Lawyerly

GR No. 187987

2014-11-26

PEREZ, J.

A co-owner is an owner of the whole and over the whole he exercises the right of dominion, but he is at the same time the owner of a portion which is truly abstract.[18] Hence, his co-owners have no right to enjoin a co-owner who intends to alienate or substitute his abstract portion or substitute a third person in its enjoyment.[19]

GR No. 185020

2010-10-06

FILOMENA R. BENEDICTO v. ANTONIO VILLAFLORES

NACHURA, J.

The question of whether a possessor is in good or bad faith is a factual matter. As a rule, a party may raise only questions of law in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[11] The Supreme Court is not duty bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings below. This Court is not a trier of facts and does not embark on a reexamination of the evidence introduced by the parties during trial.[12] This rule assumes greater force in the instant case where the CA affirmed the factual findings of the trial court.

GR No. 157106

2008-09-03

ROMULO TINDOY v. PEOPLE

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In view of the foregoing, the petitioner miserably failed to advance any compelling reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA. We thus go by the established principle that, on factual matters, the findings of trial courts, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, must be accorded the greatest respect in the absence, as here, of a showing that they ignored, overlooked, or failed to properly appreciate matters of substance or importance likely to affect the results of the litigation.[17]

GR No. 151153

2007-12-10

SPS. CHARLITO COJA AND ANNIE MESA COJA v. CA

AZCUNA, J.

The 120 square meters less the hereditary share of Paz Lachica which is 26.6666 square meters, or the 93.3333 square meters of the property covered by Tax Declaration No. 1151, belong to the appellants, being the heirs of the late Feliciano Aquillo, Jr. and Luz Aquillo. x x x.[38] Considering that Paz Lachica owns only 26.6666 square meters of the 120-square meter property and the remaining 93.3333-square meter portion thereof is owned by the respondents, the former could only validly sell the portion which rightfully belonged to her. However, considering that Paz Lachica, the predecessor-in-interest of the Spouses Coja, was a co-owner of the subject 120-square meter property; and considering further that partition of the property is wanting, this Court is precluded from directing the Spouses Coja to return specific portions of the property to respondents. Noteworthy is the pronouncement on this issue in De Guia v. Court of Appeals[39] citing Hermogena G. Engreso with Spouse Jose Engreso v. Nestoria de la Cruz and Herminio de la Cruz:[40]

GR NO. 160347

2006-11-29

ARCADIO v. HEIRS OF QUIRINO A. DE GUZMAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Being co-owners of the alleged credit, Quirino and Milagros de Guzman may separately bring an action for the recovery thereof. In the fairly recent cases of Baloloy v. Hular[28] and Adlawan v. Adlawan,[29] we held that, in a co-ownership, co-owners may bring actions for the recovery of co-owned property without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is presumed to have been filed for the benefit of his co-owners. In the latter case and in that of De Guia v. Court of Appeals,[30] we also held that Article 487 of the Civil Code, which provides that any of the co-owners may bring an action for ejectment, covers all kinds of action for the recovery of possession.[31]

GR NO. 161916

2006-01-20

ARNELITO ADLAWAN v. EMETERIO M. ADLAWAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

This article covers all kinds of actions for the recovery of possession. Article 487 includes forcible entry and unlawful detainer (accion interdictal), recovery of possession (accion publiciana), and recovery of ownership (accion de reivindicacion).[26] A co-owner may bring such an action without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is presumed to have been filed to benefit his co-owners. It should be stressed, however, that where the suit is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone who claims to be the sole owner and entitled to the possession of the litigated property, the action should be dismissed.[27]

GR NO. 152658

2005-08-29

LILY ELIZABETH BRAVO-GUERRERO v. EDWARD P. BRAVO

CARPIO, J.

As such, Edward can rightfully ask for the partition of the Properties. Any co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the common property unless a co-owner has repudiated the co-ownership.[51] This action for partition does not prescribe and is not subject to laches.[52]

GR No. 152658

2005-07-29

LILY ELIZABETH BRAVO-GUERRERO v. EDWARD P. BRAVO

CARPIO, J.

As such, Edward can rightfully ask for the partition of the Properties. Any co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the common property unless a co-owner has repudiated the co-ownership.[51] This action for partition does not prescribe and is not subject to laches.[52]

GR NO.147812

2005-04-06

LEONARDO R. OCAMPO v. LEONORA TIRONA

CARPIO, J.

Finally, legal interest at the annual rate of 6% is due on the unpaid monthly rentals starting from 7 August 1995 when Ocampo made an extrajudicial demand on Tirona for payment of the monthly rental.[40] On finality of our decision, annual interest at 12%, in lieu of 6% annual interest, is due on the amounts the MTC awarded until full payment.[41]

GR NO. 158166

2005-01-21

MINERVA UMPOC v. MILDRED MERCADO AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF ESTATE OF LATE DR. JESUSA BARRIOS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

On the third issue of who between the parties has the better right to the physical possession of the premises, petitioners fault the Court of Appeals for holding that respondent has a better right of possession because the petitioners' occupation of the subject property is by mere tolerance. By raising this issue, petitioners are in effect asking this Court to reassess factual findings. It is aphoristic that this kind of re-examination cannot be done through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court because this Court is not a trier of facts; it reviews only questions of law. The Supreme Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings below. Petitioners have not given us ample reasons to depart from the general rule. More so in the instant case, where the Court of Appeals affirmed the factual findings of the trial court[36] and the MeTC.

