Scribd
Upload
409 views2 pages

3 MTC DECISION v.2

Melvin Losbans filed a case against Eulla Diana for forcible entry onto his property covered by OCT No. RP-174 (FP-13 787). Diana claimed that she and her family had lived on the land for over 30 years before it was designated as part of Poblacion Lantapan. While Losbans provided land titles, he did not present evidence that Diana was occupying his specific property. The court dismissed the case, finding that Diana had proven prior possession of the land through evidence and witness testimony, while Losbans did not show that Diana had intruded onto his titled land.

Uploaded by

Babylen Bahala
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
409 views2 pages

3 MTC DECISION v.2

Melvin Losbans filed a case against Eulla Diana for forcible entry onto his property covered by OCT No. RP-174 (FP-13 787). Diana claimed that she and her family had lived on the land for over 30 years before it was designated as part of Poblacion Lantapan. While Losbans provided land titles, he did not present evidence that Diana was occupying his specific property. The court dismissed the case, finding that Diana had proven prior possession of the land through evidence and witness testimony, while Losbans did not show that Diana had intruded onto his titled land.

Uploaded by

Babylen Bahala
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

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

7TH MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT


LANTAPAN – CABANGLASAN

MELVIN G. LOSBANS,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 80124
- versus - FOR: Forcible Entry and
Damages
EULLA MAGDALENE T. DIANA,
Defendant.
x. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

DECISION

This an action for forcible entry filed by Plaintiff against Defendants.

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged that: he was the registered owner and
possessor of a parcel of land situated P-6 Poblacion, Municipality Of Lantapan
with an area of 10, 632 and covered by OCT No. RP-174 (FP-13 787) and Tax
Declaration No. 014-00707; that sometime on October 31, 2006, Plaintiff
discovered that Defendant successfully intruded the property by means of
force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth and have been living illegally in
his property; that Defendant occupied a portion of his property by constructing
a residential house thereon without his knowledge and consent and that he
sent demand letters to Plaintiff to vacate the said premises and remove the
fences built thereon; that no actions were taken after the final demand letter
was sent; that a certificate to file action was given to the Plaintiff when no
settlement was reached between the parties, hence recourse to this Court.

By way of Answer to the complaint, Defendants alleged that: the


defendant started occupying the parcel of land then known as Alanib,
Lantapan, Bukidnon; that years later, this parcel of land was designated as
part of Poblacion Lantapan Bukidnon due to a survey made by the
government. That Defendant introduced more improvements on the property
by cultivating the land and establishing fences thereon; that she assured
plaintiff that she would voluntarily vacate the premises if she would only be
shown to have intruded into plaintiff’s titled lot after the boundaries were
pointed out to her and instead of showing the boundaries to her plaintiff file
this action.

At the preliminary conference, no settlement was reached by the


parties, for which reason this court terminated the preliminary conference and
directed the parties to file their respective position papers.
– PAGE 2 –

The issue to be resolve in this case is who between the parties has the
prior possession of the parcel of land in issue?

In the instant case, defendant was able to allege that and prove by
preponderance of evidence that they were the lawful owner of land by virtue
of prior possession and testimonies of neighbors that defendant’s family has
been living in the subject land for more than thirty (30) years. Whereas,
plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the lot occupied by
respondent was within his lot titled under OCT No. RP-174 (13 789).

This court is of the opinion that plaintiff could have presented a


relocation survey, which would have pinpointed the exact location of the house
and fence put up by respondent, and resolved the issue once and for all. It
also explained that petitioner failed to prove his prior physical possession of
the subject property. The OCT No. RP-174(13789) registered under
petitioner's name and the Tax Declaration were not proof of actual possession
of the property. The dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff (petitioner) having failed to establish his


case by preponderance of evidence, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

JOSEFA GARAY
Associate Judge

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