label Property

Colito Pajuyo and Court of Appeals and Eddie Guevarra, G.R. No. 146364, June 3, 2004

FACTS: In June 1979, petitioner Colito Pajuyo paid ₱400 to a certain Pedro Perez for the rights over a 250-square meter lot in Quezon City. Pajuyo then constructed a house on the lot. Pajuyo and his family lived in the house from 1979 to 7 December 1985. On 8 December 1985, Pajuyo and private respondent Eddie Guevarra executed a  Kasunduan . Pajuyo, as owner of the house, allowed Guevarra to live in the house for free provided Guevarra would maintain the cleanliness and orderliness of the house. Guevarra promised that he would voluntarily vacate the premises on Pajuyo’s demand. In September 1994, Pajuyo informed Guevarra of his need of the house and demanded that Guevarra vacate the house. Guevarra refused. Pajuyo filed an ejectment case against Guevarra with the MTC. In his Answer, Guevarra claimed that Pajuyo had no valid title or right of possession over the lot where the house stands because the lot is within the 150 hectares set aside by Proclamation No. 137 for soci...

Delfin Lamsis, et al. v. Margarita Semon Dong-E, G.R. No. 173021, October 20, 2010

FACTS: This case involves a conflict of ownership and possession over an untitled parcel of land, denominated as Lot No. 1. The property is located along Km. 5 Asin Road, Baguio City and is part of a larger parcel of land. While petitioners are the actual occupants of Lot No. 1, respondent is claiming ownership thereof and is seeking to recover its possession. According to respondent Margarita Semon Dong-E, her family’s ownership and occupation of Lot No. 1 can be traced as far back as 1922 to her late grandfather, Ap-ap. Upon Ap-ap’s death, the property was inherited by his children, who obtained a survey plan in 1964, which included Lot No. 1. On the same year, they declared the property for taxation purposes in the name of "The Heirs of Ap-ap." The heirs of Ap-ap then executed, for a ₱500.00 consideration, a Deed of Quitclaim on February 26, 1964 in favor of their brother Gilbert Semon (Margarita’s father). Sometime between 1976 and 1978, Gilbert Semon tog...

Eddie Dizon and Bryan Dizon v. Yolanda Vida Beltran, G.R. No. 221071, January 18, 2017

FACTS: Eddie, married to Verona, started working as a seafarer in the 1980s. He has two children, namely, Bryan and James Christopher Dizon. Verona was a housewife. She and her mother, together with Bryan and James, resided in the house on the disputed property located in Davao City. The registered owners were "Verona, married to Eddie." In 2008, Verona filed before the RTC a petition for the issuance of Temporary and Permanent Protection Orders against Eddie and James. On April 9, 2008, the Spouses Dizon entered into a Compromise Agreement, whereby they contemplated selling the disputed property in the amount of not less than ₱4,000,000, which price shall be increased by ₱100,000 for every succeeding year until the same is finally sold. They would thereafter equally divide the proceeds from the sale. On September 27, 2009, Eddie left for abroad. Verona died on December 8, 2009. On December 9, 2009, Eddie’s brother Jun Dizon informed him about Verona's death. ...

Fernanda Mendoza Cequeña & Ruperta Mendoza Lirio v. Honorata Mendoza Bolante, G.R. No. 137944, April 6, 2000

FACTS: The Petition herein refers to a parcel of land situated in Binangonan. The facts not disputed revealed that prior to 1954, the land was originally declared for taxation purposes in the name of Sinforoso Mendoza, father of respondent and married to Eduarda Apiado. Sinforoso died in 1930. Petitioners were the daughters of Margarito Mendoza. On the basis of an affidavit, the tax declaration in the name of Sinforoso Mendoza of the contested lot was cancelled and subsequently declared in the name of Margarito Mendoza. Margarito and Sinforoso are brothers. Respondent is the present occupant of the land. Earlier, on October 15, 1975, respondent and Miguel Mendoza, another brother of petitioners, during the cadastral survey had a dispute on the ownership of the land. After trial, the court  a quo  rendered its judgment in favor of .petitioners. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court.   ISSUE: Who was the lawful owner and possessor of the land subject o...