Scribd
Upload
482 views2 pages

Bustos v. Court of Appeals

This case involved a dispute over ownership of land between multiple parties claiming rights from different sales and partitions of the original property. The Court of Appeals initially affirmed a decision allowing the eviction of the petitioners from the land. However, in a separate case, the Court of Appeals also affirmed the petitioners' ownership of the land. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the petitioners should not be evicted, as ejecting the lawful owners would result in injustice, and as owners they are entitled to possession of the property.

Uploaded by

VILLANUEVA, Xezarajjah S.
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
482 views2 pages

Bustos v. Court of Appeals

This case involved a dispute over ownership of land between multiple parties claiming rights from different sales and partitions of the original property. The Court of Appeals initially affirmed a decision allowing the eviction of the petitioners from the land. However, in a separate case, the Court of Appeals also affirmed the petitioners' ownership of the land. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the petitioners should not be evicted, as ejecting the lawful owners would result in injustice, and as owners they are entitled to possession of the property.

Uploaded by

VILLANUEVA, Xezarajjah S.
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

BUSTOS V.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 120784-85 January 24, 2001
FACTS:
Paulino Fajardo died intestate on April 2, 1957. He had four (4) children, namely: Manuela,
Trinidad, Beatriz and Marcial, all surnamed Fajardo. On September 30, 1964, the heirs
executed an extra-judicial partition of the estate of Paulino Fajardo. On the same date, Manuela
sold her share to Moses G. Mendoza, husband of Beatriz by deed of absolute sale. At the time
of the sale, there was no cadastral survey in Masantol, Pampanga. Later, the cadastre was
conducted and the property involved in the partition case was specified as Lots 280, 283, 284,
1000-A and 1000-B. The share of Manuela, which was sold to Moses, includes Lot 284 of the
Masantol Cadastre and Lot 284 was subdivided into Lots 284-A and 284-B. Trinidad was in
physical possession of the land. She refused to surrender the land to her brother-in-law Moses
G. Mendoza, despite several demands. On September 3, 1971, Moses filed with the Court of
First Instance, Pampanga a complaint for partition claiming the one fourth (1/4) share of
Manuela which was sold to him. During the pendency of the case for partition, Trinidad Fajardo
died. On December 15, 1984, the heirs executed an extra-judicial partition of the estate of
Trinidad Fajardo. On February 16, 1987, Lucio Fajardo Ignacio, son of Trinidad sold Lot 284-B
to spouses Venancio Viray and Cecilia Nunga-Viray. On February 8, 1989, the Regional Trial
Court, Pampanga, Macabebe, Branch 55 rendered a decision in favor of Moses G. Mendoza. In
the meantime, on November 6, 1989, spouses Venancio Viray and Cecilia Nunga-Viray, buyers
of Lucio Ignacio's share of the property, filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Macabebe-
Masantol, Pampanga an action for unlawful detainer against spouses Bustos, the buyers of
Moses G. Mendoza, who were in actual possession as lessees of the husband of Trinidad,
Francisco Ignacio, of the subject land. The municipal circuit trial court decided the case in favor
of spouses Viray. Subsequently, the trial court issued writs of execution and demolition, but
stayed when spouses Bustos filed with the regional Trial Court, Pampanga, Macabebe, Branch
55, a petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction. On December 18, 1992, the regional trial
court rendered a decision dismissing the case. On September 9, 1994, petitioners filed a motion
for reconsideration; however, on June 21, 1995, the Court of Appeals denied the motion.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners could be ejected from what is now their own land.
HELD:
In this case, the issue of possession is intertwined with the issue of ownership. In the unlawful
detainer case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court as to possession on
the ground that the decision has become final and executory. This means that the petitioners
may be evicted. In the accion reinvindicatoria, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ownership of
petitioners over the subject land. Hence, the court declared petitioners as the lawful owners of
the land. In the present case, the stay of execution is warranted by the fact that petitioners are
now legal owners of the land in question and are occupants thereof. To execute the judgment
by ejecting petitioners from the land that they owned would certainly result in grave injustice.
Besides, the issue of possession was rendered moot when the court adjudicated ownership to
the spouses Bustos by virtue of a valid deed of sale. Placing petitioners in possession of the
land in question is the necessary and logical consequence of the decision declaring them as the
rightful owners is possession. It follows that as owners of the subject property, petitioners are
entitled to possession of the same. "An owner who cannot exercise the seven (7) "juses" or
attributes of ownership-the right to possess, to use and enjoy, to abuse or consume, to
accessories, to dispose or alienate, to recover or vindicate and to the fruits is a crippled owner.

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