Scribd
Upload
212 views1 page

Provos Vs Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and ruled in favor of the respondents, Victor and Fe Ramos. The Ramos couple claimed the petitioners, the Provosts, had encroached on their land based on an old survey plan and deed of donation. While the Provosts argued they owned the land based on a corrected survey plan and deed of absolute sale. The Court of Appeals found the Provosts had reduced the size of the Ramos' adjoining property without right by moving the common boundary.

Uploaded by

Benedick Ledesma
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
212 views1 page

Provos Vs Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and ruled in favor of the respondents, Victor and Fe Ramos. The Ramos couple claimed the petitioners, the Provosts, had encroached on their land based on an old survey plan and deed of donation. While the Provosts argued they owned the land based on a corrected survey plan and deed of absolute sale. The Court of Appeals found the Provosts had reduced the size of the Ramos' adjoining property without right by moving the common boundary.

Uploaded by

Benedick Ledesma
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/ 1

PROVOS vs COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:

Respondents Victor and Fe Ramos are the owners of a parcel of land in


Putingbalas, Tupsan Grande. Sometime in May 1992, the Provosts, the
petitioners, constructed a fence separating the two lots. In 1994, the
respondents demanded the return of the area of their lot that they believe
the petitioners encroached on, but the latter refused. The respondents thus
had a relocation survey, which showed that the fence was indeed on their
land. The petitioners disagreed, arguing that the cadastral survey plan used
had been disapproved as defective. The Ramos couple anchor their claim
on the deed of donation and an old survey plan, while the Provosts base
theirs on the deed of absolute sale and the corrected survey plan.

The MTC dismissed the respondents’ complaint and held that they failed to
prove their ownership and possession of the disputed area. Upon appeal,
the RTC affirmed the MTC decision, stating that the claim by the Ramoses
over the property was based on a disapproved survey plan. In reversing the
RTC decision, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the petitioners had no
right to move the common boundary such that the area of the adjoining lot
was reduced to 3,552 square meters.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Provosts encroached on the property of the Ramoses.

HELD:

Rules on Civil Procedure allow the RTC, which have the jurisdiction over
complaints for recovery of ownership, to decide on cases brought on appeal
from the MTC which, even without jurisdiction over the subject matter,
may decide the case on its merits. In this case, the MTC of Mambajao
should have dismissed the complaint outright for lack of jurisdiction but
since it decided the case on its merits, the RTC rendered a decision based
on the findings of the MTC.

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