Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 516 views

    Heirs of Julao v. Sps de Jesus

    Uploaded by

    Justin Batocabe
    Petitioners filed a complaint for recovery of possession of a 641-square meter parcel of land against respondent spouses. The RTC ruled in favor of petitioners. However, the CA reversed, finding that petitioners failed to identify the specific property sought to be recovered by not describing its location, area, and boundaries. Article 434 of the Civil Code requires the plaintiff to clearly identify the land to be recovered based on the strength of their title. As petitioners did not establish the identity of the claimed property, their case was fatally flawed. The failure to precisely identify the property sought to be recovered is grounds for dismissal of a complaint for recovery of possession of real property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Heirs of Julao v. Sps de Jesus

    Uploaded by

    Justin Batocabe
    516 views1 page
    Petitioners filed a complaint for recovery of possession of a 641-square meter parcel of land against respondent spouses. The RTC ruled in favor of petitioners. However, the CA reversed, finding that petitioners failed to identify the specific property sought to be recovered by not describing its location, area, and boundaries. Article 434 of the Civil Code requires the plaintiff to clearly identify the land to be recovered based on the strength of their title. As petitioners did not establish the identity of the claimed property, their case was fatally flawed. The failure to precisely identify the property sought to be recovered is grounds for dismissal of a complaint for recovery of possession of real property.

    Original Description:

    Property digests

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioners filed a complaint for recovery of possession of a 641-square meter parcel of land against respondent spouses. The RTC ruled in favor of petitioners. However, the CA reversed, finding that petitioners failed to identify the specific property sought to be recovered by not describing its location, area, and boundaries. Article 434 of the Civil Code requires the plaintiff to clearly identify the land to be recovered based on the strength of their title. As petitioners did not establish the identity of the claimed property, their case was fatally flawed. The failure to precisely identify the property sought to be recovered is grounds for dismissal of a complaint for recovery of possession of real property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    516 views1 page

    Heirs of Julao v. Sps de Jesus

    Uploaded by

    Justin Batocabe
    Petitioners filed a complaint for recovery of possession of a 641-square meter parcel of land against respondent spouses. The RTC ruled in favor of petitioners. However, the CA reversed, finding that petitioners failed to identify the specific property sought to be recovered by not describing its location, area, and boundaries. Article 434 of the Civil Code requires the plaintiff to clearly identify the land to be recovered based on the strength of their title. As petitioners did not establish the identity of the claimed property, their case was fatally flawed. The failure to precisely identify the property sought to be recovered is grounds for dismissal of a complaint for recovery of possession of real property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Heirs Of Julao v.

    Spss De Jesus
    G.R. No. 176020
    September 29, 2014
    FACTS:
    1) Sometime in the 1960s, Telesforo Julaofiled before the DENR, Baguio City, two Townsite
    Sales Applications. Upon his death on June 1, 1971, his applications were transferred to his heirs.
    awred
    2) Solito Julao (Solito) executed a Deed of Transfer of Rights, transferring his hereditary share in
    the property covered by TSA No. V-6667 to respondent spouses Alejandro and Morenita De
    Jesus. DENR rejected this
    3) Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-2446, covering a 641-square meter property, was
    issued in favor of the heirs of Telesforo.16cralawred
    4) On March 2, 1999, petitioners Anita Julao vda. De Enriquez, Sonia J. Tolentino and Roderick
    Julao, representing themselves to be the heirs of Telesforo, filed before the RTC, Baguio City, a
    Complaint for Recovery of Possession of Real Property, against respondent spouses. Petitioners
    alleged that they are the true and lawful owners of a 641-square meter parcel of land located at
    Naguilian Road, Baguio City, that the subject property originated from TSA No. V-2132; 21 that
    respondent spouses house encroached on 70 square meters of the subject property;
    5) After petitioners rested their case, respondent spouses filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File
    a Demurrer to Evidence. The RTC, however, denied the Motion. RTC ruled in favor of the
    petitioners.
    6) CA reversed the ruling of the RTC. The CA found the Complaint dismissible on two grounds:
    (1) failure on the part of petitioners to identify the property sought to be recovered; and (2) lack of
    jurisdiction. The CA noted that petitioners failed to pinpoint the property sought to be recovered.
    WON the failure of a petitioner to pinpoint the exact property sought to be recovered is fatal to a
    Complaint for Recovery of Possession of Real Property
    HELD: YES
    REASONING
    Article 434 of the Civil Code states that [i]n an action to recover, the property must be identified,
    and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendants
    claim. The plaintiff, therefore, is duty-bound to clearly identify the land sought to be recovered, in
    accordance with the title on which he anchors his right of ownership. In an action to recover, the
    property must being sought to be recovered must be clearly identified in the complaint by its
    location, metes and bounds. It bears stressing that the failure of the plaintiff to establish the
    identity of the property claimed is fatal to his case.
    In this case, petitioners failed to identify the property they seek to recover as they failed to
    describe the location, the area, as well as the boundaries thereof. In fact, as aptly pointed out by
    the CA, no survey plan was presented by petitioners to prove that respondent spouses actually
    encroached upon the 70-square meter portion of petitioners property. Failing to prove their
    allegation, petitioners are not entitled to the relief prayed for in their Complaint.

    You might also like