Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 268 views

    Sta Rosa Realty Development Corporation V Amante Et Al

    Uploaded by

    LawardCaps
    The RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of Amante, et al. prohibiting SRRDC from entering the disputed land. However, the CA dissolved the injunction. SRRDC then filed multiple ejectment and damages cases against Amante, et al. in the MTC, claiming they were cultivating SRRDC's land without permission. The MTC ruled in favor of SRRDC, but the RTC dismissed due to lacking jurisdiction. The CA affirmed the dismissal, as SRRDC did not prove prior physical possession of the land.

    Copyright:

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

    Sta Rosa Realty Development Corporation V Amante Et Al

    Uploaded by

    LawardCaps
    268 views2 pages
    The RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of Amante, et al. prohibiting SRRDC from entering the disputed land. However, the CA dissolved the injunction. SRRDC then filed multiple ejectment and damages cases against Amante, et al. in the MTC, claiming they were cultivating SRRDC's land without permission. The MTC ruled in favor of SRRDC, but the RTC dismissed due to lacking jurisdiction. The CA affirmed the dismissal, as SRRDC did not prove prior physical possession of the land.

    Original Title

    Sta Rosa Realty Development Corporation v Amante Et al

    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 RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of Amante, et al. prohibiting SRRDC from entering the disputed land. However, the CA dissolved the injunction. SRRDC then filed multiple ejectment and damages cases against Amante, et al. in the MTC, claiming they were cultivating SRRDC's land without permission. The MTC ruled in favor of SRRDC, but the RTC dismissed due to lacking jurisdiction. The CA affirmed the dismissal, as SRRDC did not prove prior physical possession of the land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    268 views2 pages

    Sta Rosa Realty Development Corporation V Amante Et Al

    Uploaded by

    LawardCaps
    The RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of Amante, et al. prohibiting SRRDC from entering the disputed land. However, the CA dissolved the injunction. SRRDC then filed multiple ejectment and damages cases against Amante, et al. in the MTC, claiming they were cultivating SRRDC's land without permission. The MTC ruled in favor of SRRDC, but the RTC dismissed due to lacking jurisdiction. The CA affirmed the dismissal, as SRRDC did not prove prior physical possession of the land.

    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 2

    STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v JUAN B. AMANTE ET AL.

    ,
    G.R. No. 112526, March 16, 2005, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

    FACTS:

     On December 6, 1985, Amante, et al., instituted an action for injunction with


    damages in the Regional Trial Court of Laguna (Branch 24) against Luis Yulo,
    SRRDC, and several SRRDC security personnel
     Amante, et al. alleged that: they are residents of Barangay Casile, Cabuyao,
    Laguna, which covers an area of around 300 hectares
     In 1910, their ancestors started occupying the area, built their houses and
    planted fruit-bearing trees thereon, and since then, have been peacefully
    occupying the land
     June 3, 1985, SRRDC’s security people illegally entered Bgy. Casile and fenced
    the area
     SRRDC’s men also entered the barangay on November 4, 1985, cut down the
    trees, burned their huts, and barred the lone jeepney from entering the
    Canlubang Sugar Estate
     Amante, et al. were deprived of possession and cultivation of their lands
     They claimed damages, sought the issuance of permanent injunction and
    proposed that a right of way be declared

     Defendants denied the allegations and disclaimed any control and supervision
    over its security personnel
     SRRDC also alleged that as the real owner of the property, it was the one that
    suffered damages due to the encroachment on the property

     A writ of preliminary injunction was issued by the trial court on August 17, 1987,
    but this was subsequently dissolved by the Court of Appeals (CA) on April 22,
    1988 in its decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 13908

    ISSUE: WON the issued writ of preliminary injunction by the MTC is proper

    RULING:

     No. Between October 1986 and August 1987, after the injunction case was filed
    by Amante, et al. SRRDC filed with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Cabuyao,
    Laguna, several complaints for forcible entry with preliminary injunction and
    damages against Amante, et al.
     SRRDC alleged that sometime in July 1987, they learned that Amante, et al.,
    without their authority and through stealth and strategy, were clearing, cultivating
    and planting on the subject property
     Despite requests from SRRDC’s counsel, Amante, et al. refused to vacate the
    property, prompting them to file the ejectment cases
     Amante, et al. denied that SRRDC are the absolute owners of the property,
    stating that they have been in peaceful possession thereof, through their
    predecessors-in-interest, since 1910
     May 24, 1991, the MTC-Cabuyao rendered its decision in favor of SRRDC.
     Amante, et al. were ordered to surrender possession and vacate the subject
    property. The decision was appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Biñan,
    Laguna (Assisting Court)
     On February 18, 1992, the RTC dismissed the ejectment cases on the ground
    that the subject property is an agricultural land being tilled by Amante, et al.,
    hence it is the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), which has jurisdiction over
    the dispute
     The RTC’s dismissal of the complaints was brought to the CA via a petition for
    review, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 33382
     CA dismissed the petition per its Decision dated January 17, 1995 on the ground
    that SRRDC failed to show any prior physical possession of the subject property
    that would have justified the filing of the ejectment cases
     CA did not sustain the RTC’s finding that the subject properties are agricultural
    lands and Amante, et al. are tenant/farmers thereof, as the evidence on record
    does not support such finding
     The parties did not file any motion for reconsideration from the Court of Appeals’
    dismissal, hence, it became final and executory

    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