Scribd
Upload
377 views1 page

Heirs of Pedro Laurora Vs Sterling

The Laurora spouses claimed they owned a large plot of land and had possessed it for years by planting trees, but in 1997 Sterling Technopark and S.P. Properties forcibly ejected them using armed men. The Laurora's sued for damages. Sterling and S.P. Properties argued the Laurora's had sold the land in 1976. Records showed the Laurora's requested transferring the land to another party in 1969, who paid for it, and it was later sold to other parties. Lower courts dismissed the Laurora's case but the Court of Appeals reinstated it. The Supreme Court ruled that while the Laurora's claim to the land may not be valid, the respondents

Uploaded by

Marivic Asilo Zacarias-Lozano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
377 views1 page

Heirs of Pedro Laurora Vs Sterling

The Laurora spouses claimed they owned a large plot of land and had possessed it for years by planting trees, but in 1997 Sterling Technopark and S.P. Properties forcibly ejected them using armed men. The Laurora's sued for damages. Sterling and S.P. Properties argued the Laurora's had sold the land in 1976. Records showed the Laurora's requested transferring the land to another party in 1969, who paid for it, and it was later sold to other parties. Lower courts dismissed the Laurora's case but the Court of Appeals reinstated it. The Supreme Court ruled that while the Laurora's claim to the land may not be valid, the respondents

Uploaded by

Marivic Asilo Zacarias-Lozano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

HEIRS OF PEDRO LAURORA vs STERLING TECHNOPARK and SP PROPERTIES

It is a complaint of forcible entry with damages.


The spouses Laurora alleged that they were the owners of Lot 1315-G SWD-40763 of the
Yaptinchay Estate with an area of 39,771 sqmeter located in Carmona, Cavite. Pedro Laurora
planted trees and has possessed the land up to the filing of the complaint. On Sept. 15, 1997
, Sterling Technopark III and S.P. Properties, Inc. through their Engineer Bernie Gtachalian
bulldozed and uprooted the trees and plants, and with the use of armed men and by means
of threats and intimidation succeeded in forcibly ejecting Laurora spouses. As a result of
their dispossession , Laurora suffered actual damages in the amount of P3M and P10k
attorneys fees.
The Sterling and S.P. Properties that the Laurora were/are not the owner of the property
because they dispose of it sometime in 1976 as shown by legal documents. On Apr. 2, 1969,
the Land Authority issued an order of award in favour of the Laurora to buy the subject lot
from the government. In a documents presented it was the Laurora who requested the
transfer of the lot to Juan Manaig and it was favourably acted upon by the DAR AND Manaig
as a transferee buyer paid the required amount as evidenced by the official receipt. And the
transfer was made between Laurora and Manaig through Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan or
Deed of Absolute Sale including all the improvements in favour of Manaig. The Sale was
approved by the DAR. Thereafter the heirs of Manaig sold the lot to Golden Mile Resources
Development which likewise sold it to S.P. Properties, Inc.
The MCTC dismissed the complaint and was elevated to RTC reversed the MCTC Ruling that
was reversed by CA and reinstated the Ruling of MCTC that the petitioner has no evidence to
support the claim of the petitioner of the prior possession of the property. The CA was
convinced with the evidence the LAURORA already sold the property with the approval of
DAR and subsequent possession of the land constituted usurpation., which could not be
source of right to occupy it. Being planters in bad faith , they had no right to be reimbursed
for improvements of the land, in accordance with Article 449 of the Civil Code. Hence, the
petition.

Issues: Whether the respondents have a valid and legal right to forcibly eject the petioners?
Held: The SC held that the only issue here is the material possession of a real property .
Granting that the petitioners illegally entered and occupied the property, the respondents
has np right to take the law in their own hands and forcibly eject the occupants therfrom.
Notwithstanding the actual condition of the title, a person in possession cannot be ejected
by force even by the owners. If such illegal manner of ejectment is employed, the party who
proves prior possession, can recover possession even from the owners.
The availment of the aforementioned remedies is the legal alternative to prevent breaches
of peace and criminal disorder from the use of force by claimants out to gain possession.
The SC ruled in favour of the Lauroras

You might also like