This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2010-04-12 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| After an ocular inspection conducted on 9 June 2004, it appears that the MeTC concluded that the crowding of the residential units on the subject parcel rendered the determination of its exact metes and bounds impossible.[9] Unable to present his lessor's title, petitioner also appears to have agreed to the use of TCT No. 87556 as basis for determining the exact measurement of respondent's property.[10] With the parties' further failure to abide by their agreement to cause a survey of the property thru an impartial surveyor from the Office of the City Assessor or City Engineer, the record shows that respondent submitted a survey plan prepared by Geodetic Engineer Joseph Padilla who determined that petitioner was, indeed, occupying a portion of the subject parcel.[11] Relying on said report, the MeTC went on to render a Decision dated 23 November 2004,[12] resolving the complaint in the following wise: Wherefore, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against all the defendants and ordering the latter to: | |||||