CASES NO 25 TO 29

Bianca Andrea Bince

GR NO. 207266, JUNE 25, 2014
HEIRS OF YABAO V. PAZ
LENTEJAS VAN DER KOLK
DOCTRINE:
OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION, TAX DECLARATION IS NOT PROOF OF
OWNERSHIP
GR NO. 207266, JUNE 25, 2014
HEIRS OF YABAO V. PAZ LENTEJAS VAN DER
KOLK
FACTS: The heirs of Yabao alleged in their complaint that they are the sole surviving heirs of
the late spouses Yabao, and that they are the absolute co-owners of the parcel of land
declared in the name of the late Paciano Yabao. The Heirs of Yabao prayed that they be
declared the co-owners and possessors of the subject property occupied and possessed by
Paz Lentejas Van Der Kolk (Van Der Kolk), who also asserted claim of ownership over the
same.
Van Der Kolk started possessing the land in 1996 and refused to vacate the same despite
demands from the said heirs. Also, she filed a petition for original patent regarding such land.
This was timely oppsed by the heirs, according to them.
Aside from these material averments in the complaint, nothing else was presented to prove the
heirs' right over the subject property.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Heirs of Yabao are the rightful owners of the subject property.
GR NO. 207266, JUNE 25, 2014
HEIRS OF YABAO V. PAZ LENTEJAS VAN DER
KOLK
HELD: No. Ownership by the heirs cannot be established by mere lip service and bare allegations in
the complaint. As in all matters, a party must establish his/her averments in the complaint by
sufficient evidence necessary to prove such claim.
In the case at bench, the heirs of Yabao merely alleged that they are the heirs of Paciano Yabao
without presenting any proof why they are the latter’s heirs and in what degree or capacity.
The basis of the heirs’ claim of ownership was a mere tax declaration that was supposedly in the
name of their putative ancestor Paciano Yabao. However, a tax declaration is not a proof of
ownership; it is not a conclusive evidence of ownership of real property. In the absence of actual,
public, and adverse possession, the declaration of the land for tax purposes does not prove
ownership. It can only be a strong indication of ownership if coupled with possession.
In the case at bench, it was Paz Lentejas who was in possession of the property and not the heirs
of Yabao. Consequently, the tax declaration, standing alone, is not an acceptable proof of
ownership.
GR. NO. 189061, AUGUST 6,2014
MIDWAY MARITIME AND
TECHNOLOGICAL FOUNDATION V.
MARISSA CASTRO
DOCTRINE:
OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION,
CONTRACT OF LEASE AS PROOF OF OWNERSHIP
GR. NO. 189061, AUGUST 6,2014
MIDWAY MARITIME AND TECHNOLOGICAL
FOUNDATION V. MARISSA CASTRO
FACTS: In a mortgage over a parcel of land a contract of a 15 year lease was
entered in favor of Castro who later built a residential building. The mortgage
was later foreclosed and the parcel of land was then sold in a public auction.
After the lapsed of the redemption period, the bank then sold it to Cloma. Cloma
leased the property with herein petitioner which also leased the residential
building owned by the Castro with payment of monthly rentals. Cloma then sold
the property to her daughter which is the wife of the President of herein
petitioner. Petitioner now files an action for ownership and recovery of
possession.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a lease agreement as regards to the residential
building?
GR. NO. 189061, AUGUST 6,2014
MIDWAY MARITIME AND TECHNOLOGICAL
FOUNDATION V. MARISSA CASTRO
HELD: Yes, it is settled that once a contract of lease is shown to exist between
the parties, the lessee cannot by any proof, however strong, overturn the
conclusive presumption that the lessor has a better right of possession to the
subject premises. The payment of rentals confirms the existence of the lease
agreement.
G.R. NO. 193426, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014
SUBIC BAY LEGEND RESORTS AND
CASINOS, INC. VS BERNARD FERNANDEZ
DOCTRINE:
OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION
G.R. NO. 193426, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014
SUBIC BAY LEGEND RESORTS AND
CASINOS, INC. VS BERNARD FERNANDEZ
FACTS: On July 1, 1994, Bernard Fernandez, brother of Ludwig and Deoven, filed
a complaint for the recovery of sum of money and damages against Subic Bay
Legend Resorts and Casinos, Inc (SBL). According to him, he went to the casino
on June 13, 1997 and handed to his brothers $6,000.00 worth of chips
