Scribd
Upload
251 views2 pages

Villafuerte Vs CA

This case involves a dispute over a gasoline station located on three adjoining lots in Lucena City. The Villafuerte couple operated the gas station with leases over the lots. However, Edilberto and Gonzalo, owners of two of the lots, later fenced off the property without notifying the Villafuertes. The Villafuertes filed a case claiming damages. The Court ruled that Edilberto and Gonzalo acted incorrectly in evicting the Villafuertes through self-help without going through proper legal proceedings. The law requires those claiming possession of a property currently occupied to seek the assistance of the proper authorities. Edilberto and Gonzalo were found liable for violating this procedure

Uploaded by

Thoughts and More Thoughts
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
251 views2 pages

Villafuerte Vs CA

This case involves a dispute over a gasoline station located on three adjoining lots in Lucena City. The Villafuerte couple operated the gas station with leases over the lots. However, Edilberto and Gonzalo, owners of two of the lots, later fenced off the property without notifying the Villafuertes. The Villafuertes filed a case claiming damages. The Court ruled that Edilberto and Gonzalo acted incorrectly in evicting the Villafuertes through self-help without going through proper legal proceedings. The law requires those claiming possession of a property currently occupied to seek the assistance of the proper authorities. Edilberto and Gonzalo were found liable for violating this procedure

Uploaded by

Thoughts and More Thoughts
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

Villafuerte vs.

CA
G.R. No. 134239, May 26, 2005

Chico-Nazario, J.:

Facts:
Spouses Reynaldo C. Villafuerte and Perlita Tan-Villafuerte operated a
gasoline station on the premises of three (3) adjoining lots at the corner of
Gomez Street and Quezon Avenue in Lucena City. One of these lots is owned
by several persons, one of whom is Edilberto de Mesa, while the other lot is
owned by Gonzalo Daleon and his brother Federico. The remaining lot belongs
to Mrs. Anicia Yap-Tan, mother of Perlita.
Edilberto and Gonzalo acquired their respective lots subject to the lease
by Petrophil which had built thereon the gasoline station being managed by
the Villafuerte couple. When the lease of Petrophil expired, the Villafuertes
obtained a new lease from Edilberto for a period of one (1) year only and was
not renewed after but the Villafuertes continued to operate the gasoline
station.
As regards the Daleon brothers, the Villafuertes received demand letters
ordering them to vacate the lot but this was ignored and they continued
operating the gas station.
Later on, Edilberto and Gonzalo, without the knowledge of the
Villafuertes, caused the closure of the gasoline station by constructing fences
around it. Thus, filed a complaint for damages with preliminary mandatory
injunction.

Issue:
Whether Edilberto and Gonzalo correct in fencing the Villafuerte’s business
premises.
Ruling:
The Decision of the CA was modified.
Ratio Decidendi:
The law on this matter is clear: "(h)e who believes himself entitled to
deprive another of the possession of a thing, so long as the possessor refuses
delivery, must request the assistance of the proper authority." Petitioners'
arbitrary conduct of fencing their properties under the claim that they own
the same brazenly violates the law and circumvents the proper procedure
which should be obtained before the court.

Article 536 of the Civil Code previously quoted explicitly provides for
the proper recourse of one who claims to be entitled to the possession of a
thing. When private respondents personally took it upon themselves to evict
petitioners from their properties, which act was in clear contravention of the
law, they became liable "for all the necessary and natural consequences of
[their] illegal act."

The doctrine of self-help contained in Article 429 of the Civil Code could
not be invoked since it finds no application when occupation was effected
through lawful means such as in this case where petitioners' possession of the
lots owned by private respondents was effected through lease agreements.

The principle of damnum absque injuria could not be invoked as this


doctrine only applies "when the loss or damage does not constitute a violation
of a legal right or amounts to a legal wrong" and not to this case where private
respondents clearly violated the law by unilaterally displacing petitioners
from the subject premises;

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