Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    04 Orquila V TSDC

    Uploaded by

    cris
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the right to property. Petitioners Victor and Honorata Orquila bought land adjacent to a disputed property in good faith. However, a court ruled in favor of Pura Ledesma in a case against the previous owners, and issued a writ to demolish the Orquilas' house. The Supreme Court ruled that the Orquilas were not parties to the original case and bought the land innocently. As such, they have rights over the property and cannot be bound by a decision they did not take part in. The Court held that demolishing the Orquilas' house on their legally purchased land would deprive them of property without due process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    04 Orquila V TSDC

    Uploaded by

    cris
    33 views1 page
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the right to property. Petitioners Victor and Honorata Orquila bought land adjacent to a disputed property in good faith. However, a court ruled in favor of Pura Ledesma in a case against the previous owners, and issued a writ to demolish the Orquilas' house. The Supreme Court ruled that the Orquilas were not parties to the original case and bought the land innocently. As such, they have rights over the property and cannot be bound by a decision they did not take part in. The Court held that demolishing the Orquilas' house on their legally purchased land would deprive them of property without due process.

    Original Description:

    Right to Property

    Original Title

    04 Orquila v TSDC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the right to property. Petitioners Victor and Honorata Orquila bought land adjacent to a disputed property in good faith. However, a court ruled in favor of Pura Ledesma in a case against the previous owners, and issued a writ to demolish the Orquilas' house. The Supreme Court ruled that the Orquilas were not parties to the original case and bought the land innocently. As such, they have rights over the property and cannot be bound by a decision they did not take part in. The Court held that demolishing the Orquilas' house on their legally purchased land would deprive them of property without due process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    33 views1 page

    04 Orquila V TSDC

    Uploaded by

    cris
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the right to property. Petitioners Victor and Honorata Orquila bought land adjacent to a disputed property in good faith. However, a court ruled in favor of Pura Ledesma in a case against the previous owners, and issued a writ to demolish the Orquilas' house. The Supreme Court ruled that the Orquilas were not parties to the original case and bought the land innocently. As such, they have rights over the property and cannot be bound by a decision they did not take part in. The Court held that demolishing the Orquilas' house on their legally purchased land would deprive them of property without due process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Human Rights Law Right to Property

    Victor Orquila and Honorata Orquila vs Court of Appeals, Vivencio


    Baclig, Sheriff and his deputies, and Pura Ledesma
    GR No. 141463; 6 August 2002

    Quisumbing, J.

    Facts:
    Ledesma, registered owner of Lot 689 in Tandang Sora, QC, which was
    adjacent to certain portions of Lot 707 of Piedad Estates registered in the
    name of Herminigilda Pedro. Pedro sold the lot to Mariano Lising.
    Certain portions of the subdivided lots were sold to third persons,
    including petitioner spouses, while the other portions were registered in the
    name of heirs of Pedro, and heirs of Lising.
    Ledesma filed a complaint with RTC QC against Pedro and Lising for
    allegedly encroaching upon Lot 689. During the pendency of action, Tandang
    Sora Development Corporation replaced Ledesma as plaintiff by virtue of
    assignment. RTC rendered in favor of Ledesma/Tandang Sora Development.
    Deputy Sheriff directed petitioners, through an alias writ of execution
    to remove the house they constructed on the land they were occupying.
    Petitioners received a special order to demolish at their expense within 15
    days or the Court will issue a writ of demolition against them.
    Petitioners filed with CA a petition for prohibition with a prayer for
    restraining order and preliminary injunction alleging that they bought the
    subject parcel of land in good faith and for value hence they were parties in
    interest. CA dismissed the petition. Hence, this petition.

    Issue:
    W/N the writ of demolition issued can be enforced against petitioners
    Held:
    No.
    Ruling:
    As builders in good faith and innocent purchasers for value, petitioners
    have rights over the subject property and hence they are proper parties in
    interest in any case. Since private respondents failed to implead them in the
    case, petitioners cannot be reached by the decision in said case. No man
    shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers
    to a case are not bound by any judgment rendered by the court.
    A writ of execution can be issued only against a party and not against
    one who did not have his day in court. Only real parties in interest in an
    action are bound by the judgment therein and by writs of execution and
    demolition issued pursuant thereto.
    Hence, the Court held that spouses Orquiola had valid and meritorious
    cause to resist the demolition of their house on their own titled lot, which is
    tantamount to a deprivation of property without due process of law.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy