Scribd
Upload
313 views2 pages

Cruz Vs Catapang

1) Leonor Cruz, Luz Cruz, and Norma Maligaya co-owned a parcel of land in Batangas. With Norma's consent, Teofila Catapang built a house on the land, but it intruded on the co-owned property. 2) Leonor filed a forcible entry case against Catapang in court. The lower court ruled in Leonor's favor, but the appellate court reversed, saying Norma's consent validated Catapang's entry. 3) The Supreme Court reinstated the lower court's decision, finding that under law, all co-owners must consent to alterations of co-owned property. Norma's sole

Uploaded by

Adi Lim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
313 views2 pages

Cruz Vs Catapang

1) Leonor Cruz, Luz Cruz, and Norma Maligaya co-owned a parcel of land in Batangas. With Norma's consent, Teofila Catapang built a house on the land, but it intruded on the co-owned property. 2) Leonor filed a forcible entry case against Catapang in court. The lower court ruled in Leonor's favor, but the appellate court reversed, saying Norma's consent validated Catapang's entry. 3) The Supreme Court reinstated the lower court's decision, finding that under law, all co-owners must consent to alterations of co-owned property. Norma's sole

Uploaded by

Adi Lim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

LEONOR B.

CRUZ,
Petitioner,
vs.
TEOFILA M. CATAPANG,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 164110
February 12, 2008

QUISUMBING, J.:
FACTS:
Leonor B. Cruz, Luz Cruz and Norma Maligaya are the co-
owners of a parcel of land covering an area of 1,435 square
meters located at Barangay Mahabang Ludlod, Taal,
Batangas. With the consent of Norma Maligaya, one of the
aforementioned co-owners, respondent Teofila M. Catapang
built a house on a lot adjacent to the abovementioned parcel
of land sometime in 1992. The house intruded, however, on
a portion of the co-owned property.
Leonor visited the property and was surprised to see a part
of respondents house intruding unto a portion of the co-
owned property. She then made several demands upon
respondent to demolish the intruding structure and to vacate
the portion encroaching on their property. Catapang,
however, refused and disregarded her demands.
Leonor filed a complaint for forcible entry against Catapang
before the MCTC of Taal, Batangas. The MCTC decided in
favor of petitioner, ruling that consent of only one of the co-
owners is not sufficient to justify Catapangs construction of
the house and possession of the portion of the lot in
question.
Motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC, respondent
filed a petition for review with the CA, which reversed the
RTCs decision. The CA held that there is no cause of action for
forcible entry in this case because respondents entry into the
property, considering the consent given by co-owner Norma
Maligaya, cannot be characterized as one made through
strategy or stealth which gives rise to a cause of action for
forcible entry.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the consent of one co-owner will warrant the
dismissal of a forcible entry case filed by another co-owner
against the person who was given the consent to construct a
house on the co-owned property
RULING:

No. Under Article 491, none of the co-owners shall, without


the consent of the others, make alterations in the thing owned
in common. It necessarily follows that none of the co-owners
can, without the consent of the other co-owners, validly
consent to the making of an alteration by another person,
such as respondent, in the thing owned in common.
Alterations include any act of strict dominion or ownership and
any encumbrance or disposition has been held implicitly to be
an act of alteration. The construction of a house on the co-
owned property is an act of dominion. Therefore, it is an
alteration falling under Article 491 of the Civil Code. There
being no consent from all co-owners, respondent had no right
to construct her house on the co-owned property.

Consent of only one co-owner will not warrant the dismissal of


the complaint for forcible entry filed against the builder. The
consent given by Norma Maligaya in the absence of the
consent of petitioner and Luz Cruz did not vest upon
respondent any right to enter into the co-owned property. Her
entry into the property still falls under the classification
through strategy or stealth.

The petition is GRANTED.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy