DIGEST/IMMANUEL GRANADA/SPS. PEDRO ONG AND VERONICA ONG VS. SOCORRO PAREL AND HON. COURT OF APPEALS/2001

 

ONG v. PAREL

FACTS

Previously, Beltran owned Lots 17 and 18. On Lot 17, she built a house and a wall where the adobe wall, overhang and window grill encroached Lot 18. Later, Parel owned Lot 17, while Ong owned Lot 18.  After a boundary survey, Ong discovered the encroachments upon his lot. Ong then initiated an action for forcible entry against Parel on the ground of stealth.

ISSUE

Will the action for forcible entry prosper?

RULING

No. The action must exigently fail.

Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court requires that in actions for forcible entry the plaintiff is deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. On the other hand, stealth is defined as any secret, sly, or clandestine act to avoid discovery and to gain entrance into or remain within residence of another without permission.

Here, Ong failed to establish that Parel encroached upon their property through stealth as it was not shown when and how the alleged entry was made on the portion of his lot. Neither was there any evidence ever proffered by him to prove that Parel made or at least ordered the introduction of the said improvements or construction. The truth is that, when Ong acquired Lot No. 18, the adobe wall, overhang and window grill were already there encroaching on Lot No. 18 as it was the late Beltran who built the same.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

[ G.R. No. 214054, August 05, 2015 ] NG MENG TAM, PETITIONER, VS. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 214054, August 05, 2015 ] NG MENG TAM, PETITIONER, VS. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N VILLARAMA, JR., J.: Before this Court is a direct recourse from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) via petition [1]  for review on the question of whether Section 5 [2]  of the  Judicial   Affidavit   Rule  (JAR) applies to hostile or adverse witnesses.  The petition seeks to annul and set aside the May 28, 2014 [3]  and August 27, 2014 [4]  Orders of the RTC, Branch 139, Makati City in Civil Case No. 08-1028. This case stemmed from a collection suit filed by China Banking Corporation (China Bank) against Ever Electrical Manufacturing Company Inc. (Ever), the heirs of Go Tong, Vicente Go, George Go and petitioner Ng Meng Tam sometime in December 2008.  China Bank alleged that it granted Ever a loan amounting to P5,532,331.63.  The loan was allegedly backed by two surety agreements executed by Vic...
Read more

DIGEST/ACOPIADO/ LARA GIFTS V. PNB 2018

Lara Gifts and Decors, Inc. vs. PNB GR. Nos. 230429-30| January 24, 2018 Digest by: A. Acopiado FACTS: Petitioner company insured a building with respondent bank. Sometime later, the subject of the insurance was gutted by fire. Respondent engaged services of independent appraisers for the fire loss, but the latter were unable to ascertain the damage due to petitioner’s failure to supply documents. Respondent thus denied the insurance claim.  Petitioner sued in the RTC. In the pre-trial the parties agreed to the facts and issues in dispute and the judge issued an order which stipulated that the parties agree to the presentation of additional evidence. None of the parties objected to the stipulation.  Sometime later, petitioner introduced an affidavit and documents which were not submitted in the pre-trial. Respondent objected stating that the same is violative of the judicial affidavit rule and the court memo governing pre-trial procedures and modes of discovery (A....
Read more

G.R. No. 230429 LARA'S GIFT AND DECORS, INC., Petitioner vs. PNB GENERAL INSURERS CO., INC. and UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC., Respondents

 t HIRD DIVISION January 24, 2018 G.R. No. 230429 LARA'S GIFT AND DECORS, INC.,  Petitioner vs. PNB GENERAL INSURERS CO., INC. and UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC. , Respondents D E C I S I O N VELASCO,JR.,  J.: Nature of the Case Before this Court is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse and set aside the March 6, 2017 Amended Decision 1  of the Court of Appeals (CA), Special Former Fifth Division, in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 138321 and 138774. The Amended Decision granted respondents' motions for the reconsideration of the December 21, 2015 Decision 2  of the CA's Former Fifth Division annulling and setting aside the Omnibus Orders dated October 1, 2014 and November 26, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 14 7, in Civil Case No. 11-238. Factual Antecedents Petitioner Lara's Gifts and Decors, Inc. (LGDI) is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, and exporting various handicraft items and decor...
Read more