Scribd
Upload
86 views1 page

Property Dispute: Possession vs. Ownership

Sps. Llarenas alleged ownership of 296 sqm of land purchased in two transactions from the late husband of Loreta Sambalilo. They immediately occupied the land and built structures, including renting a house. In 2004, the Sambalilos entered the property and began constructing a fence. The lower court initially ruled in favor of Sps. Llarenas based on tax declarations, but this was reversed on appeal as the fence was built where Loreta Sambalilo's house was located. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against Sps. Llarenas, finding they failed to prove prior physical possession of the disputed property.

Uploaded by

Ian
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
86 views1 page

Property Dispute: Possession vs. Ownership

Sps. Llarenas alleged ownership of 296 sqm of land purchased in two transactions from the late husband of Loreta Sambalilo. They immediately occupied the land and built structures, including renting a house. In 2004, the Sambalilos entered the property and began constructing a fence. The lower court initially ruled in favor of Sps. Llarenas based on tax declarations, but this was reversed on appeal as the fence was built where Loreta Sambalilo's house was located. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against Sps. Llarenas, finding they failed to prove prior physical possession of the disputed property.

Uploaded by

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

Sps Llarenas alleged that they are the owners of the 120 sq.m.

land which they purchased from the late


husband of Loreta Sambalilo, the respondents in this case together with her sons. 9 years after the first
purchase, Sps. Llarenas bought another parcel of land from the same vendor consisting of 176 sq.m.
land area. After the purchase, they immediate occupied the lot and took possession of the property by
building a house which they rented to Sps. Cabuenas, a house of their caretaker, a piggery building, a
house where their daughter was staying, a steel gate, and a fence made of coco lumber.

On 2004, the Sambalilos suddenly entered on the alleged property of Sps. Llarenas when they were
about to inspect their septic tank. However, the entry was alleged to have been brutal where the
petitioners forcibly removed the steel gate from its concrete mounting and they began to construct a
fence within the premises of the property. The petitioners opined that Loreta was and had always been
in possession of the property where the fence was built and that portion of their land was where her
residential house had been in place.

The MTCC ruled in favor of Sps. Llarenas when it filed for forcible entrym because the court gave
credence to the tax declaration of the property and thus proving the physical possession of the
contested party. But this ruling was reversed by the RTC because the sketch plan of the property in
dispute shows that the fences were built where the house of Loreta Sambalilo was located.

The issue being asked on this case is that, do the concrete fences and the framework of the future house
built by the Sambalilos disturbed the possession of property by the Sps. Llarenas?

The Supreme Court ruled in the negative because Sps. Llarenas failed to carry the burden of proof in
showing that they were in prior physical possession of the property and that they were deprived of the
possession.

In order for a case of forcible entry to prosper, the one who is claiming to have been deprived of the
possession must allege and prove that they have prior physical possession of the property, that they
were deprived of the possession, and that the action was filed within one year from the time the owners
or legal possessors learned of their deprivation of the physical possession of the property.

The difference of this case from the Sps. Ocampo v. Heirs of Dionisio case is that it delves into the matter
of the rightful owner of the property because it is an action for recovery of the property as compared to
this case which delves more as to who has possessed the property in dispute in order to know whether
the case of forcible entry should prosper.

You might also like