belonging to him, for use at the casino. Thereat, the company personnel
accosted his brothers and confiscated his casino chips worth $5,900.00. The
company refused to return the same despite their demand. Ludwig and Deoven
were accused of stealing casino chips from SBL. They were made to confess that
the chips were supplied by a casino employee, Michael Cabrera.
ISSUE: Whether or not Bernard is the lawful possessor of the casino chips,
entitling him to collect from the casino and award damages.
G.R. NO. 193426, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014
SUBIC BAY LEGEND RESORTS AND
CASINOS, INC. VS BERNARD FERNANDEZ
HELD: No. There is no basis to suppose that the casino chips found in Ludwig’s
and Deoven’s possession were stolen. Unless the independent fact that Cabrera
stole the chips can be proved, it cannot be said that the chips must be
confiscated when found to be in the brothers’ possession.
Though casino chips do not constitute legal tender, there is no law which
prohibits their use or trade outside of the casino which issues them. Since
casino chips are considered to have been exchanged with their corresponding
representative value, it is with more reason that the Court should require SBL to
prove that the chips confiscated were indeed stolen from them. If SBL cannot
prove its loss, then Art. 559 cannot apply, and the presumption that the chips
were exchanged for value remains.
 G.R. NO. 199448, NOVEMBER 12, 2014
ROLANDO S. ABADILLA, JR., V. SPOUSES
BONIFACIO P. OBRERO AND BERNABELA N.
OBRERO
DOCTRINE:
OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION
G.R. NO. 199448, NOVEMBER 12, 2014
ROLANDO S. ABADILLA, JR., V. SPOUSES BONIFACIO P.
OBRERO AND BERNABELA N. OBRERO
FACTS: Respondents initiated a case for forcible entry against petitioner.
Respondents claimed that they are the registered owners of the land in
question based on a TCT issued to them. They claimed that they were in
possession thereof based on improvements erected therein utilized for
residential and business purposes prior to the alleged acts of petitioner who
forcibly fenced the perimeter of the land with barbed wire.
In his answer, petitioner denied the acts imputed upon him and claimed that
the land was sold by respondents to his late father as evidenced by a Deed of
Absolute Sale. Being one of the heirs, he is one of the owners thereof. In fact,
they left a caretaker to oversee the land. Despite the sale, respondents
supposedly attempted to remove the fence and even built concrete structures
on the land using it for dwelling purposes.
G.R. NO. 199448, NOVEMBER 12, 2014
ROLANDO S. ABADILLA, JR., V. SPOUSES BONIFACIO P.
OBRERO AND BERNABELA N. OBRERO
The MTCC dismissed the complaint and held that respondent Bonifacio's admission confirmed.
The respondents appealed the decision to the RTC and it reversed and set aside the decision of
MTCC. The RTC found that the Deed of Absolute Sale between the respondents and Abadilla, Sr.
was of no force and effect for lack of consideration.
The CA affirmed RTC’s decision and dismissed the petitioner’s appeal.

ISSUES: 1.) Whether or not an ejectment proceeding is proper in the case at bar.
2.) Whether or not respondents are entitled to land’s possession.
G.R. NO. 199448, NOVEMBER 12, 2014
ROLANDO S. ABADILLA, JR., V. SPOUSES BONIFACIO P.
OBRERO AND BERNABELA N. OBRERO
HELD: 1.) Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that ejectment proceedings are summary proceedings
intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or right to possession
of property. Title is not involved. Issues as to ownership are not involved in the action; evidence
thereon is not admissible, except only for the purpose of determining the issue of possession.
Thus, where the parties to an ejectment case raise the issue of ownership, the courts may pass
upon that issue but only to determine who between the parties has the better right to possess
the property.
2.) As between the petitioner's Deed of Absolute Sale and the respondents' TCT, the latter must
prevail. A certificate of title is evidence of indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property
in favor of the person whose name appears therein. A title issued under the Torrens system is
entitled to all the attributes of property ownership, which necessarily includes possession.
Hence, as holders of the Torrens title over the subject land, the respondents are entitled to its
possession.