[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
385 views1 page

LAND TITLES 15 Menchavez v. Teves

This case involves a dispute over a lease contract for fishponds. The Supreme Court ruled the contract was void from the beginning because the fishponds, located on public land, could only be leased from the state, not owned or subleased by private parties. While the lessee was negligent for not verifying ownership, the lessors knew they did not actually own the fishponds and had no right to lease them to another party. As the contract was void, no damages could be recovered. The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's decision in favor of the lessors.

Uploaded by

Elwell Mariano
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
385 views1 page

LAND TITLES 15 Menchavez v. Teves

This case involves a dispute over a lease contract for fishponds. The Supreme Court ruled the contract was void from the beginning because the fishponds, located on public land, could only be leased from the state, not owned or subleased by private parties. While the lessee was negligent for not verifying ownership, the lessors knew they did not actually own the fishponds and had no right to lease them to another party. As the contract was void, no damages could be recovered. The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's decision in favor of the lessors.

Uploaded by

Elwell Mariano
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

Block B 2017 Digests

Land Titles, Ch. V, Non-Registrable Properties



MENCHAVEZ v. TEVES
G.R. No. 153201 January 26, 2005

This is a case to recover damages from a lease contract between the parties.

Facts
February 28, 1986: Menchavez (lessors) and Florentino Teves Jr. (lessee) executed a contract of
lease.
June 2, 1988: Cebu RTC Sheriffs demolished the fishpond dikes constructed by the the
respondent and delivered the possession of the subject roperty to the plaintiffs.
Respondent filed a complaint for damages and alleged that the lessors have violated their
contract, specifically the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the property for the entire duration
of the contract
RTC declared the contract of lease between the parties as void ab initio as it is owned by the state
based on the Regalian Doctrine. RTC ruled in favor of the Petitioners.
Respondent elevated the case to CA.
CA disagreed with RTCs finding that petitioners and respondent were in pari delicto. It
contended that while there was negligence on the part of the respondent for failing to verify the
ownership of the property, there was no evidence that he had knowledge of petitiones lack of
ownership
Hence, this petition.

Issue
Whether or not the subject property (fishponds) can be leased by the petitioners.


Held
No. It was the state who owned the fishpond. The 1987 Constitution specifically declares that all lands of
the public domain, waters, fisheries and other natural resources belong to the State. Included here are
fishponds, which may not be alienated but only leased. Possession thereof, no matter how long, cannot
ripen into ownership.
Being merely applicants for the lease of the fishponds, petitioners had no transferable right over
them. And even if the State were to grant their application, the law expressly disallowed sublease of the
fishponds to respondent.
The contract of lease is void ab initio. No damages may be recovered from a void contract.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the assailed Decision and Resolution SET ASIDE. The
Decision of the trial court is hereby REINSTATED

You might also like