G.R. No. 177637, July 26, 2010 Dr. Dioscoro Carbonilla vs. Marcelo Abier Facts

G.R. No.
177637, July 26, 2010

DR. DIOSCORO CARBONILLA vs. MARCELO ABIER
FACTS:
Carbonilla, filed a complaint for ejectment against respondents. The complaint alleged that
petitioner is the registered owner of a parcel of land covered by a certificate of title, and declared
for assessment and taxation purposes in petitioner’s name. Petitioner further claimed that he is
also the owner of the residential building standing on the land which he acquired through a Deed
of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate (Residential Building) with Waiver and Quitclaim of
Ownership. Petitioner wanted to use te property thus, he sent a demand letter to respondents
asking them to leave the premises within 15 days from receipt of the letter, but they failed and
refused to do so.
In their defense, respondents vehemently denied petitioner’s allegation. They instead asserted
that they are the owners of the building as it was inherited by Abiera and Capistrano. They also
claimed ownership of the building but was not declared for taxation purposes. Because of several
repairs from its previous structure, they obtained a building permit. They contended that the
case should be dismissed.
The MTCC decided the case in favor of the petitioner as it was non successfully rebutted by
respondent. However, as to the ownership of the building, the lower court declared respondent
as having the rightful owner of the building as petitioner failed to refute that their predecessors
have been in the building since 1960. When the case was elevated to RTC, the decision of the
MTCC was reversed. The decision rendered the ownership of the building to the petitioner as
being the owner of the land whether the construction of the building was done before or after the
ownership of the land. The respondent elevated the case to CA but was denied due to lack of
merit. It went up to the Supreme Court for review on certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is the rightful owner or possessor of the property?
HELD:
No, because petitioner failed to prove that respondents' possession was based on his alleged
tolerance. He did not offer any evidence or even only an affidavit of the Garcianos attesting that
they tolerated respondents' entry to and occupation of the subject properties. A bare allegation
of tolerance will not suffice. Plaintiff must, at least, show overt acts indicative of his or his
predecessor's permission to occupy the subject property.
In addition, plaintiff must also show that the supposed acts of tolerance have been present right
from the very start of the possession--from entry to the property. Otherwise, if the possession
was unlawful from the start, an action for unlawful detainer would be an improper remedy.
Wherefore, the petition is denied. The CAs decision and Resolution are affirmed.
G.R. No. 102858 July 28, 1997
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs. COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS:
Respondent Teodoro Abistado filed a petition for original registration of his title over 648 square
meters of land under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529. When the special proceedings of the
case was conducted, respondent died and was represented by hi heirs. The land registration
court in its decision dated June 13, 1989 dismissed the petition "for want of jurisdiction” and
heirs are still in possession of the land. The decision of the court stated that respondent did not
satisfactorily complied with the provisions of PD 1259 by publishing the notices of hearings.
Publication was only done in the Official Gazette and not in the newspaper of general circulation.
Respondent appealed before the CA and respondent court set aside the order of the trial court
and consequently ordered the title in the name of Abistado.
The Director of Lands represented by the Solicitor General elevated the case to Supreme Court.
Petitioner alleges that respondent committed "grave abuse of discretion" by noting that
"publication must both in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation to comply
with the notice requirement of due process.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the contention of the Director of Lands is correct that the publication is
mandatory as provided for by PD 1529?
HELD:
Yes, because the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1529 mandatorily provides that the
publication of the notice of initial hearing. It should be noted further that land sought for
registration is a proceeding in rem. Being in rem, such proceeding requires constructive seizure
of the land as against all persons, including the state, who have rights to or interests in the
property. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication. This being so, the
process must strictly be complied with.
The court has no authority to dispense with such mandatory requirement. The law is
unambiguous and its rationale clear. It has time and again declared that where the law speaks
in clear and categorical language, there is no room for interpretation, vacillation or equivocation;
there is room only for application. There is no alternative. Thus, the application for land
registration filed by private respondents must be dismissed without prejudice to reapplication in
the future, after all the legal requisites shall have been duly complied with.

G.R. No. 177637, July 26, 2010 Dr. Dioscoro Carbonilla vs. Marcelo Abier Facts

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 177637, July 26, 2010 Dr. Dioscoro Carbonilla vs. Marcelo Abier Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 177637, July 26, 2010 Dr. Dioscoro Carbonilla vs. Marcelo Abier Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

177637, July 26, 2010

Whether or not petitioner is the rightful owner or possessor of the property?

You might also like