Scribd
Upload
86 views1 page

36.) German Management Services vs. CA, GR No. 76217 September 14, 1989 Facts

Uploaded by

Ethan Kurby

1) The case involved a dispute over a parcel of land in Antipolo, Rizal between German Management Services (petitioner) and private respondents. The petitioner claimed rights to develop the land based on a power of attorney from the registered landowners, but private respondents had occupied and farmed the land for 12-15 years. 2) The Court of Appeals did not deny due process to the petitioner in reversing the lower court without requiring the petitioner to file an answer, as the petitioner's existing comment sufficiently addressed the issues. 3) Private respondents, as actual possessors of the land, could file a forcible entry case against the petitioner to protect their possession, regardless of who holds the title,

Copyright:

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

36.) German Management Services vs. CA, GR No. 76217 September 14, 1989 Facts

Uploaded by

Ethan Kurby
86 views1 page
1) The case involved a dispute over a parcel of land in Antipolo, Rizal between German Management Services (petitioner) and private respondents. The petitioner claimed rights to develop the land based on a power of attorney from the registered landowners, but private respondents had occupied and farmed the land for 12-15 years. 2) The Court of Appeals did not deny due process to the petitioner in reversing the lower court without requiring the petitioner to file an answer, as the petitioner's existing comment sufficiently addressed the issues. 3) Private respondents, as actual possessors of the land, could file a forcible entry case against the petitioner to protect their possession, regardless of who holds the title,

Original Description:

crim

Original Title

crim

Copyright

© © All Rights Reserved

Available Formats

DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

1) The case involved a dispute over a parcel of land in Antipolo, Rizal between German Management Services (petitioner) and private respondents. The petitioner claimed rights to develop the land based on a power of attorney from the registered landowners, but private respondents had occupied and farmed the land for 12-15 years. 2) The Court of Appeals did not deny due process to the petitioner in reversing the lower court without requiring the petitioner to file an answer, as the petitioner's existing comment sufficiently addressed the issues. 3) Private respondents, as actual possessors of the land, could file a forcible entry case against the petitioner to protect their possession, regardless of who holds the title,

Copyright:

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

36.) German Management Services vs. CA, GR No. 76217 September 14, 1989 Facts

Uploaded by

Ethan Kurby
1) The case involved a dispute over a parcel of land in Antipolo, Rizal between German Management Services (petitioner) and private respondents. The petitioner claimed rights to develop the land based on a power of attorney from the registered landowners, but private respondents had occupied and farmed the land for 12-15 years. 2) The Court of Appeals did not deny due process to the petitioner in reversing the lower court without requiring the petitioner to file an answer, as the petitioner's existing comment sufficiently addressed the issues. 3) Private respondents, as actual possessors of the land, could file a forcible entry case against the petitioner to protect their possession, regardless of who holds the title,

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1

36.) German Management Services vs. CA, GR No.

76217 September 14, 1989


Facts
Spouses Cynthia Cuyegkeng Jose and Manuel Rene Jose, residents of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, USA are the owners of a parcel of land situated in Sitio Inarawan, San Isidro,
Antipolo, Rizal. The land was originally registered on August 5, 1948 in the Office of the
Register of Deeds of Rizal as OCT No. 19, pursuant to a Homestead Patent granted by the
President of the Philippines on July 27, 1948, under Act No. 141. On February 26, 1982, the
spouses Jose executed a special power of attorney authorizing petitioner German management
Services to develop their property into a residential subdivision. The petitioner obtained
Development Permit No. 00424 from the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission for said
development. However, the property was being occupied by private respondents and twenty
other persons. They were asked to vacate the premises but the latter refused. Nevertheless,
petitioner proceeded with the development of the subject property which included the portions
occupied and cultivated by private respondents. Private respondents filed an action for forcible
entry and alleged that they are mountainside farmers of the area and have occupied and tilled
their farmholdings some twelve to fifteen years prior to the promulgation of PD 27. They stated
that they have been deprived of their property without due process of law by: (1) forcibly
removing and destroying the barbed wire fence enclosing their farmholdings without notice;
(2) bulldozing the rice, corn, fruit bearing trees and other crops of private respondents by means
of force, violence and intimidation, in violation of P.D. 1038 and (3) trespassing, coercing and
threatening to harass, remove and eject private respondents from their respective farmholdings
in violation of P.D. Nos. 316, 583, 815, and 1028.
Issues
1.) Whether or not the Court of Appeals denied due process to petitioner when it reversed the
decision of the court a quo without giving petitioner the opportunity to file its answer.
2.) Whether or not private respondents are entitled to file a forcible entry case against petitioner.
Rulings
1.) The Court of Appeals need not require petitioner to file an answer for due process to exist.
The comment filed by petitioner on February 26, 1986 has sufficiently addressed the issues
presented in the petition for review filed by private respondents before the Court of Appeals.
Having heard both parties, the Appellate Court need not await or require any other additional
pleading. Moreover, the fact that petitioner was heard by the Court of Appeals on its motion
for reconsideration negates any violation of due process.
2.) Yes, private respondents, as actual possessors, can commence a forcible entry case against
petitioner because ownership is not in issue. Forcible entry is merely a quieting process and
never determines the actual title to an estate. Title is not involved. There is no evidence that
the spouses Jose were ever in possession of the subject property. On the contrary, private
respondents’ peaceable possession was manifested by the fact that they even planted rice, corn
and fruit bearing trees twelve to fifteen years prior to petitioner’s act of destroying their crops.

You might also like