City of Manila vs. Gerardo Garcia et.al

FACTS: 1.Plaintiff is the owner of certain parcels of land. Without the knowledge and consent of plaintiff, defendants occupied the property and built their houses.2.Having discovered, plaintiff through its mayor gave each defendant written permits, each labeled as “lease contract” to occupy specific areas. For their occupancy, defendants were charged nominal rentals.3.After sometime, plaintiff, through its…

Jacinto v. Director of Lands [G.R. No. 26374. December 31, 1926.]

In the case of Jacinto vs. Director of Lands (1926) 49 Phil. 853, the Supreme Court held that the acused friar lands, to which the government of the Philippines holds title, are not public lands but private or patrimonial property of the government. En Banc, Ostrand (J): 7 concur Facts: During the period from 1911…

ANECO REALTY versus LANDEX

           THIS is a simple case of a neighbor seeking to restrain the landowner from fencing his own property.  The right to fence flows from the right of ownership.  Absent a clear legal and enforceable right, Will not unduly restrain the landowner from exercising an inherent proprietary right. Facts Fernandez Hermanos Development, Inc. (FHDI) is…

GERMAN MANAGEMENT & SERVICES, INC. V COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS: Spouses Jose are residents of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA are owners of the land situated in sitio Inarawan, San Isidro, Antipolo, Rizal (the land being disputed in the case at bar.) The spouses Jose executed a special power of attorney authorizing petitioner German Management Services to develop their property. They have already acquired the proper…

HEIRS OF CLEMENTE ERMAC, vs. HEIRS OF VICENTE ERMAC

Facts: At Lot No. 666 was originally owned by Claudio Ermac and, after his death, was inherited by his children — Esteban, Balbina and Pedro. Clemente Ermac registered the said Lot to his name alone without regards to the other predecessors-in-interests.The respondents were able to prove consistently and corroboratively that they — as well as…

Laluan vs. Malpaya, L-21231

I was not able to find a case digest for this… I’ll do my best to have it digested… anyway, here’s a link for the full text… (Laluan vs. Malpaya, L-21231) Laluan vs Malpaya Facts: In 1950 the Laluans, 1 the Laguits 2 and the Sorianos 3 (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) filed with…

DE LA CRUZ V. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS: In 1973, the subject lot, a 407 sq. m. residential lot was the subject of an application under the Land Registration Act by the Ramos bros. Eugenio de la Cruz [petitioner] opposed. After trial, the application was dismissed on the ground that the land was not yet reclassified and remains part of the forest…

TEN FORTY REALTY V. CRUZ| PanganibanG.R. No. 151212 | September 10, 2003

FACTS: • Petitioner filed an ejectment complaint against Marina Cruz(respondent) before the MTC. Petitioner alleges that the land indispute was purchased from Barbara Galino on December 1996, andthat said land was again sold to respondent on April 1998; • On the other hand, respondent answer with counterclaim that never was there an occasion when petitioner…

Hilario v. City of Manila [GR No. L-19570 April 27, 1967]

Bengzon JP (J): 8 concur Facts: Dr. Jose Hilario was the registered owner of a large tract of land around 49 hectares in area (Barrio Guinayang, San Mateo, Rizal). Upon his death this property was inherited by his son, Jose Hilario, Jr., to whom a new certificate of title was issued. During the lifetime of…

RACHEL C. CELESTIAL VS JESSE CACHOPERO Gr. No. 142595. October 15, 2003

  Facts:  Respondent, brother of petitioner, filed an MSA (Miscellaneous Sales Application)with the Bureau of Lands. Petitioner filed a protest, claiming preferential right over the land. However, on an ocular inspection, the Bureau found that the subject land was outside the commerce of man and thus, denied the petitioner’s protest. Petitioner thereafter filed an ejectment…