Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sabido Vs IAC

    Uploaded by

    Leo Tumagan
    75 views1 page
    The case involves a dispute over ownership of Lots B and C between the Spouses Sabido and Spouses Dasal. The lower court initially ruled in favor of the Spouses Dasal. During the execution of the writ, it was discovered that Dominador Sta. Ana was occupying a portion of Lot B along with tenants. Sta. Ana claimed that he purchased the lot in good faith. However, it was proven that the lot he claimed was different and that he was aware of the ongoing litigation over the property due to his relationship with the Spouses Dasal. Both the RTC and CA ultimately ruled in favor of the Spouses Sabido, but the CA granted Sta. Ana the option to remove improvements or make an offer

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    155. Sabido vs IAC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The case involves a dispute over ownership of Lots B and C between the Spouses Sabido and Spouses Dasal. The lower court initially ruled in favor of the Spouses Dasal. During the execution of the writ, it was discovered that Dominador Sta. Ana was occupying a portion of Lot B along with tenants. Sta. Ana claimed that he purchased the lot in good faith. However, it was proven that the lot he claimed was different and that he was aware of the ongoing litigation over the property due to his relationship with the Spouses Dasal. Both the RTC and CA ultimately ruled in favor of the Spouses Sabido, but the CA granted Sta. Ana the option to remove improvements or make an offer

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    75 views1 page

    Sabido Vs IAC

    Uploaded by

    Leo Tumagan
    The case involves a dispute over ownership of Lots B and C between the Spouses Sabido and Spouses Dasal. The lower court initially ruled in favor of the Spouses Dasal. During the execution of the writ, it was discovered that Dominador Sta. Ana was occupying a portion of Lot B along with tenants. Sta. Ana claimed that he purchased the lot in good faith. However, it was proven that the lot he claimed was different and that he was aware of the ongoing litigation over the property due to his relationship with the Spouses Dasal. Both the RTC and CA ultimately ruled in favor of the Spouses Sabido, but the CA granted Sta. Ana the option to remove improvements or make an offer

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    SABIDO vs IAC

    Spouses Dasal and Pecunio filed a case for queiting of title against herein respondents Spouses
    Sabido and Rances for the subject Lots B and C.

    The Lower Court ruled in favor of Spouses Dasal. The sheriff then executed the Writ of Execution
    as ordered by then Presiding Judge Sunga. During the execution of the writ, the sheriff learned
    that a certain Dominador Sta. Ana was occupying a portion of lot B together with two other
    persons (tenants of Sta. Ana).

    Third party Sta. Ana was given an opportunity to present evidences to prove his ownership upon
    Lot B which according to him he purchased in good faith. Subsequently, it was proved that the
    lot he claims was different from that of the subject Lot B.

    Furthermore, it was established that Sta. Ana has a relationship with the Spouses Dasal which
    should alerted him that the subject lot was under litigation and that he was also present during
    the ocular inspection made in which he fails to invoke his right upon the issuance of the decision
    of the ownnership of the subject Lot B which estabilshed bad faith on his part.

    The RTC and CA ruled in favor of Spouses Sabido. However, part of the decision of the Appellate
    Court grants Sta.Ana an option to either remove his improvements or make an offer to the
    lawful owners to pay for the price of the lot where his improvements were introduced.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the Appellate Court erred in granting Sta. Ana the right to exercise the
    option.

    RULING: Yes, the Appellate Court erred in granting such right to Sta. Ana.

    The right to exercise the option is only given to a builder in good faith (previous discussions).
    The only option for a possessor in bad faith is only granted with regards to improvements for
    pure luxury or mere pleasure. Provided, two conditions must be satisfied. (1) removal will not
    cause damage to the principal thing (2) the lawful owner does not prefer to retain them by
    paying the reasonable price.

    In the case, Sta. Ana being a possessor in bad faith has no option but to vacate the lot.

    You might also like