	GR No. 187987 2014-11-26	VICENTE TORRES v. LORENZO LAPINID PEREZ, J.
A co-owner is an owner of the whole and over the whole he exercises the right of dominion, but he is at the same time the owner of a portion which is truly abstract.[18] Hence, his co-owners have no right to enjoin a co-owner who intends to alienate or substitute his abstract portion or substitute a third person in its enjoyment.[19]
	GR No. 185020 2010-10-06	FILOMENA R. BENEDICTO v. ANTONIO VILLAFLORES NACHURA, J.
The question of whether a possessor is in good or bad faith is a factual matter. As a rule, a party may raise only questions of law in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[11] The Supreme Court is not duty bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings below. This Court is not a trier of facts and does not embark on a reexamination of the evidence introduced by the parties during trial.[12] This rule assumes greater force in the instant case where the CA affirmed the factual findings of the trial court.
	GR No. 157106 2008-09-03	ROMULO TINDOY v. PEOPLE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In view of the foregoing, the petitioner miserably failed to advance any compelling reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA. We thus go by the established principle that, on factual matters, the findings of trial courts, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, must be accorded the greatest respect in the absence, as here, of a showing that they ignored, overlooked, or failed to properly appreciate matters of substance or importance likely to affect the results of the litigation.[17]
	GR No. 151153 2007-12-10	SPS. CHARLITO COJA AND ANNIE MESA COJA v. CA AZCUNA, J.
The 120 square meters less the hereditary share of Paz Lachica which is 26.6666 square meters, or the 93.3333 square meters of the property covered by Tax Declaration No. 1151, belong to the appellants, being the heirs of the late Feliciano Aquillo, Jr. and Luz Aquillo. x x x.[38] Considering that Paz Lachica owns only 26.6666 square meters of the 120-square meter property and the remaining 93.3333-square meter portion thereof is owned by the respondents, the former could only validly sell the portion which rightfully belonged to her. However, considering that Paz Lachica, the predecessor-in-interest of the Spouses Coja, was a co-owner of the subject 120-square meter property; and considering further that partition of the property is wanting, this Court is precluded from directing the Spouses Coja to return specific portions of the property to respondents. Noteworthy is the pronouncement on this issue in De Guia v. Court of Appeals[39] citing Hermogena G. Engreso with Spouse Jose Engreso v. Nestoria de la Cruz and Herminio de la Cruz:[40]
	GR NO. 160347 2006-11-29	ARCADIO v. HEIRS OF QUIRINO A. DE GUZMAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Being co-owners of the alleged credit, Quirino and Milagros de Guzman may separately bring an action for the recovery thereof. In the fairly recent cases of Baloloy v. Hular[28] and Adlawan v. Adlawan,[29] we held that, in a co-ownership, co-owners may bring actions for the recovery of co-owned property without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is presumed to have been filed for the benefit of his co-owners. In the latter case and in that of De Guia v. Court of Appeals,[30] we also held that Article 487 of the Civil Code, which provides that any of the co-owners may bring an action for ejectment, covers all kinds of action for the recovery of possession.[31]
	GR NO. 161916 2006-01-20	ARNELITO ADLAWAN v. EMETERIO M. ADLAWAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
This article covers all kinds of actions for the recovery of possession. Article 487 includes forcible entry and unlawful detainer (accion interdictal), recovery of possession (accion publiciana), and recovery of ownership (accion de reivindicacion).[26] A co-owner may bring such an action without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is presumed to have been filed to benefit his co-owners. It should be stressed, however, that where the suit is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone who claims to be the sole owner and entitled to the possession of the litigated property, the action should be dismissed.[27]
	GR NO. 152658 2005-08-29	LILY ELIZABETH BRAVO-GUERRERO v. EDWARD P. BRAVO CARPIO, J.
As such, Edward can rightfully ask for the partition of the Properties. Any co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the common property unless a co-owner has repudiated the co-ownership.[51] This action for partition does not prescribe and is not subject to laches.[52]
	GR No. 152658 2005-07-29	LILY ELIZABETH BRAVO-GUERRERO v. EDWARD P. BRAVO CARPIO, J.
As such, Edward can rightfully ask for the partition of the Properties. Any co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the common property unless a co-owner has repudiated the co-ownership.[51] This action for partition does not prescribe and is not subject to laches.[52]
	GR NO.147812 2005-04-06	LEONARDO R. OCAMPO v. LEONORA TIRONA CARPIO, J.
Finally, legal interest at the annual rate of 6% is due on the unpaid monthly rentals starting from 7 August 1995 when Ocampo made an extrajudicial demand on Tirona for payment of the monthly rental.[40] On finality of our decision, annual interest at 12%, in lieu of 6% annual interest, is due on the amounts the MTC awarded until full payment.[41]
	GR NO. 158166 2005-01-21	MINERVA UMPOC v. MILDRED MERCADO AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF ESTATE OF LATE DR. JESUSA BARRIOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On the third issue of who between the parties has the better right to the physical possession of the premises, petitioners fault the Court of Appeals for holding that respondent has a better right of possession because the petitioners' occupation of the subject property is by mere tolerance. By raising this issue, petitioners are in effect asking this Court to reassess factual findings. It is aphoristic that this kind of re-examination cannot be done through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court because this Court is not a trier of facts; it reviews only questions of law. The Supreme Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings below. Petitioners have not given us ample reasons to depart from the general rule. More so in the instant case, where the Court of Appeals affirmed the factual findings of the trial court[36] and the MeTC.

MANUEL T. DE GUIA v. CA