Wong v. Hon. Carpio [G.R. No. L-50264] Case Digest

 

 

Wong v. Hon. Carpio

G.R. No. L-50264

 

Facts:

Plaintiff Manuel Mercado acquired his rights to possess the land in litigation which is particularly described in TCT No. (T-4244) from William Giger by virtue of a deed of sale with right to repurchase. Plaintiff began harvesting only the coconut fruits and he paid the taxes on the land for Mr. Giger. He went periodically to the land to make copra but he never placed any person on the land in litigation to watch it. Neither did he reside on the land. He knew defendants' laborers were in the land in suit as early as August, 1976 and that they have a hut there but he did not do anything to stop them. Instead plaintiff was happy that there were people and a hut on the land in suit.

Defendant Ignacio Wong bought the parcel of land in litigation from William Giger and his wife Cecilia Valenzuela and so he has in his possession TCT No. (T-4244) in the name of William Giger. Wong declared the land in suit for taxation purposes in his name. He tried to register the pacto de retro sale with the Register of Deeds by paying the registration fees but due to some technicalities, the pacto de retro sale could not be registered. Wong placed laborers on the land in suit, built a small farm house after making some clearings and fenced the boundaries. He also placed signboards.

MTC of Sta. Maria Davao del Sur dismissed the action for Forcible Entry filed by Manuel Mercado. CFI revered the decision of MTC.

 

Issue:

Whether or not the private respondent (Manuel Mercado) has established prior possession.

 

Held:

Yes.

 

Ratio:

It should be stressed that "possession is acquired by the material occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right, or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will, or by the proper acts and legal formalities for acquiring such right." (Art. 531, Civil Code; Rizal Cement Co., Inc. vs. Villareal, 135 SCRA 15 [1985]); and that the execution of a sale thru a public instrument shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing, unless there is stipulation to the contrary . . . . If, however, notwithstanding the execution of the instrument, the purchaser cannot have the enjoyment and material tenancy of the thing and make use of it herself, because such tenancy and enjoyment are opposed by another, then delivery has not been effected. (Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. II, 1989 Ed., p. 400).