Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
x---------------------------------------------------------------------x
ANTONIO P. AVANTE
Plaintiff-Appellee ,
-versus-
Pages
COVER PAGE 1
INDEX 2
PARTIES 4
ISSUES 6
ARGUMENTS 7-11
RELIEF 11-12
Cases cited:
ANTONIO P. AVANTE,
Plaintiff-Appellee ,
Please take notice that the undersigned counsel for the Accused-
Appellants has transferred his office to a new address, to wit:
THE PARTIES
The instant appealed case arose from the decision of the Regional
Trial Court Branch 218, Quezon City, dated May 06, 2014 to wit:
3.1. That the letter from the Land Management Bureau dated
October 23, 2013 (Exhibit 4 for Defendants) was not property
identified and authenticated by the persons who issued the same.
IV. ISSUES
V. DISCUSSION
5.1 Accion publiciana or the plenary action for the recovery of the real
right of possession, which should be brought in the proper Regional
Trial Court when the dispossession has lasted for more than one year. 3
5.2 In the instant, the plaintiff is the registered owner if the subject
property being unlawfully occupied by herein defendant-appellants.
Being registered owner of the subject property, the plaintiff should have
possession of his property against the defendants who had no right or
title over it. The Supreme Court in one case, had the occasion to rule that
Registered owners are entitled to the possession of the property covered
by the title from the time such title was issued in their favor. 4 Settled is
the rule that the right of possession is a necessary incident of
ownership.5
3 REGALADO, Remedial Law Compendium, Volume 1, Sixth Revised Edition, pp. 767-768
5.7 In view of the foregoing, the plaintiff, being the registered owner of
the subject property and the one paying the realty estate taxes, should
have the right to recover possession of the subject property from the
defendants who have been enjoying the property of the plaintiff for so
long a time already.
5.11 It is very clear from the answer of the defendant Leonito Comiso
that he is not a purchaser in good faith. A purchaser in good faith is one
who buys the property of another without notice that some other person
has a right to or interest in such property and pays a full and fair price
for the same at the time of such purchase or before he has notice of the
claim of another person.11 The defendant in this case did not exercise
ordinary prudence in buying the portion of the subject property. The
defendant should have gone to the Register of Deeds to as who is the
owner of the subject property and not rely on the information of the
barangay. The Barangay is not the proper place to ask for ownership of
the land. Thus, the defendants could not be considered purchaser in
good faith.
Q17 will you remember Mr. Witness, the reason for you to
construct on the lot which is located inside T.C.T. No. RT-
127108 (140252)?
5.13 From the foregoing, it can be said that the defendants constructed
their houses over the subject property knowing fully well that they are
not the true owner of the same and relied only on the information that
no one owns the lot and that they purchased the same from someone.
These actuations of the defendants cannot be considered that they have
done the construction in good faith. Good faith consists in the belief of
the builder that the land he is building on is his and his ignorance of a
defect or flaw in his title.13
5.15 For public good and to deter others from committing the
same acts of the defendants, the plaintiff should be awarded no less than
Php 50,000 as exemplary damages. Considering that the award of moral
damages is legal and proper, it follows that the award of exemplary
damages is likewise appropriate. Exemplary damages may be awarded
in addition to moral and compensatory damages and are imposed not to
enriched one party or impoverished another but to serve as a deterrent
11. In any other case where the court deems it just and
equitable that attorneys fees and expenses of
litigation should be recovered.
RELIEF
By:
Copy Furnished:
EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Rule 13 Section 11 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, CHARMAINE LYN ANNE C. NICOL, of legal age, Filipino and with postal
address at Unit K, 1143 San Francisco Del Monte Avenue, Barangay Paltok 1105,
Quezon City, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose
and state: That..
I am the personnel of Alferos Armas and Associate Law Office and I have
today furnished a copy through registered mail with return card of the Appellees
Brief in the case entitled ANTONIO P. AVANTE vs LEONITO COMISO ET.
AL. docketed as CA G.R. No. CV- 103117 pending before the Court of Appeals to: