Scribd
Upload
257 views1 page

Velarma vs. CA

This case involves a dispute over land between Bienvenido Velarma and Josefina Pansacola. Velarma built his home on part of Pansacola's land that was near a new highway. Velarma claimed the land belonged to the government because Pansacola's late husband had agreed in 1974 to transfer that portion to the local government for the highway, as documented in meeting minutes. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pansacola, finding that without a formal deed completing the transfer, the agreement was not perfected and Pansacola remained the owner since no actual transfer or expropriation had occurred in over 20 years.

Uploaded by

Lei Jeus Taligatos
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
257 views1 page

Velarma vs. CA

This case involves a dispute over land between Bienvenido Velarma and Josefina Pansacola. Velarma built his home on part of Pansacola's land that was near a new highway. Velarma claimed the land belonged to the government because Pansacola's late husband had agreed in 1974 to transfer that portion to the local government for the highway, as documented in meeting minutes. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pansacola, finding that without a formal deed completing the transfer, the agreement was not perfected and Pansacola remained the owner since no actual transfer or expropriation had occurred in over 20 years.

Uploaded by

Lei Jeus Taligatos
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

USA College of Law

VALENCIANA, 1-E
Case Name 42. Bienvenido Velarma vs. Court Of Appeals and Josefina Pansacola
Topic Eminent Domain; Unperfected agreement between the government and a private person
Case No. | Date G.R. No. 113615 | January 25, 1996
Ponente PANGANIBAN, J.
Unless and until the transfer is consummated, or expropriation proceedings instituted by the
Doctrine
government, the owner continues to retain ownership.

RELEVANT FACTS
 Josefina Pansacola filed an “ejectment suit” against Bienvenido Velarma before the RTC Branch 64 of
Mauban, Quezon alleging that sometime in May 1981, Velarma entered her property through “stealth and
strategy” and surreptitiously built his dwelling on a portion of her land registered in the name of her late
husband Publio Pansacola.

 Velarma claimed that Josefina has no cause of action against him because the land on which his house
stands belongs to the government. Velarma’s dwelling is situated on the shoulder of the new provincial
highway, part of which was constructed on a portion of the land belonging to and titled in the name of
Josefina’s husband, Publio. Velarma claimed that “while it is conceded that the premises [occupied by him]
is still within the area covered by [private respondent’s] title, nonetheless, such area already belongs to the
government.

 Velarma’s claim is anchored on a document entitled “Minutes of the Meeting of the Sangguniang Bayan of
Mauban, Quezon” dated November 5, 1974. Therein, Publio Pansacola signified before the Sangguniang
Bayan of Mauban his agreement to the transfer of that portion of his land traversed by the new provincial
highway and its shoulder in exchange for a corresponding portion of the old abandoned provincial road. The
minutes of the meeting of the Sangguniang Bayan do not mention the execution of any deed to perfect
the agreement.

 RTC decided the issue in favor of Josefina Pansacola. CA affirmed RTC’s decision. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
W/N Publio Pansacola’s agreement to sell the property to the Sangguniang Bayan of Mauban as evidenced by
the minutes of a meeting, absent a formal deed, constitute a sufficient ground to defeat a forcible entry suit?

RULING:
No. Petitioner’s contention was “baseless and unwarranted” since no deed had ever been executed to “perfect
the deal” between the municipality and Publio.

It must be stressed that the agreement to transfer the property was made in 1974. More than twenty years
later, no actual transfer had yet been made. Unless and until the transfer is consummated, or expropriation
proceedings instituted by the government, private respondent Josefina Pansacola continues to retain ownership
of the land subject of this case.

RULING
The petition is DENIED with costs against petitioner.

You might also like